Would you rather?

  • Thread starter Thread starter motortrend
  • 22,046 comments
  • 1,114,774 views
charger-1964.jpg
 
It looks ridiculous, but it sure as hell would turn heads.

Anyway


1975 Trabant with an ear-splitting 18HP

trabant.jpg


or


Diamondback Adult Steilacoom CCX Roadbike for $1099.99

pDSP1-12297082p275w.jpg
 
Trabant because it's a car and we've already done comparisons like this before. At least it's a mode of transportation vs. a mode of transportation instead of a car vs. a piece of cheese like it sometimes is.
 
I'd take neither. I already have 2 methods of transportation that's faster than both of that aren't cars anyway so I have no need.

I'd take the bike though because I need a new one.
 
Aussie version.

A more fair comparison would have been the same era.
 
Muscle Cars:

It's hard... probably the Charger if it's got either the 440 Six Pack or the 426 Hemi, otherwise it's the Impala for me.

1. Charger
2. Impala
3. 442
4. Mustang

Trabant vs Bike:

This one's hard. The trabant is made out of old underwear, and will probably brake before I can get anywhere with it. But it is a car, and that's why it wins for me.

Falcon vs Falcon:

Probably the Aussie Falcon, (which kinda reminds me of a Mach 1 from that angle) but the US Falcon is pretty cool too.

-Sonny
 
Trabant vs. Bike

If it was a mountain bike it would be different, so I'll choose a Trabant

Falcon vs. Falcon

Aussie wins this round
 
RandomCarGuy17
Trabant, but the car I have right now is kinda a better choice than both and who the hell buys a bicycle for $1,000?
Click to expand...
You're kidding, right? $1000 is just starting to get you a decent bike. I've got a $3000 bike that I've put almost 10k miles on. Bikes equivalant to what the pros use cost about $8000.

Back on topic: 68 Charger, Trabant, Aussie Falcon
 

Latest Posts

Back