hot rods, muscle cars, customs...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cano
  • 6,024 comments
  • 1,172,183 views
1967-mustang-yellow-larry-simanzik.jpg

Jeebus, turn down the chrome effects Mr. Photoshopper ... this is horrendous.
 
Looks like a 60s Econoline with a flatbed. I'd have to check.
 
GAZ 24 Volga pickup custom.
"I wanna be El Camino!" :dopey:
3b51cau-960.jpg

5751cau-960.jpg


The engine is a 200 hp Mazda V6 for now, but the owner is planning to swap it for a 4.2 V8 from Audi A8.

I want :drool:

Tuned to the likes of a smallblock 340 Mopar - A833 4spd. - Dana 60 ..... oh hell yeah. :bowdown:
 
It does aye..that's the way with most manufacturers these days, bigger and heavier, look at the 40 series Land Cruiser and a 200 series:rolleyes:

201106103.jpg

40 series Troopy..[called a 47 series over here]

2009_toyota_landcruiser_200_series_60th_anniversary-4ca4f57bbb54e.jpg

200 Series
 
I've seen those concepts in one of my mustang books before, one of them reminds me of the mid 70s Torino.

----
1972_ford_gran_torino_sport_sportsroof_77557095.jpg


ff4-6.jpg


twister0011.jpg
 
There was a few more concepts I left out but those were the whackiest ones.

Honestly, the MII has far more resemblance to the original Mustang than anything else up until 2005.
 
Haha, have to agree. I've gotten into this debate with various family members, but the Mustang II and fox body Mustangs were most like the original 1964 and a half Mustangs - small, lightweight, mostly sold as V6 cars, etc.... But many people argue the opposite, that they're not "real" Mustangs. That "real" Mustangs ended with the 1973 model year, and some even saying 1970 was the last year of the Mustang. I don't get that line of thinking. If you can't consider a Mustang II a real Mustang, then you can't consider the first gen Mustangs real Mustangs either.
 
Back