Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

imidazol97

How badly was the driver of the car hurt? Did the driver escape on their own through that door on the right?


Here's a close call from our area in February.

fintail

Lots of good choices that year, too, some nice designs. The profiles might have been quite similar, but they all had different grilles and gingerbread. Not as easy to distinguish as 50s/60s cars, but it can be done, or maybe I am just weird and have an easy eye for such details.

imidazol97 said:

Sometimes we comment how cars look somewhat alike (other than the mammoth grills on a certain company's cars).

Had the same problem in 1939 (no I wasn't there).
I enjoyed looking at the names.

oldfarmer50

jmonroe1 said:

andres3 said:

oldfarmer50 said:

imidazol97 said:

oldfarmer50 said:

This happened about a mile from me.



In case you can’t see, that’s a red car under 80,000 pounds of flour. Driver walked away with minor injuries.

News reports didn’t identify what kind of car but from the wheels I’d say some kind of sporty car.

Is that a Genesis?

ARe there any other pictures that might give somebody a hint about the car's identify?

Well what do you know, it was a 350Z.

A bucket of bondo and some touch-up paint and she'll be as good as new. Wasn't @roadburner looking for one of these?

If he was it wouldn't be one with that many scratches.

jmonroe

Turns out the driver of the car was accused of causing the accident by reckless driving. Was given multiple tickets.

oldfarmer50

imidazol97 said:

How badly was the driver of the car hurt? Did the driver escape on their own through that door on the right?


Here's a close call from our area in February.

Not a scratch.

imidazol97

Driver of car was taken to hospital for treatment according to article IIRC. Not life threatening. The Cruze took good care of him/her.

roadburner

An 18 wheeler flipped on to a Chevette on I-71/75 one Friday afternoon in the early '80s. The driver didn't survive; but considering what he was driving it was probably a mercy killing.

sda

roadburner said:

An 18 wheeler flipped on to a Chevette on I-71/75 one Friday afternoon in the early '80s. The driver didn't survive; but considering what he was driving it was probably a mercy killing.

Ouch

jwm40517

Saw a story about the 350Z under the trailer on TV today. The driver filmed the entire rescue with his cell phone and when out of the car seemed to have no problems.

houdini2

andres3 said:

oldfarmer50 said:

imidazol97 said:

oldfarmer50 said:

This happened about a mile from me.



In case you can’t see, that’s a red car under 80,000 pounds of flour. Driver walked away with minor injuries.

News reports didn’t identify what kind of car but from the wheels I’d say some kind of sporty car.

Is that a Genesis?

ARe there any other pictures that might give somebody a hint about the car's identify?

Well what do you know, it was a 350Z.

A bucket of bondo and some touch-up paint and she'll be as good as new. Wasn't @roadburner looking for one of these?

Looks like the guy is just making his escape thru the engine compartment. Second pic.

imidazol97

roadburner said:

An 18 wheeler flipped on to a Chevette on I-71/75 one Friday afternoon in the early '80s. The driver didn't survive; but considering what he was driving it was probably a mercy killing.

Oh my!

imidazol97

fintail said:

Lots of good choices that year, too, some nice designs. The profiles might have been quite similar, but they all had different grilles and gingerbread. Not as easy to distinguish as 50s/60s cars, but it can be done, or maybe I am just weird and have an easy eye for such details.

imidazol97 said:

Sometimes we comment how cars look somewhat alike (other than the mammoth grills on a certain company's cars).

Had the same problem in 1939 (no I wasn't there).
I enjoyed looking at the names.

Yes, there are differences in how the ornamentation of the hood and venting worked. I think only the Hupmobile had a different rake to the rear of the passenger compartment rear.

The headlights on some are mounted in the fender and others are attached in the older style would be the bigger different to my eye.

fintail

As you probably know, the Hupmobile used 1936/37 era Cord body dies, so it had a unique 4 window design, and would have appeared somewhat low-slung and rakish compared to the others. Too bad they didn't keep the hidden headlights, but that probably added costs seen as dangerous in an economy still stunted by the depression.

Hard to say what I'd choose that year. I've always liked the waterfall grille on Buicks that year, Mopars were very modern, 39 Ford/Mercury were excellent designs, and who can argue with a Cadillac or Packard?

imidazol97 said:

Yes, there are differences in how the ornamentation of the hood and venting worked. I think only the Hupmobile had a different rake to the rear of the passenger compartment rear.

The headlights on some are mounted in the fender and others are attached in the older style would be the bigger different to my eye.

oldfarmer50

fintail said:

As you probably know, the Hupmobile used 1936/37 era Cord body dies, so it had a unique 4 window design, and would have appeared somewhat low-slung and rakish compared to the others. Too bad they didn't keep the hidden headlights, but that probably added costs seen as dangerous in an economy still stunted by the depression.

Hard to say what I'd choose that year. I've always liked the waterfall grille on Buicks that year, Mopars were very modern, 39 Ford/Mercury were excellent designs, and who can argue with a Cadillac or Packard?

imidazol97 said:

Yes, there are differences in how the ornamentation of the hood and venting worked. I think only the Hupmobile had a different rake to the rear of the passenger compartment rear.

The headlights on some are mounted in the fender and others are attached in the older style would be the bigger different to my eye.

Of that group I would take the Lincoln Zephyr.

ab348

1939 wasn't the greatest year for styling overall and was transitional for a lot of makes as they moved to having headlights in the fenders rather than in separate pods and trying to make front-ends appear more integrated. GM in particular had a bad year for front-end designs in 1939.

When I looked at that pic the first one that jumped out at me was the Lincoln V-12, followed by LaSalle, Nash and Hudson.

abacomike

ab348 said:

1939 wasn't the greatest year for styling overall and was transitional for a lot of makes as they moved to having headlights in the fenders rather than in separate pods and trying to make front-ends appear more integrated. GM in particular had a bad year for front-end designs in 1939.

When I looked at that pic the first one that jumped out at me was the Lincoln V-12, followed by LaSalle, Nash and Hudson.

I loved the styling and quality of the Packard in the mid 1940's (post-war of course) and in the late 1930's. My grandfather had a 1948 Packard. For the era, very expensive.

venture

I finally got my wife out to the dealer to drive an Ascent. This is sort of like living in slow motion.

She liked it. The sales guy tried to talk her into a Touring model for 47k, but she told him that the Premium, at 37k, was fine. I told the sales dude that we could afford whatever she wanted, but we both lead a pretty basic lifestyle. Neither of us has time to try to impress anyone with our car choice (obviously).

You, by now, figure something happened. It didn't.

After we got back to the dealership she started looking at Outbacks and Foresters and commented that she really likes her Forester. The whole point of this search is that she occasionally needs seating for more than 5 people (and hers is getting old). A decision is, maybe, forthcoming.

stickguy

my wife went through the whole "what if I need the 3rd row" routine when we ditched the Odyssey for the RDX. Turns out, we lived without it just fine. the occasional time I got stuck driving extra people, either someone else with extra space had to do it, or we took 2 cars. And it was not that common an event anyway.

So, one more thing that falls into the category of rare enough, not worth spending money and driving something bigger than you want just to cover for it. Same as not needing an F150, because you buy bags of mulch 1x a year!

venture

stickguy said:

my wife went through the whole "what if I need the 3rd row" routine when we ditched the Odyssey for the RDX. Turns out, we lived without it just fine. the occasional time I got stuck driving extra people, either someone else with extra space had to do it, or we took 2 cars. And it was not that common an event anyway.

So, one more thing that falls into the category of rare enough, not worth spending money and driving something bigger than you want just to cover for it. Same as not needing an F150, because you buy bags of mulch 1x a year!

I agree completely, but she has to realize that.

I did find out that she uses our son-in-laws Dodge somethingorother when she needs more than 5, but she hates driving someone elses car. I don't know if this is going to end.

ab348

If you have to transport more than 5 people that are not your own kids, I would consider changing my pastimes or work-related duties so I never have to do that. Those who don't fit in the 5-seater would find another way of getting there.

stickguy

even better, get a convertible like Snake with a useless back seat. That way, you always have a built in excuse not to drive!

ab348

Hemmings Motor News has a daily email newsletter that I have gotten for years. Recently they used it a lot to promote their new online auction offering that is clearly targeted at BaT. I don't know all the details so maybe they offer cheaper rates or other advantages. So far it is looking like a very tough sell though since they have only a handful of listings.

The Saturday newsletter usually has one real estate ad featured. I didn't even know Hemmings took ads for real estate but they seem to have some. The ones featured on Saturdays are usually car-collector dream houses, with huge garages or shop buildings, often with lifts, and are usually higher-end houses. I suspect a lot of them are either car collectors who have gotten old and need to downsize, estate sales, or the result of marriages ending. Some of the places are truly nice, but I find more often than not that they are just sheer train-wreck entertainment. I know people's tastes run the gamut, and everyone likes different styles of decorating, furniture, home design and colors. But man, some of these - even million dollar homes - are just horrifically designed or decorated, at least to me. Then again, I was never the kind of person who had to have a gas fireplace in my bathroom. :laughing:

nyccarguy

stickguy said:

even better, get a convertible like Snake with a useless back seat. That way, you always have a built in excuse not to drive!

Sounds like a guy I used to work with. He smoked Menthols. I once asked him why menthols? He told me because most other people don’t smoke menthols, so nobody ever wants to bum a cigarette from him.

snakeweasel

stickguy said:

even better, get a convertible like Snake with a useless back seat. That way, you always have a built in excuse not to drive!

I would say that unless the grandkids are here we usually only end up with no more than 4 in the car. And when the grand kids are here they are with the daughter and SIL which means they have their van.

As for the convertibles, the Sebring has seats made for circus midgets. The 428 has a bit more leg room in the back and I'm sure that unless the play basketball we could fit some in the back easily. I'll check it out more when I get back home.

Anyway we have the Sonata which has plenty of backseat legroom.

sda

snakeweasel said:

stickguy said:

even better, get a convertible like Snake with a useless back seat. That way, you always have a built in excuse not to drive!

I would say that unless the grandkids are here we usually only end up with no more than 4 in the car. And when the grand kids are here they are with the daughter and SIL which means they have their van.

As for the convertibles, the Sebring has seats made for circus midgets. The 428 has a bit more leg room in the back and I'm sure that unless the play basketball we could fit some in the back easily. I'll check it out more when I get back home.

Anyway we have the Sonata which has plenty of backseat legroom.

Are you going to sell the Sebring?

snakeweasel

nyccarguy said:

stickguy said:

even better, get a convertible like Snake with a useless back seat. That way, you always have a built in excuse not to drive!

Sounds like a guy I used to work with. He smoked Menthols. I once asked him why menthols? He told me because most other people don’t smoke menthols, so nobody ever wants to bum a cigarette from him.

Reminds me of a chief petty officer I knew in the service who complained that everyone smoking filtered cigarettes was proof that there were no real men left.

snakeweasel

sda said:

snakeweasel said:

stickguy said:

even better, get a convertible like Snake with a useless back seat. That way, you always have a built in excuse not to drive!

I would say that unless the grandkids are here we usually only end up with no more than 4 in the car. And when the grand kids are here they are with the daughter and SIL which means they have their van.

As for the convertibles, the Sebring has seats made for circus midgets. The 428 has a bit more leg room in the back and I'm sure that unless the play basketball we could fit some in the back easily. I'll check it out more when I get back home.

Anyway we have the Sonata which has plenty of backseat legroom.

Are you going to sell the Sebring?

Are you looking to buy?

sda

snakeweasel said:

sda said:

snakeweasel said:

stickguy said:

even better, get a convertible like Snake with a useless back seat. That way, you always have a built in excuse not to drive!

I would say that unless the grandkids are here we usually only end up with no more than 4 in the car. And when the grand kids are here they are with the daughter and SIL which means they have their van.

As for the convertibles, the Sebring has seats made for circus midgets. The 428 has a bit more leg room in the back and I'm sure that unless the play basketball we could fit some in the back easily. I'll check it out more when I get back home.

Anyway we have the Sonata which has plenty of backseat legroom.

Are you going to sell the Sebring?

Are you looking to buy?

I wish I had room for a weekend project car. I love convertibles and have had 5 in the past, including a somewhat rare 92 LeBaron GTC 2.5 turbo with 5speed manual transmission, sport seats, leather, loaded.

snakeweasel

sda said:

snakeweasel said:

sda said:

snakeweasel said:

stickguy said:

even better, get a convertible like Snake with a useless back seat. That way, you always have a built in excuse not to drive!

I would say that unless the grandkids are here we usually only end up with no more than 4 in the car. And when the grand kids are here they are with the daughter and SIL which means they have their van.

As for the convertibles, the Sebring has seats made for circus midgets. The 428 has a bit more leg room in the back and I'm sure that unless the play basketball we could fit some in the back easily. I'll check it out more when I get back home.

Anyway we have the Sonata which has plenty of backseat legroom.

Are you going to sell the Sebring?

Are you looking to buy?

I wish I had room for a weekend project car. I love convertibles and have had 5 in the past, including a somewhat rare 92 LeBaron GTC 2.5 turbo with 5speed manual transmission, sport seats, leather, loaded.

Actually we are keeping it, it makes a decent car to use to keep the use of the BMW to a minimum and to keep it out of the snow (I'd rather have someone slide into the Sebring over the 428). It's 12 years old and pushing 140k miles so it's pretty much depreciated out so we wont be losing value by keeping it and the only real costs would be liability insurance and registration. Once it gives up the ghost I'll sell it to the junk yard.

snakeweasel

snakeweasel said:

stickguy said:

even better, get a convertible like Snake with a useless back seat. That way, you always have a built in excuse not to drive!

I would say that unless the grandkids are here we usually only end up with no more than 4 in the car. And when the grand kids are here they are with the daughter and SIL which means they have their van.

As for the convertibles, the Sebring has seats made for circus midgets. The 428 has a bit more leg room in the back and I'm sure that unless the play basketball we could fit some in the back easily. I'll check it out more when I get back home.

Anyway we have the Sonata which has plenty of backseat legroom.

Ok I check the BMW, I was able to sit comfortably in the back seat with the seat at my wifes settings. I am 6 foot 2 and while not spacious I wasn't contorted. It was just a bit difficult getting in and out of with the top up.

oldfarmer50

snakeweasel said:

stickguy said:

even better, get a convertible like Snake with a useless back seat. That way, you always have a built in excuse not to drive!

I would say that unless the grandkids are here we usually only end up with no more than 4 in the car. And when the grand kids are here they are with the daughter and SIL which means they have their van.

As for the convertibles, the Sebring has seats made for circus midgets. The 428 has a bit more leg room in the back and I'm sure that unless the play basketball we could fit some in the back easily. I'll check it out more when I get back home.

Anyway we have the Sonata which has plenty of backseat legroom.

Your 2008 has no rear leg room? My 2000 has plenty. Guess that’s the difference between Iacocca and Deiter.

driver100

venture said:

After we got back to the dealership she started looking at Outbacks and Foresters and commented that she really likes her Forester. The whole point of this search is that she occasionally needs seating for more than 5 people (and hers is getting old). A decision is, maybe, forthcoming.

It is all part of the process of finding what is best for you. I agree with the others, don't buy a 5 or 7 seater if you are only going to use it a few times a year for that purpose - you will find a way to manage.
Drive what you want to drive!

driver100

We had to drive into Toronto today......hate driving in a big city like that, takes forever to get anywhere.

I was surprised that WAYZ on my wife's phone tells you if there is a police car ahead.....better than radar detectors which were made illegal here. The other nice thing is it actually tells you if there is a red light camera ahead.
I wonder if it tells you if there is an unmarked police car sneaking up behind me?

suydam

stickguy said:

my wife went through the whole "what if I need the 3rd row" routine when we ditched the Odyssey for the RDX. Turns out, we lived without it just fine. the occasional time I got stuck driving extra people, either someone else with extra space had to do it, or we took 2 cars. And it was not that common an event anyway.

So, one more thing that falls into the category of rare enough, not worth spending money and driving something bigger than you want just to cover for it. Same as not needing an F150, because you buy bags of mulch 1x a year!

On the rare occasion such as when we had all the kids out here at the same time, we rented a bigger car for the weekend. So I don’t have to drive a larger car than I want the other 99% of the time.

explorerx4

Kind of up and running on my new desktop.
Can't post pictures. None of the tools are working for me.

ab348

explorerx4 said:

Can't post pictures. None of the tools are working for me.

Welcome to the club.

fintail

That's a good view of the year, I hadn't thought about it like that. A metamorphosis year, kind of like 1960-61 depending on the car, where one design language was being abandoned for another, with a year or two of tweener cars to bridge the gap. Then by 62-63, everyone had moved on (and then again in 65). The rate of change seems to have slowed from then on.

ab348 said:

1939 wasn't the greatest year for styling overall and was transitional for a lot of makes as they moved to having headlights in the fenders rather than in separate pods and trying to make front-ends appear more integrated. GM in particular had a bad year for front-end designs in 1939.

When I looked at that pic the first one that jumped out at me was the Lincoln V-12, followed by LaSalle, Nash and Hudson.

fintail

The real estate thing makes me think of this amusing site

Good luck competing with BaT, it is a lifestyle thing now, I am surprised they don't sell branded clothing.

ab348 said:

Hemmings Motor News has a daily email newsletter that I have gotten for years. Recently they used it a lot to promote their new online auction offering that is clearly targeted at BaT. I don't know all the details so maybe they offer cheaper rates or other advantages. So far it is looking like a very tough sell though since they have only a handful of listings.

The Saturday newsletter usually has one real estate ad featured. I didn't even know Hemmings took ads for real estate but they seem to have some. The ones featured on Saturdays are usually car-collector dream houses, with huge garages or shop buildings, often with lifts, and are usually higher-end houses. I suspect a lot of them are either car collectors who have gotten old and need to downsize, estate sales, or the result of marriages ending. Some of the places are truly nice, but I find more often than not that they are just sheer train-wreck entertainment. I know people's tastes run the gamut, and everyone likes different styles of decorating, furniture, home design and colors. But man, some of these - even million dollar homes - are just horrifically designed or decorated, at least to me. Then again, I was never the kind of person who had to have a gas fireplace in my bathroom. :laughing:

oldfarmer50

sda said:

snakeweasel said:

sda said:

snakeweasel said:

stickguy said:

even better, get a convertible like Snake with a useless back seat. That way, you always have a built in excuse not to drive!

I would say that unless the grandkids are here we usually only end up with no more than 4 in the car. And when the grand kids are here they are with the daughter and SIL which means they have their van.

As for the convertibles, the Sebring has seats made for circus midgets. The 428 has a bit more leg room in the back and I'm sure that unless the play basketball we could fit some in the back easily. I'll check it out more when I get back home.

Anyway we have the Sonata which has plenty of backseat legroom.

Are you going to sell the Sebring?

Are you looking to buy?

I wish I had room for a weekend project car. I love convertibles and have had 5 in the past, including a somewhat rare 92 LeBaron GTC 2.5 turbo with 5speed manual transmission, sport seats, leather, loaded.

I was looking for a Labaron convertible for years but low mileage decent one were like hen’s teeth unless you wanted to spend big bucks. Finally went for the 96’-2000’ Sebring successor. Those are now hard to find too as the newest ones are 20 years old. They aren’t super fast and they won’t win awards for handling but I got another compliment from a stranger the other day and my whole car only cost what a brake job does on some superior cars.

oldfarmer50

ab348 said:

explorerx4 said:

Can't post pictures. None of the tools are working for me.

Welcome to the club.

Earlier, several attempts to post were met with “draft not found”. No pics or emotorcons either. I think a host tripped over a wire and unplugged us.

explorerx4

roadburner won't be happy with the results of this comparo. Too bad, so sad.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/autos-sports/2020-toyota-supra-vs-bmw-m2-vs-ford-mustang-shelby-gt350-vs-porsche-718-cayman/ar-AAHWciv?li=BBnb4R5

ab348

I haven’t read the text of that comparo, but I’m willing to bet the most recently introduced vehicle won. First rule of auto journalism. Second rule is that the first rule is waived for GM products.

ab348

fintail said:

The real estate thing makes me think of this amusing site

The examples there are almost better than some of the rooms shown in today’s feature:

https://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/real-estate/unspecified/unspecified/2033171.html

abacomike

oldfarmer50 said:

ab348 said:

explorerx4 said:

Can't post pictures. None of the tools are working for me.

Welcome to the club.

Earlier, several attempts to post were met with “draft not found”. No pics or emotorcons either. I think a host tripped over a wire and unplugged us.

When I am on my iPhone or desktop, I can never access the emoticons on this site - never!

explorerx4

@ab348,
That house seems to be very reasonably priced.
Don't really know the area though.

oldfarmer50

explorerx4 said:

roadburner won't be happy with the results of this comparo. Too bad, so sad.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/autos-sports/2020-toyota-supra-vs-bmw-m2-vs-ford-mustang-shelby-gt350-vs-porsche-718-cayman/ar-AAHWciv?li=BBnb4R5

I’m very happy with the results. Wonder if I can get some Pilot Sport Cup tires for my rig.

driver100

fintail said:

That's a good view of the year, I hadn't thought about it like that. A metamorphosis year, kind of like 1960-61 depending on the car, where one design language was being abandoned for another, with a year or two of tweener cars to bridge the gap. Then by 62-63, everyone had moved on (and then again in 65). The rate of change seems to have slowed from then on.

ab348 said:

1939 wasn't the greatest year for styling overall and was transitional for a lot of makes as they moved to having headlights in the fenders rather than in separate pods and trying to make front-ends appear more integrated. GM in particular had a bad year for front-end designs in 1939.

When I looked at that pic the first one that jumped out at me was the Lincoln V-12, followed by LaSalle, Nash and Hudson.

I think 1955 was a major change year. Up until then fenders seemed like add on items...by 1955 cars became a single smooth unit:

1954:

sda

oldfarmer50 said:

sda said:

snakeweasel said:

sda said:

snakeweasel said:

stickguy said:

even better, get a convertible like Snake with a useless back seat. That way, you always have a built in excuse not to drive!

I would say that unless the grandkids are here we usually only end up with no more than 4 in the car. And when the grand kids are here they are with the daughter and SIL which means they have their van.

As for the convertibles, the Sebring has seats made for circus midgets. The 428 has a bit more leg room in the back and I'm sure that unless the play basketball we could fit some in the back easily. I'll check it out more when I get back home.

Anyway we have the Sonata which has plenty of backseat legroom.

Are you going to sell the Sebring?

Are you looking to buy?

I wish I had room for a weekend project car. I love convertibles and have had 5 in the past, including a somewhat rare 92 LeBaron GTC 2.5 turbo with 5speed manual transmission, sport seats, leather, loaded.

I was looking for a Labaron convertible for years but low mileage decent one were like hen’s teeth unless you wanted to spend big bucks. Finally went for the 96’-2000’ Sebring successor. Those are now hard to find too as the newest ones are 20 years old. They aren’t super fast and they won’t win awards for handling but I got another compliment from a stranger the other day and my whole car only cost what a brake job does on some superior cars.

I thought the styling of those was (is) quite sharp. Chasis rigidity and interior quality was much better as well. They could use more power yet perfectly acceptable with the V6.

ab348

explorerx4 said:

@ab348,
That house seems to be very reasonably priced.
Don't really know the area though.

The price probably reflects the location being some distance from major cities. Of course, you’d have to budget for redecorating and renovations inside (at least I would).

roadburner

explorerx4 said:

roadburner won't be happy with the results of this comparo. Too bad, so sad.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/autos-sports/2020-toyota-supra-vs-bmw-m2-vs-ford-mustang-shelby-gt350-vs-porsche-718-cayman/ar-AAHWciv?li=BBnb4R5

Not a bad car in the bunch; it depends on your priorities. The Ford dealers in the Louisville area are incredibly underwhelming on their best day, so for me the choice would be between the M2C and the Supra. In any case, a mild tune, R Compound rubber, and an M Performance LSD would put my five year old 2 Series in the same performance envelope as the four cars in that test.
And honestly, if I bought a Mustang I'd truly miss getting flipped off by all the UAW workers in their brodozer
F-150s...

andres3

oldfarmer50 said:

explorerx4 said:

roadburner won't be happy with the results of this comparo. Too bad, so sad.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/autos-sports/2020-toyota-supra-vs-bmw-m2-vs-ford-mustang-shelby-gt350-vs-porsche-718-cayman/ar-AAHWciv?li=BBnb4R5

I’m very happy with the results. Wonder if I can get some Pilot Sport Cup tires for my rig.

Sport Cup 2 tires are excellent. I've had them before, and I think I want them again. They help you get all you paid for from your fun/sports car.