Pictorial Essay: 26 VERY RARE and STUNNING AMERICAN CARS

Let’s get this out of the way, #1. Yes, this is a very long article (6,600 words) … depending on how you look at it. Instead of one long article, think of it as 26 separate articles. Just skip the cars that don’t appeal to you, and read the ones you like.

Let’s get this out of the way, #2. The information here was often very difficult to verify. That’s right, hard as it might be to believe that such a thing is possible on the Internet …. but, the data might be wrong! For example, regarding the 1970 Plymouth Superbird, one expert with good credentials says only 58 were produced with the Hemi engine … while another equally qualified expert says the number is 135.  Such disparate information occurred rather frequently. So, I often take a “best guess” …. this is just a blog article and I’m not going to spend endless hours just to “be right”.

Let’s get this out of the way, #3. I left out MANY rare cars in this essay. First, there were over 1,000 auto companies in the USA between 1896-1930. Second, during WWII there was a production freeze … the auto industry says there were 139 cars built in 1943 and 610 built in 1944. So, just from those two examples, it is clear there are a LOT of rare American cars. I couldn’t possibly begin to include them all. If I missed one of your favorite vehicles, please add to the conversation and post it.

(Complete list of defunct USA automobile manufacturers) —-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_automobile_manufacturers_of_the_United_States

By “rare” I generally mean low volume (under 500 units) production cars — cars built for consumers to buy. But, I made exceptions. For example, “prototype / concept” cars are by definition “rare”. Here also, there are very many prototypes, and I only include a few. (Concept cars are truly fascinating so, I plan on doing a separate concept-car essay in the future.)

Also, a key question hinges on how a “production” car is defined. Does it have to be an established manufacturer …. or some fledgling that did a pilot, sold a few cars and then collapsed? Should they include models that were produced in very low numbers just because they were flops … such as the Edsel? There are countless production car variants that ended up being produced in very small numbers. Is a modification (high performance engine, paint scheme, etc.) of a car of which 60,000 were made really a low-production car just because 2 were built that way? For example, does “rare” include any 1970 Mopar (many thousands built), but with the “Panther Pink” color option … a very rare option with only 414 produced (and few survivors)?

Rare …. or not rare? That is the question.

So many things to consider! So, here is my basic rationale for my choices of the rare American cars posted.

—- 1) Subjectively, I picked cars which are the most visually beautiful …. or just “cool”. Or,

—- 2) Objectively, I picked cars whereby there is an interesting story involved with the car’s history and impact on future cars.  

 The number in parenthesis is the number of units produced. The cars are listed in descending order by units produced …. with one exception; I will start this off with what is (in my humble opinion) the very coolest and most interesting car of them all …. the 1963 Chrysler Turbine!

So, let’s get started.

 ================================================ =

(55 … only 9 left) 1963 CHRYSLER TURBINE

1963 CHRYSLER TURBINE

American car manufactures had been trying to develop other car turbine engines; 1954 Plymouth Sport Coupe, 1954 GM Firebird I and 1959 GM Firebird III (NOT the same car as GM’s production Firebird), 1956 Plymouth Turbine Special, and the 1961 Chrysler Turboflite. None were released to the public. That honor belonged to a man I believe was one of the luckiest guys ever, Richard Vlaha.

Mr. Richard Vlaha of Broadview, Illinois, on October 29, 1963 would be the very first American consumer to drive the gorgeous Firefrost Bronze, Ghia-bodied coupe with black vinyl top and copper-orange leather interior. He would drive it for three months as part of Chrysler’s promotional loaner program … the experiment would include 50 cars delivered to 203 households over two years. I was eleven years old when my parents took me to the World’s Fair in Brooklyn in 1963 and I remember only exactly two things; the gigantic globe and the 1963 Chrysler Turbine. One doesn’t easily forget stunningly beautiful works of art. Chrysler would display Turbines in shopping malls and hype a 47,000-mile world tour covering 23 cities in 21 countries.

Are those after-burners … or are you just happy to see me?

Your eyes are immediately drawn to the car’s airplane-like features. It seems American automakers had been evoking aircraft features in car design since the day after the Wright brother’s flight …. with projectile hood ornaments, swept fender-lines, and tail fins, etc. This car even has red-lens afterburners! The turbine theme continues throughout, even inside, with the rounded transmission tunnel splitting the buckets front and back. This dashboard instruments did not use bulbs. Instead, an inverter and transformer raised the battery voltage to over 100 volts AC and passed that high voltage through special plastic layers, causing the gauges to glow with a blue-green light.

.

But, it’s what you hear with your ears which completes the illusion that you’re driving a jet on wheels …. you have that whooshy vacuum-cleaner sound during acceleration and especially when you shut off the engine and hear it whirr down. Please, take a few seconds and listen for yourself. Wonderful!!

 

What is a turbine? —–  “A turbine engine is simple. Intake air is compressed and preheated, then burned in an open chamber, out of which the rapidly expanding gases are directed onto two turbine wheels: one to run the compressor and accessories, and one to drive the car.”

Why build it? Simple. They thought it was a better engine. This wasn’t just a quickly cobbled together engine. It was a fourth generation turbine. Chrysler had been working on turbine car engines since 1954 when it was introduced in the Plymouth Belvedere CR1. Chrysler engineers believed the turbine had the following advantages (most of them are true);

— the turbine has 80% fewer moving parts than a piston engine (60 vs about 300), lower engine weight, and virtually zero engine vibration

— no combustion contaminants enter engine oil … in fact, oil changes are not necessary

— the turbine can run on virtually anything with combustible properties … gas, diesel, kerosene, peanut oil … in fact, when the car was shipped to France it ran on Channel No. 5 !!

— no carburetor and only one spark plug … resulting in virtually eliminating tuneups and also clean emissions (the exhaust does not contain carbon monoxide, unburned carbon, or raw hydrocarbons)

— no warmup period, no liquid coolant, instant interior heat in the winter. (Instead of a water temperature, the instrument panel was fitted with a Turbine Inlet Temperature gauge with numbers 500, 1,000, 1,500, and 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit.)

— all this simplicity offers the potential of reduced maintenance and longer engine-life

Let’s take a closer look at reality.

The maximum speed of the second-stage turbine is an astonishing 45,700 rpm, although reduction gears lower the output speed to 5360 rpm, and it idles at 15,000rpm. Throttle lag was significant … 2-3 seconds. High altitudes caused problems for the combined starter-generator. Drivers had to learn a new start-up procedure; thinking there was no difference between a piston and turbine car they would mistakenly press the accelerator pedal to the floor BEFORE the engine had reached proper temperature. Instead of warming the engine, it would stall. The leaded gas of the era would leave debilitating deposits within the engine.

The car averaged 14 mpg and could reach 18mpg on highways … mileage was atrocious in city-driving. The engine produced only 130hp. It took 12 seconds to go from 0-60mph. So, fuel efficiency and performance weren’t any better than existing cars, and in many cases, worse. In order to get the public to “make the switch” both need to be significantly better than other available engines. Chrysler would counter that in addition to reliability, the car was built for quiet and comfort …. and, indeed, that goal was accomplished.

Engine reliability was a mixed bag of results. Other early loaner Turbine Cars had serious mechanical problems. Some people put as much as 10,000 miles on in three months with no problems, while other loaner turbine cars had serious mechanical problems. One mechanic stated; —  “The turbine wheels were welded to the shaft with inertia welding. Stresses caused the wheels to break at wide-open throttle. We changed to electron-beam welding on later cars. We changed a lot of engines. The electrical system wasn’t idiot proof. People would drive them when the engine temperature got too high.”

But, problems are to be expected on prototype cars, and the overall feeling was that the cars were reliable, and that none of the issues that popped up were show-stoppers. All these “problems” may have been overstated and magnified as the car was under a microscope during testing. The bottom line is this; after more than 1.1 million test miles were accumulated by the 50 cars given to the public, the operational downtime stood at only a very respectable 4%.

.

The reason for the car’s failure can be found in Washington …… via impending smog regulations.

The turbine generated nitrogen oxides. Quite simply, Chrysler was never able to solve the challenge of limiting them. When it’s all said and done, turbine engines just didn’t have the emissions and fuel-economy advantages to overcome the costs of materials and production. Soooo …. Chrysler murdered (in a crusher) 46 of the 55 Turbine Cars. Damn them!!!!

Chrysler’s work with turbine engines eventually paid off in a totally different product ….. the M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank, developed in the late 1970s by Chrysler Defense (later sold to General Dynamics).

Additional Resources:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2A5ijU3Ivs#t=333 —- very nice interview with Jay Leno and his personally owned Chrysler Turbine. Watch Jay drive around town.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/11/the-truth-about-why-chrysler-destroyed-the-turbine-cars/ —–  Disputes the widely held idea that Chrysler destroyed the cars due to import tariffs (the body was made in Italy).

http://turbinecar.com/turbine.html —– EVERYTHING you could possibly want to know about this car!

Note: The rest of this essay will generally feature only one picture per car, and the narratives will be much shorter.

==============================

 (304) 1958 Eldorado Brougham

 

1958 Eldorado Brougham

This will be the only Cadillac entry … even though they made many of the most beautiful American cars ever, and an entire thread could be dedicated to that brand. The car was designed in 1954 as Cadillac’s dream car for the General Motors Motorama of 1955. The hand-built ’57 Eldorado Brougham was an extremely limited production car costing a jaw-dropping $14,000 in 1957. A top end Rolls Royce cost “just” $9,000 …. and so, this Caddy was the most expensive car in the world at the time. Car collectors are just now appreciating this vehicle. A decade ago you could pick up a nice one for $40k …. now you’ll be spending six figures, with one selling recently for $300,000.

Those aren’t hubcaps … they’re actually forged aluminum. Aluminum wheels were extremely rare in the late ‘50s because they were extremely hard (and expensive) to cast. The roof is expensive stainless steel. It was one of the very first cars to have an all transistor radio, considered high tech for the time. The car rode on air on a total four-corner complex self-leveling air ride system … the first ever for an automobile. It had a remote starter, memory seats, power door locks, power steering and windows, separate front and rear heating, and retractable mirrors.  There was also an enormous range of “vanity” comforts; Comb and Mirror, Lipstick Holder,  Compact and Powder Puff, Coin Holder, Compartment for loose Cigarettes, Six Drinking Cups in Plastic Container,   Cigarette Package Holder,  Tissue Dispenser,  Atomizer Containing Perfume,  Memo Book and Pencil. The interior was as luxurious as any car of its time, or before. Obviously, only the wealthy could afford this car, and no expense was spared to give the buyers the most comfortable, smooth, and quiet ride possible.

I’ll stop here, but there were many other features. This car came with NO options …. you got it all, or nothing. This Caddy was a pace-setting vehicle with styling and engineering features destined to be incorporated into lesser cars in future years.

==============================

(under 400 total … only 12 1953s left) 1953 MUNTZ JET

Muntz Cars
1953 MUNTZ JET CONVERTIBLE

 

The Muntz Car Company was created in Glendale, California by Earl “Madman” Muntz, … a local used car dealer and electronics retailer. The first 28 cars were manufactured in Glendale before production shifted to Evanston, Illinois. The car featured aluminum side body panels (the hood, trunk, and roof were fiberglass). Engines were sourced from other manufacturers, including Ford, Cadillac and Lincoln … and then modified. Madman Muntz collaborated with Frank Curtis … the famous American race car designer (midget cars, sprint cars, Indy cars, and Formula One cars) and founder of Kurtis Kraft.

Why did Earl and Frank start a car company? Sport Cars and Hot Rods book, published in1950, stated that the Muntz Jet was —- “”the first serious attempt in nearly a generation to manufacture an American sport car capable of measuring up to the top-flight European jobs

They mostly succeeded. With its low-slung lines, the Muntz is a beautiful machine. Performance was adequate; 0-80mph in 9 seconds and a top speed of 125mph. This was comparable to other sports cars of the era, and the Muntz Jet appeared on the cover of the September 1951 issue of Popular Science (along with a Jaguar and an MG). Motor Trend magazine said the Muntz did everything a sports car should do; the car rides well, it’s fast, corners on rails and stops on a dime.

The company existed for just four years (1950-1954) and they produced only between 366-394 cars. Estimates are that only about 49 still exist. So, what happened? Labor costs were a monumental $2,000 per car because body panels had to be carefully fitted, then leaded-in. Muntz lost about a $1,000 on every Jet sold and eventually gave up after four years.   TRIVIA: Some of you old fogies might vaguely recall the Muntz name …. that’s because he invented the 8-track tape car stereo!

http://www.gatsbyonline.com/main.aspx?page=text&id=260&cat=auto —— complete history of the Muntz Jet with lots of pictures

==============================

(200) 1933 FRANKLIN MODEL 17

1933 Franklin Model 17

 

Herbert Franklin built his first automobile on July 1, 1901. It took two months to build, and it holds the distinction of being the first four-cylinder automobile produced in the USA (most cars of the time had a single or two-cylinder motor).   His company would build another 150,000 high-end luxury cars until the company declared bankruptcy on April 3, 1934.

Cadillac and Marmon had sixteen cylinder cars, and so in 1932 Franklin officially entered the cylinder wars. Franklin’s answer was the Model 17. In 1932, Franklin owed the banks close to $5 million dollars. The banks brought in their own representative to manage the Franklin Company, and the car became known as the “Banker Car”. The company went bankrupt shortly thereafter (some things never change). The reason for including it in this list is because the Model 17 holds the distinction as the only air-cooled 12 cylinder engine ever produced in America.

==============================

(135) 1970 PLYMOUTH HEMI SUPERBIRD

1970 Plymouth Hemi Superbird

 “Dear Lord, please let someone sell me their Superbird for $5,000”.  That’s really the only sincere prayer request I’ve ever made. Been praying for 40+ years now … and I ain’t giving up!

Most of you know the story behind this car. It was built for racing. Some folks have speculated that the motivating factor in the production of the car was to lure Richard Petty back to Plymouth The Superbird was a highly modified version of Plymouth’s already highly successful Roadrunner line. Superbirds were known for their high mounted, wing-like spoiler ….. and a ridicules horn which mimicked the Looney Tunes’ Roadrunner character. Amazingly, the Superbird’s styling was too extreme for 1970 tastes, and most customers preferred the regular Road Runner. Many Superbirds sat unsold on the back lots of dealerships as late as 1972! Even more amazing, some were converted into 1970 Road Runners to move them off the sales lot!! By 1971, NASCAR had changed the rules to limit horsepower to cars with big wings, dooming the Superbird.

About 1,935 Superbirds were made in 1970 (the only production year), and Plymouth only produced 135 of them with the Hemi engine (the other two engine options were the 440 Super Commando with a single 4-barrel carburetor, or the 440 Super Commando Six Barrel with three two-barrel carburetors.) You’ll need to shell out a million plus bucks for a really nice Hemi. Maybe that’s why my prayer goes unanswered. TRIVIA: What was the car’s primary rival? Answer: Ford Torino Talladega.

==============================

(117 total ….. 32 still exist) 1958 DUAL GHIA

This 1958 Dual-Ghia convertible was owned by songwriter Hoagy Carmichael.

.

The Dual-Ghia's interior featured a machine-turned instrument panel and seats clad with Connolly leather.
1958 Dual Ghia

 Dual Motors built only 117 cars between 1956-1958. Designed by Chrysler it came with a 230 horsepower, 315 cubic-inch Hemi V-8, and the body was fabricated by the Italian Coachbuilder Ghia. It was a favorite car amongst American celebrities; Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Sterling Hayden, Richard Nixon, Desi Arnaz and his son Ricci, even Ronald Reagan owned one …. which he lost in a high-stakes poker game with then-President Lyndon Johnson.

 I think many car designers were smoking dope in 1958. Many cars of that era were so ostentatious with their Big Chrome, fins, scoops, etc. …. as if every consumer wanted to pretend their car could take off to the moon. This car is included because of its Simple Elegant Beauty. This car is “the-girl-next-door” who doesn’t need gobs of makeup and a push-up bra to feel worthy. She’s beautiful simply because …. she IS beautiful, as is, thank you very much.

==============================

(69) 1969 CHEVY CAMARO ZL-1

1969 Chevy Camaro ZL-1

The ZL-1 was an upgrade package available only on the 1969 Camaro. Engine made of aluminum and weighed only 500 pounds. Factory specs state is was capable of 430hp … but the real number is closer to 560hp. The first 20 went immediately to the race track. The rest were offered to the public at $7,200 … quite a bit of money in 1969. Twelve were sent back to Chevrolet and refitted with a smaller engine so they would be able to sell. That means just 37 people got to buy one, and if you’re one them you are one lucky sumvabitch! And I hate you.

==============================

(55) 1967 PLYMOUTH R023 GTX

1967 PLYMOUTH R023 GTX

Hmmmmm …. what would happen if you took a regular GTX and tried to save as much weight as possible by removing the radio, hubcaps, heater, body insulations and even the carpet? What if you fitted it with a 426 cubic inch Hemi engine? What if you designed it with a large hood scoops in order to increase airflow to the massive engine block? Well you would wind up with a GTX R023 and you’d be able to do 0-60 in 4.8 seconds ….. a helluva feat in 1967.

==============================

(50) 1948 TUCKER TORPEDO

2150
1948 Tucker Torpedo
.
.

Americans were starving after WWII. Automobile production was dead in the water between 1942-1945 as those factories were cranking out bombers, tanks, and other fun military toys. There were long waiting lists for new vehicles, and consumers plunked down money, sight unseen. But models cranked out in 1946 were little more than prewar copycats … new cars that were old-and-tired before even one mile was put on the odometer. Americans were starving for a better product, and Preston Tucker just knew that he could satisfy their appetites. So, Tucker designed “The Car Of Tomorrow”; a low-slung car with curvy lines and a bevy of design and safety innovations for a car that looked like it was moving while standing still … hurtling through space into a bright future where, as in the Star Trek series “no man has gone before”.  Innovations such as;

1) 24-volt electrical system starters to turn over the massive 589-cubic-inch engine,

2) a “safety chamber” where front passengers could dive “in case of impending collision.” (How that actually worked in reality I have no freaking clue. My paranoid mother would have thrown me under the dash every time my dad hit a pothole.)

3) a pop-out windshield designed to eject during a crash thus protecting passengers,

4) a third centered headlight which swiveled to light the way around corners,

5) interchangeable front/rear seats to even out upholstery wear,

6) a roomy six-passenger cabin with a “step-down” floor,

7) fenders that pivoted defensively when the car turned,

8) recessed or protected knobs, buttons, and levers,

9) an industry first fully sealed water-cooling system,

10) doors cut into the roof to ease entry and exit,

11) all-independent suspension,

12) a padded dashboard,

13) massive bumpers,

14) a rear engine,

15) disc brakes,

Performance was more than adequate. The Tucker could manage 0-60mph in about 10 seconds … even though it weighed a hefty 4,200 pounds. Top speed was at least 120 mph, thanks to the aerodynamic styling with an estimated drag factor of 0.30 – great numbers even today. And factory tests showed a credible 20 mpg at a steady 50-55 mph.

Why did his company fail? Most often the pundits will say Tucker was incompetent (and even corrupt) on the business side. His greatest failing, they say, was that he refused to cede creative control to businessmen who could have made the Tucker ’48 commercially viable.

Instead, he attempted to raise money through unconventional means, including selling dealership rights for a car that didn’t exist yet. The Securities and Exchange Commission conducted a three year long investigation which cost Tucker a lot of time, resources, and money. Eventually the agreements were rewritten to SEC satisfaction and the franchise sales proceeded. But, he was more short of cash than before, so he came up with another scheme to raise money. He came up with a “pre-purchase plan” for Tucker automobile accessories such as radios and seat covers … and raised $2 million in advanced payments on accessories to a car not yet in production. The SEC returned with a vengeance. Tucker faced a Grand Jury indictment on 31 counts – 25 for mail fraud, 5 for SEC regulation violation, and one on conspiracy to defraud. In the end Tucker was completely exonerated on all counts!!

But, it is a Pyrrhic victory when you lose your company. The company assets, including the automobiles, were sold for 18 cents on the dollar. Worse still, the press had turned the consumer against the company. The end was near.

But is that REALLY what happened? Is that the WHOLE truth? I don’t think so!

Wiki states; “There were over 1,800 automobile manufacturers in the United States from 1896 to 1930.” By 1940, the Big Three (GM, Ford, Chrysler) accounted for 90% of U.S. production (the bulk of the remaining 10% was composed of Hudson, Nash, Packard, Studebaker, and Willys-Overland). By the early 1950’s the Big Three manufactured 95% of American cars.

You can see the Big Three strategy here …. eliminate the competition. And that’s exactly what they did to Tucker. There is good evidence that the Big Three conspired against Tucker — they were literally quite afraid of his innovations – and applied much pressure on suppliers to not let Tucker purchase key materials, such as, ……. steel. Don’t believe me? Just go to the Henry Ford Museum web page (link immediately below). They have a page dedicated to Tucker. Not too much info about the car, and plenty of ink depicting Preston Tucker in an unfair and inaccurate manner. Skewering the man, even after all these years. How pathetic is that?

http://www.thehenryford.org/exhibits/showroom/1948/tucker.html

Francis Ford Coppola made a movie about the man titled “Tucker: The Man and His Dream”. Coppola owns two restored Tuckers which he says — “drives like a boat but are fun and fast”. Regarding Preston, Coppola states; — “We are a country of innovators, but we don’t always welcome them or aid them in their work.” That’s as true today as it was back then.

But, in a tremendous display of fortitude, Preston Tucker went to Brazil in 1951 to start all over from scratch, intending to build a sports car called the Carioca. Unfortunately, the project was almost underway when he was diagnosed with lung cancer. He died December 26, 1956 at the ripe old age of 53.

Carioca … another Tucker car that wouldn’t be built

 

Today, Tucker’s 475-acre Chicago production plant houses a Tootsie Roll factory and shopping center. Ha! A shopping center replacing a manufacturing facility …. a prelude of America in 2014!

 http://www.tuckerclub.org/ —- Tucker Club Of America, a wealth of information.

==============================

MUSCLE CAR BREAK! You readers need a break after that long Tucker narrative.  I’ll be posting only pictures of rare muscle cars.

Via towallpaper.com
1970-71 Plymouth Hemi Barracuda Convertible —– 21 made

 

1967 Chevrolet Corvette L88 —– 20 made

 

1970 Chevrolet Chevelle SS 454 LS6 —– 20 made

 

1971 Pontiac GTO Judge Convertible —— 17 made

 

1970 ford torino king cobra prototype - DOC556221
1970 Ford Torino King Cobra —– 3 made

 

1969 Chevrolet Corvette ZL-1 —– 3 made

 

Via thelingenfeltercollection.com
Dodge Coronet R/T 426 Hemi Convertible —– 2 made (1967 and 1970)

 

End of Break!

==============================

(38)  1935 DUESENBERG MODEL  SJN

1935 Duesenberg Model SJN Image
1935 Duesenberg Model SJN

 

The great American dream. Two German boys, Fred and August Duesenberg,   self-taught engineers who never built an automobile in their lives, immigrate to Des Moines (production later moved to Auburn, IN), and build what becomes arguably the most gorgeous cars ever made. Why can’t the current crop of immigrants be like that??

Duesenberg built only 1,145 cars between 1921-1927, so they are all rare;   650 of Model A, 12 of Model X, 1 prototype Model Y, and 481 of Model J.

The above car is a “JN” series. Of the 38 SJN’s built, only four were convertibles …. the very first one belonging to Hollywood legend Clark Gable. The car pictured is the ONLY factory-equipped supercharged Duesenberg Model JN ever produced.

I lived about 10 miles from the Duesenberg museum in Auburn, Indiana. In you live within a four hour drive from Auburn do yourself a favor and go visit! You’ll see some of the most beautiful cars on the plant, and you won’t be disappointed. I guarantee it.

==============================

(25) 1953 CUNNINGHAM C3

1953 Cunningham C3

 

Briggs Swift Cunningham, born into a wealthy family, raced automobiles and yachts. He also built and drove very fast race cars. He was inducted into the America’s Cup Hall of Fame in 1993, the Motorsports Hall of Fame of America in 1997, and named to the International Motorsports Hall of Fame in 2003.

Wow. So, perhaps believing “there ain’t a damn thing I can’t do!” Cunningham decided to build a production car … the Continental C3.

The car was built in West Palm Beach where mechanics installed a 331-cubic-inch Chrysler hemi V-8 in his own designed Cunningham C-2R racing chassis. The chassis was shipped to Italy to be fitted with aluminum and steel bodies by coachbuilder Vignale. There were 25 Continental C3s produced (20 coupes and 5 convertibles). They sold for $8,000 to $12,000 … a hefty sum in 1952, but not to notable owners such as Nelson Rockefeller and a member of the Du Pont family. Of these 25 cars, 24 still exist.

==============================

(17) 1949 KURTIS KRAFT SPORT

1949 Kurtis Kraft Sport Image
1949 Kurtis Kraft Sport

 

This vehicle gets my Cutest Car Award! It looks like it belongs in the Disney Carz movie.

But, don’t be fooled by its “cuteness”. At the 1949 Bonneville trials that darling-looking car hit an average of 143mph! Frank Kurtis wanted everyone to know that his car was faster than a Jaguar XK120.

Recall the Muntz Jet from above? Well, in 1950, Frank Kurtis sold the tooling for this very car to Earl ‘Madman’ Muntz.

==============================

(15) 1948 DAVIS DIVA

1948 Davis Diva

 

America’s only 3-wheeler …. or, is that a Bumper Car? Yet another Kurtis Kraft connection. Founder Glenn Gordon Davis acquired a prototype called “The Californian” from designer Frank Kurtis, who built it for millionaire race-car driver Joel Thorne. The company would build 17 units between 1947-1948. The game plan was to eventually build as many as 1,000 per day. But, the owner, Gary Davis was convicted on 20 of 28 counts of theft and fraud, and was sentenced to eight months to two years in jail. It was difficult to find investors after he was released from jail.

Why build it? Ummmm …. I have no idea. Perhaps it was to take advantage of lower safety regulations, since these were usually classified as motorcycles. Or, perhaps because it was more economical – the car weighed under 1,000 pounds, was powered by a 47 horsepower Hercules 4-cylinder engine, had a top speed of 85mph, and its fuel economy was 35-50 mpg. Another unusual aspect was that it featured 4-across seating (Americans weren’t nearly as fat back then).

Regardless, I wouldn’t be caught dead driving one. I’d rather drive a green 1970 Ford Falcon (inside joke).

==============================

 (9) 1936 STOUT SCARAB

1936 STOUT SCARAB

This great-grandfather of the minivan looks like a rolling toaster, doesn’t it? The 1936 Stout Scarab came about in the early 1930s because William B. Stout — head of the Stout Engineering Laboratories and inventor of the famed Ford Tri-Motor airplane engine — dreamed of rear-engine / rear-wheel drive. He wrote in Scientific American, “the driver will have infinitely better vision from all angles. The automobile will be lighter and more efficient and yet safer, the ride will be easier, and the body will be more roomy without sacrificing maneuverability.

The Scarab looks long, but the overall length of just over 16 feet is about the same as a 1936 Pontiac, and it averages 19mpg with its 85hp flathead Ford V8. That seems to be a reliable engine as William Stout’s personal Scarab was driven for over 250,000 miles before it conked out. The Scarab dispensed with a separate chassis and body, opting instead for a unitized body structure … a first for an American automobile (it first appeared in the 1930s on some Citroen automobiles).

Scarab interiors were as unique as their bodies. Only the driver’s seat was fixed. All the others could be moved around the big, flat floor – even positioned around a fold-down table if desired. Combined with ambient lighting and thermostatic heating controls, this made the Scarab a rolling living room.

The price started at $5,000 (or $90,000 today) and nearly all of them went to Stout board members. And that’s why the car failed to catch on with the public. $90,000? In the midst of the Great Depression??? Duh!

In my humble opinion, this is the second most interesting and innovative car in this list (after the Chrysler Turbine). The car was well ahead of it time and, is actually quite attractive. You really need to watch this 7-minute video to appreciate it.

==============================

(4) 1954 PACKARD PANTHER

1954 Packard Panther Daytona Concept Image
1954 PACKARD PANTHER

This stunning car reveals the death of a company … a story of Packard’s valiant efforts to restore its position at the pinnacle of American luxury cars.

Packard began producing cars in 1899. Within 15 years, Packard earned a reputation for building high quality luxury cars. Business was splendid …. until WWII. Most auto companies converted to building war equipment. Not Packard. Packard’s role was to encourage good relations with our ally, the Soviet Union. Packard sold its body dies to them (which the Soviets used to produce the ZIS-110 in 1945). This left Packard without a source of well-styled bodies for the postwar market. In fact, 1948 Packards were nicknamed ‘Pregnant Elephants’ by a now not-as-adoring public.                    

In an attempt to reignite public excitement, Packard introduced a concept car in 1954, the Packard Panther. Unlike most concept cars, this one was a fully functional automobile capable of high performance and sheathed in an incredible fiberglass skin … one inch thick! Four Panthers were made, and the car in the above picture is the only Panther made with a removable hardtop.

Packard installed the biggest engine they had — a 359ci straight eight. One of them was jacked up to 275 horsepower via a McCulloch centrifugal supercharger. It zoomed through the measured mile on the sands of Daytona Beach at the highest speed ever attained by a car in its class … 131.1 mph … a remarkable achievement unmatched by any rival, including Corvette.

But, the Panther couldn’t save an already struggling company. In 1954 Packard made one of the worst acquisitions in automobile history. They bought …….. Studebaker. That proved to be more than the manufacturer could handle, and Studebaker dragged Packard to its death in 1958.

==============================

(3) 1969 CHEVROLET “ASTROVETTE”

TO THE MOON !!!

 Quick … tell me … who was the 4th man to walk on the moon? Well, as a member of the Apollo 12 mission, it was Alan L. Bean (lunar module pilot). And that was his personal Corvette you’re looking at ….a perfect 100 point car.

The other two members of the crew —- Pete Conrad (mission commander) and Dick Gordon (command module pilot) —- also received identical GM custom painted gold-and-black Corvettes, but those cars are long gone. Automotive designer Alex Tremulis, the stylist behind the iconic Tucker Torpedo, devised the paint scheme. Otherwise, it was a standard Corvette (390hp 427 Turbo-Jet V-8).

Alan Shepard was the first astronaut to get a surprise gift from General Motors — a dazzling white 1962 Chevrolet Corvette. It was the beginning of a long marketing relationship between GM and NASA.

“In the 1960s, astronauts were the American heroes that every child idolized and every adult respected. That so many of them drove Corvettes really helped establish the Corvette as America’s sports car.”———- Jerry Burton (Corvette historian)

Eventually, the association with Corvettes began to concern NASA officials. They believed the public might construe the purchases as official endorsements by the astronauts, which was forbidden at the time, according to GM. By 1971, the astronaut’s sweetheart deal for new Corvettes had all but ended.

But this gorgeously preserved Corvette serves as a reminder of the glory days in space.

==============================

(1) 1954 DESOTO ADVENTURER II

1954 DeSoto Adventurer II Concept Image
1954 DeSoto Adventurer II

Chevrolet introduced their Corvette in 1953. Soooo, DeSoto decided to create their own eye-catching sports car, and this sleek beauty is the result … a fully functioning (it has 15,000 miles on it) one-only concept car. Yet another body designed by Ghia of Italy, and powered by a FireDome Hemi V-8.

==============================

 (1) 1954 OLDSMOBILE F-88

The Corvette Killer

 

$3,240,000. That’s what this car fetched in a 2007 auction … sold to John Hendricks, founder and chairman of Discovery Communications (Discovery Channel, TLC and Animal Planet). Craig Jackson, CEO of the classic car auction company Barrett-Jackson (which sold the car) says of this car —- “Many automobile historians consider the F-88 roadster to be one of the greatest expressions of automotive design to ever come from North America.” You can see this car today at the Gateway Colorado Automobile Museum.

In 1954, the F-88 was a Motorama Dream Car, and was one of only two, or an unconfirmed possible three, ever created. The golden Oldsmobile F-88 contained a complete powertrain, but didn’t run during its time on the Motorama circuit.

After a show car had completed its Motorama duties, it was usually turned over to its sponsoring division. The division’s top executives were then free to do with it what they wished. They were encouraged to eventually destroy it. Although they couldn’t sell such vehicles, they could and often did give them away — usually to favored dealers, business friends, or relatives. That’s how a lot of the survivors got out of GM. The crusher mandate was often ignored because America was a less litigious place in the early Fifties. This much we know.

The rest of the history behind the F-88 is shrouded in mystery, rumor, and even conspiracy. There’s a story of one F-88 catching fire. Another story of a GM engineer who was so distraught at the gold F-88 being destroyed that he ordered an identical model to be built, only in red. Another story claims that the surviving Oldsmobile F-88 escaped the crusher by being disassembled, crated, and shipped off to E.L. Cord’s mansion in California …. yes, the same E.L. Cord who simultaneously ran Auburn, Cord, and Duesenberg. You can read a detailed account surrounding the mystery of the F-88 here: —-  http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1954-oldsmobile-f88.htm

Here is the $64,000 dollar question; Why wasn’t this phenomenal car, which received overwhelming positive approval from the public, never put into production? Simple answer: it probably would have killed the Corvette.

The first-generation Chevy Corvette C1 was introduced in 1953. It was powered by a rather measly 150hp inline-6 cylinder engine along with a 2-speed “Powerglide” transmission and …. side curtains, Meanwhile, the F-88 was cradled a 324 cubic-inch Oldsmobile Rocket V8 making a brawny 250 horses. And, it had power windows! As the legend goes, Chevy campaigned within GM against bringing the F-88 to market due to concerns that the Olds would hurt sales of the Corvette. GM conceded. And, as they say, the rest is history.

==============================

 (1) 1938 PHANTOM CORSAIR

HOLY BATMOBILE!!!

 $10,000,000. That’s what experts feel this car will bring if it ever goes to auction. (You can see it in the National Automobile Museum in Reno, Nevada.)

Designed by Rust Heinz …. yes, the son of the Ketchup Kingdom King. Heinz collaborated with coachbuilders Bohman & Schwartz to construct the car. His vision was to produce America’s first supercar.  Plans to place the Phantom Corsair into small-scale production ended when Rust Heinz died in a car crash in 1939 — he was only 25 years old. Even so, it is doubtful the car would have succeeded. A brochure had been prepared and the price was set at $14,700 (or, the cost of about 135,000 bottles of ketchup in 1939)…. and nearly triple the price of a Cadillac V-16 sedan.

The boy-with-the-rich-daddy (who pretty much financed the entire endeavor) used his Hollywood and media contacts to promote the machine and, the July 1937 issue of Esquire ran a full-page color drawing. None of it worked. So, Heinz agreed to the Phantom being used in the 1938 film “The Young in Heart”, starring Douglas Fairbanks. In the movie the car was re-christened “The Flying Wombat”. That didn’t bring in any orders either.

This car was ahead of its time;

— extremely small windows (even for its time), a louvered nose, fully skirted wheels, totally flush fenders, no running boards, unique headlights, hydraulic bumpers, complex front-wheel drive, green-tinted safety glass, a thick layer of cork/rubber insulation for the cockpit, and there were no door handles as entry was via electric push buttons        

— instrumentation came from the Cord 812, but supplemented by a full row of end-to-end gauges across the width of the dashboard, including a compass and altimeter

— body panels were made of hand-beaten aluminum and fitted over a tubular frame

— 6-passengers (four in the front, only two in the back due to the liquor cabinet)

— chassis and engine came from a donor Cord 812

— 19.75 feet long — 4,600 pounds — 120mph

Well, that’s it folks. Forgive me for keeping this article so brief.

 

 

 

 

 

Author: Stucky

I'm right, you're wrong. Deal with it.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
137 Comments
Administrator
Administrator
  Stucky
December 23, 2014 11:39 am

Stuck

Steve Quayle, 321Gold, and Dollar Collapse all picked it up.

It has 9,000 views and is still going strong. It will pass my Pigmen article by the end of the day.

Administrator
Administrator
  Stucky
December 23, 2014 12:15 pm

Don’t ever apologize for writing an extremely well researched, entertaining article, that draws newcomers to TBP. Everyone’s looking forward to your next masterpiece.

Administrator
Administrator
  Stucky
December 23, 2014 1:14 pm

Yep. Like a fine running watch.

SSS
SSS
December 23, 2014 2:48 pm

Admin and Stucky,

Get a room.

“Don’t ever apologize for writing an extremely well researched, entertaining article, that draws newcomers to TBP. Everyone’s looking forward to your next masterpiece.”
—-Admin @ Stucky

Some suggestions for Stucky’s next entertaining masterpiece ……

“Frack on, America”

“Marijuana: Fun for the Whole Family”

“Indiana Basketball Eats Shit”

“New Balance Sneakers Are for Unbalanced Minds”

“Jim Quinn Is America’s Song-Picker of the Year”

Other visitors may wish to contribute additional suggestions, but that’s a good start. Heh.

IndenturedServant
IndenturedServant
December 23, 2014 3:20 pm

SSS said:
“Marijuana: Fun for the Whole Family”

Actually, I think both SSS and Stucky should write this one. SSS can do the “marijuana pro” angle and Stucky can do the “marijuana cons” angle.

yahsure
yahsure
December 23, 2014 3:46 pm

I have some factory advertising for that turbine car. My dad told me they had a problem with burning up brakes.The car had no braking effect from the turbine to help slow the car down.
I had a Challenger R/T in high school. The 340 model.Fast and fun! The price on the new Challengers are ridiculous.
My dad had so many cars,he bought them and fixed them up and after driving for a while he would sell them for a profit. One of my favorites was a Challenger with the shaker hood scoop,a 440 with three two barrels and a pistol grip four speed.
My folk’s main car was usually a Cadillac.

John Scot Brown
John Scot Brown
December 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Great read. I thought there must be many like myself who would like to add our favorite. Mine; MB300SL. As a young reservist during the ’50s there was stored in a not to secure garage on our base at Terminal Island a beautiful silver one with red leather interior. We would sneak into the garage and take turns sitting in it fantasizing. I submit, you could write a book and not cover the vast universe of fine automobilia lost. Thank you.

ssgconway
ssgconway
December 23, 2014 7:18 pm

Thanks. This makes my day, as I love cars. Two I’d add to this extensive list are the ’54 Packard Starliner Coupe, my late father’s fave (he grew up in Depression-era Detroit not too far from the Packard Plant, now being demolished after a half-century as the world’s largest – 3,000,000 square foot – ruin) and my first love: the ’62 Studebaker Avanti. (When I told the Mrs. that my dream car was an Avalti in metallic flake pearl with a leopard-skin interior, she told me, ‘That is sooo wrong!”)

I have only owned two ‘classic’ cars: a ’74 Buick LeSabre Luxux convertible and an ’87 Jaguar XJ6 – but I can seldom see a classic ride without it turning my head.

Merry Christmas to the TBP community!

SSS
SSS
December 23, 2014 8:15 pm

“SSS can do the “marijuana pro” angle and Stucky can do the “marijuana cons” angle.”
————- IndenturedServant

“Actually, that’s not a bad idea. SSS, you up to it?”
—-Stucky @ SSS

Sure. I like intellectual challenges. You go first.

underfire
underfire
December 23, 2014 8:55 pm

Nice post Stuck. Felt I had to add my own favorite car, as brings back strong emotions. It was a 1966 Buick Lesabre, pink, four doors, that I bought as a junior in HS. That car played a central role for about five years I spent with a beautiful blonde. And I mean beautiful, OMG, I was a different person after five years with that lady.

Dynamics
Dynamics
December 23, 2014 8:55 pm

Thanks Stucky!!! Sent this to my Dad to read. I’m sure he will love this story!!

El Coyote
El Coyote
December 23, 2014 9:28 pm

Why not submit both to Admin first?

SSS
SSS
December 23, 2014 10:08 pm

“Besides, the more I think about it, the less I like it. I KNOW what you will say. You KNOW what I will say. I highly doubt there will be any new insights from either of us. So, why bother.”
—-Stucky @ SSS on the marijuana challenge, which I accepted

And you called me a pussy a couple of weeks ago. The challenge calls for me to argue YOUR position (totally pro-pot), and you to argue MY position (reasonably anti-pot). You’ve turned a deaf ear to what I’ve said for years, so you don’t know what I’ve said. You never listened. I did.

“Why not submit both (Stucky and SSS) to Admin first?”
—-El Coyote

Again, I accept. And I like Coyote’s metaphor. Eastwood (me) versus Lee Van Cleef (Stucky aka “Angel Eyes”). You know the ending.

TE
TE
December 23, 2014 11:39 pm

Stucky, thanks for this. I’m so glad I decided to stop by and read the whole thing (I saw it Sunday, but couldn’t load it on my tablet and gave up).

Every single car listed meets the cool and unique measurement, I learned lots of new things!

This reminds me that I miss cars, caring about cars. I once, for a brief month, owned the MOST awesome ’72 Olds Cutlass, it had been restored down to primer and had a 350 Rocket motor with more chrome than steel. On the way to work one morning, I took the chance (I was working 3:30 am to 3:30 pm, I got pulled over quite regularly under suspicion of drunk driving, as in I was the only car on the road, not breaking any laws and the cops were board with permission from Reagan to harass me) and opened her up.

When I started approaching the hill/blind curve combo, I looked down as I eased off the gas, she was going 130 and I still had lots of pedal left. I paid $700 for her (divorce special both seller and buyer) and loved her dearly.

It was a dark and icy/stormy night when she left me. My boyfriend was driving her and we were on our way to the bar. We figured we would get snockered and then either catch a ride with my best friend’s dad – we were meeting her at the bar, and her dad was lone tow-truck in town during an ice storm – after.

He went around the corner too fast, I asked him to be careful – I really did love her – and he decided to play giant smart ass and started making the car fishtail. Two seconds later my baby was facing the other direction and lots of her parts were scattered across the road.

The tree won, it shoved the body off the frame, bent the hell outta the frame and I never drove her again. I tried for over a year to find a suitable replacement body for the primo motor, but eventually gave up and sold the motor to my very happy mechanic. He still has her in the car he put it in over 20 years ago.

Sidenote. My best friend and I left my boyfriend at the bar – he was 100% sure I was going to break up with him, I didn’t – and jumped in her car to go and get my car parts out of the road/ditch (bumper came off whole, I knew I could salvage/sell it). On our way to my place to stash the parts – that was our mistake, we should have gone back to the bar – she stopped too hard and we ended up sliding through an intersection and sideswiped a cemented-in bank of mailboxes. I was in two separate car accidents in less than 15 minutes. Statistically impossible, yet it happened to me, anyway, back to cars.

My dream car would be a ’69 Mach I Mustang, but would settle (ha! I love them too!) for a Shelby GT 350 or a Fastback. Ok, I’ll take almost any old T Bird or Mustang with 8 cylinders. Ok, any.

Thanks for this so much. Nice to think about something other than another year listening to angry slurred words and then the bragging and materialistic one-upping of the in-laws. The next 24 hours are tough for me and this really, really, made it better.

You brighten my days all the time Stuck. I do believe I was sent a huge blessing the day we “met” here. Christmas hugs and love to you and yours my friend. You have quite the knack for these pieces.

ssgconway
ssgconway
December 24, 2014 12:35 pm

My apology…I misidentified the Starliner Coupe as a Packard…it is a Studebaker:

Curbside Classic: 1953 – 1954 Studebaker Commander Starliner Coupe – Star Light, Star Bright

backwardsevolution
backwardsevolution
December 24, 2014 6:31 pm

Stucky – great job on this article you put together! What beautiful cars, lots of chrome. Got my picture taken in a Duesenberg once. Nice car! Wish they built cars like these ones again – such style. Thanks, Stucky, and Merry Christmas to you.

EC
EC
December 24, 2014 8:18 pm

In the mid 70’s you could pick up a land yacht dirt cheap, I bought a gunpowder gray 67 Olds 442 for about $500 in ’75 (gas guage didn’t work) and a Buick with Stucky’s requisite huge backseat in ’78 for $650 (radio push buttons didn’t work) it got about 10MPG.

My favorite was a metallic golden brown ’73 Charger with a 318 engine I got in Rantoul for $2600.

varnelius
varnelius
December 26, 2014 11:59 am

While I had no issues with this article (in fact even read it in its entirety), having this as a sticky (at the top of the blog) is utter bullshit. Being very image laden, it is a huge waste of bandwidth–to not only me, but to the servers in question.

Sorry I’m a bit bitchy. My desktop is down, and I’m using a Katrina era laptop to surf these last few days.

The article was good. Featured? Not so good. Let it fade into the older pages. I only hit TPB every 2-3 days lately, and will go thru the pages until I start to hit content that I recognize as something I’ve already read. I understand Jim likes to feature some of his personal content, and totally go along with that. Featuring this crap on a doomer blog? Not so much. I doubt anyone reading this article will EVER own ANY of these cars.

So let me ask, what’s the point?

varnelius
varnelius
December 26, 2014 12:15 pm

You totally missed the point asshole. When I read thru your post, I found it interesting. Interesting enough to go thru it briefly (reading aloud only about 50%, but showing all images) to my disabled father.

Apparently only those of us who were on the ‘net back in early 90s via dialup value bandwidth.

Shove it Stuck. You’re the one lacking IQ.

varnelius
varnelius
December 26, 2014 12:21 pm

Here, let me take this one step further. There’s a reason why I like this blog, and that’s because it isn’t like most. But let me explain why most blogs operate the way they do from an IT view.

By only having a few paragraphs of any given post, and forcing people to click “below the fold,” you save bandwidth for anyone loading the site. If the teaser paragraphs entice the user to click, then you get much better feedback about how many times a given post has been viewed.

Not having the “below the fold” (something I enjoy–easy to browse), but having a sticky post this image heavy? That’s the bullshit.

varnelius
varnelius
December 26, 2014 12:37 pm

Perhaps some history is in order. Back in the early 90s when ‘net first became available in my area (locally–not long distance), I was using a blazing fast 14.4kbps dialup modem. It was so cutting edge, it took the ISP a year to catch up. They were 9600 baud for the first year. To put that in modern context, we’re talking roughly 0.0096mbit.

In those days, even tho back then every effort was taken as a part of website design was: page load times. Those that designed websites back then, every effort was taken to shave every kb of data off of a page to try and speed up page load times. For quite some time, I surfed without allowing the browser to load the images in a given page. I’d only load the images I was actually interested in seeing.

Believe it or not, there was even a text only browser that was available for DOS (meaning no Windows required). The issue with getting it to work was teaching DOS TCP/IP. That was the only tricky part. I did get it running once just to see how it would fare with page loads, and I found that Windows really didn’t slow things down enough to justify using a “text only” browser.

I understand that saying all of this makes me the old man living on the corner sitting on his porch telling the kids to “GET OFF MY LAWN!”

I apologize Stuck. I am just cranky due to using old equipment. I honestly hope that you and yours have/had a happy holiday season.

varnelius
varnelius
December 26, 2014 12:46 pm

“Oh, I got your point. You’re the last person in Amerika with a 1200 baud dial-up modem. So solly for you.”

No, I’m on 60mbit cable. I’m just using an old pc. Shit happens. I wish you well the next time yours breaks down. And in fact, this convo is irritating me enough to fix my desktop so I don’t have to deal with this old crap.

Actually, saying much of this has been directed at Admin. He could save bucco server bandwidth by following the crowd (as much as I would hate to see him do that). Not going to repeat my IT reasons stated above.

“5) Blow me.”

Ya know, I actually heard this uttered at work yesterday (x-mas): “It’s not truly a day at work until somebody gets skullfucked.”

Was going to add more, but no reason to ruin other people’s holiday season.

IndenturedServant
IndenturedServant
December 26, 2014 1:39 pm

Varnelius said:
“Was going to add more, but no reason to ruin other people’s holiday season.”

Why hold back now? You already took a giant shit on an excellent thread. By all means, carry on!

You should submit a list of your requirements (sans pictures of course) to admin detailing the myriad ways HIS blog should be run so that it meets YOUR needs. I’m sure he will be all assholes and elbows in taking care of it. Actually, this is such a good idea we should all submit a list of ways admin can cater to our individual needs.

IndenturedServant
IndenturedServant
December 26, 2014 2:01 pm

varnelius, this would be a good week to submit your list of changes to admin too. He’s on vacation for the next week or so. What are the chances that you’d be so full of great ideas just when admin has a bunch of free time on his hands? Christmas Miracle? You decide!

El Coyote
El Coyote
December 26, 2014 2:10 pm

How old are you, I-S, mid 40’s? Your one cranky young coot. I got news for you, if you aren’t smiling now, your face is going to freeze into permanent sourpuss. Here’s a song for you, pay particular attention to the line: ‘stop bringing everybody down’.

IndenturedServant
IndenturedServant
December 26, 2014 3:02 pm

[imgcomment image[/img]

IndenturedServant
IndenturedServant
December 26, 2014 3:10 pm

That wasn’t the exact image I was intending to post but I love Pulp Fiction on the message was on point.

EC, I’m actually a very happy person. I live below my means. I have a job that I look forward to each day. I have everything I want and more. I sleep soundly. I can walk again. I have more friends than I actually want. I have a woman that loves me. To top it off I have two dogs that are waiting by the door to play when I come home each day.

That I call things like I see them without beating around the bush is only a problem for others. It does tend to keep the idiots away. (except on the interwebz)

El Coyote
El Coyote
December 26, 2014 3:19 pm

You bitch so often about people who mess up Admin’s message of freedom of speech by using the comments section to vent that I miss the sarcasm, I think you really hate us for our freedom to express our thoughts here.

IndenturedServant
IndenturedServant
December 26, 2014 3:20 pm

EC said:
“Here’s a song for you, pay particular attention to the line: ‘stop bringing everybody down’.”

I’m starting to see your problem. On da interwebz you have the option to skip reading things that you don’t like. With the application of the teensiest amount of critical thinking, you could avoid bringing yourself down by skipping my comments. Unless I forget to sign in, my comments are always preceded with “IndenturedServant”. <——— THERE IS YOUR SIGN! It works too! I haven't read a comment from bb in months because his comments are preceded with "bb". <——– THAT IS MY SIGN to skip it. If you are indeed being brought down, yer doin' it to yersef! Personally I think you just enjoy the abuse and can't stay away sorta like chicks who are into abusive men but keep going back for more.

El Coyote
El Coyote
December 26, 2014 3:22 pm

BTW, I’m glad to hear you can walk again, I liked your homage to AWD concerning that history.

IndenturedServant
IndenturedServant
December 26, 2014 3:22 pm

EC said:
“You bitch so often about people who mess up Admin’s message of freedom of speech by using the comments section to vent”

Examples?

El Coyote
El Coyote
December 26, 2014 3:36 pm

I’m not fucking Google, you look it up, if your not drooling about puppies or staring at stars, your crabbing about dopples and comments you don’t like. Make some new year’s resolutions I-S to reflect your happy state of mind.

EC
EC
December 26, 2014 4:13 pm
IndenturedServant
IndenturedServant
December 26, 2014 9:32 pm

EC said:
“Make some new year’s resolutions I-S to reflect your happy state of mind.”

Why? If a couple of people on the interwebz don’t like me it doesn’t affect my happiness.

Let me put it in astronomical terms. In astronomy there are many different kinds of nebulae. There are absorption, planetary, reflection, dark, emission and super nova remnant types.

If I and my happiness were a nebula, I’d be primarily an absorption nebula with a dark core. If I were a reflection nebula, as you seem to want me to be, too much happiness would reflect off of me and I’d be a proper asshole. As an absorption nebula, I absorb it and grow happier over time. The dark core becomes visible only when you cast your disapproving gaze in my direction which is why I come with a warning sign on TBP as I pointed out above.

EC
EC
December 26, 2014 9:45 pm

You used to be funny I-S. What happened?

IndenturedServant
IndenturedServant
December 26, 2014 10:00 pm

I’ve smelled funny from time to time but only my wife thinks I am funny.

Zarathustra
Zarathustra
December 27, 2014 12:45 am

I owned one of these for a few years. 1968 Chrysler 300 Convertible. It only burned ethyl and you could watch the gcomment images gauge drop when I put my foot into it.

Zarathustra
Zarathustra
December 27, 2014 12:46 am

[imgcomment image[/img]

varnelius
varnelius
December 27, 2014 3:11 am

“You’ve been here long enough to know that “blow me” is often used as a term of endearment.”

I lost my dad tonight. He was my best friend. I’m not sure what else is left to say.