Mystery car pix

fintail

Jag from right after the war, MK V or something close

andys120

1948 Mk. IV.

andys120

kyfdx

I cheated... Nice, though...

michaellno

Alfa Romeo Brera?

Or, since the head designer of Alfa went to SEAT a few years ago, some sort of SEAT?

ateixeira

Hotness.

The 2+2 was pretty rare for the Z, I think I only saw 1-2 of them, ever.

-juice

Mr_Shiftright

Calling a technical foul on you, and a "picky-picky" one it is, too :P ---there is no such car as a Mark IV, because when they made this car they had no idea there would be a Mark V. It should be called a "1948 Jaguar 3.5 liter Drop Head Coupe".

Another one of those misnomers that annoys me is the "1964 & 1/2 Mustang", another no-such-animal.

ateixeira

Ford is strange, though. I was in a dealer when I bought my '91 Escort GT and they had a marketing package that they called a "91 & 1/2". But that appeared only in the marketing materials.

It was basically a unique color paint, with rims painted partially to match. Officially it was still a 91.

Any how, the people that say 64.5 probably are refering to some obscure marketing materials Ford probably had back then.

-juice

Mr_Shiftright

Nah, I think Mustang aficiandos just "made it up". Ford never titled or built a 64.5 model. What it does is identify early Mustangs with certain unique features, like a 260 V-8 and a generator.

bhill2

I am not challenging your accuracy about the name of the 1948 Jag beasty, but I have a picky-picky with your logic in saying "there is no such car as a Mark IV, because when they made this car they had no idea there would be a Mark V". They didn't have to know there would be a Mark V. They just had to know that there was a Mark III and this one was an update of it. That would be enough reason to call it a Mark IV. Jaguar actually did that, didn't they? I think that the big tank that they turned out in the '60s was called a Mark X; at least that's the only way I ever heard it referred to.

stickguy

wasn't the 'Stang somewhat unique (for the time) in that it came out early in the year, as opposed to the normal MY change in the fall? Common today, but not then, right?

And, since there were some significant changes, it made sense to distinquish the different types of '65s, even if they technically were all the same MY.

VW is the worst offender. They introduced a totally redesigned Jetta, but kept the same MY, even though it came out in the next CY. Made no sense to me.

Mr_Shiftright

Sorry for the confusion....no, there was no Mark III, and Jaguar never made a Mark IV as a consequence....so literally that's right there is no such car as a Mark IV, but people and books have gotten into the habit of calling it that.

Prewar cars were generally identified by their liter capacity and/or the "SS" nameplate, which of course was dropped for obvious reasons.

MUSTANG 64.5 -- I think the point is that the factory never made a 64.5 Mustang, no matter what the public wants to call it. All Mustangs are 1965 on up. There is no titled Mustang with 64.5 on it.

In fact, one should never refer to any car in a series as a Mark I if other Marks followed it, unless of course the factory named it such from the get-go. Few did that--I'm trying to think of one that did

fintail

In England they (unofficially) use the "Mk" labels for countless cars, from a Mk I Vauxhall Cavalier to a Mk I Golf etc.

andys120

I got the Mk.IV designator from an ad in HMN. Actually now that you mention it I really don't understand those designators as applied to Jaguar sedans.

The so-called Mk.IV is a 1948 car but the Mk.I was introduced in 1955 :confuse:. By the time that was updated to a Mk.II (ca.'59 IIRC) the Big sedans were up to Mk. VII :sick:

Perhaps there's a different base between the big ones and the smaller sport sedans.

andys120

kyfdx

The Mustang came out in April of '64, I think... But, of course, they were all '65 Mustangs...

What I can't figure out? The guys that say they have a '64.5? Where do they decide the cutoff date? Is it any Mustang made before January, '65? Or is it any Mustang built before the normal new '65 introductions in September, '64?

Or...is there something different in the first batch... that wasn't offered later in the '65 model year?

Inquiring minds want to know!!

subearu

Looks like a Plymouth Satellite convertible.

-Brian

stickguy

I think the biggest difference is the engine. They went from the 260 to the 289 V8. Someone also mentined moving from a generator to an altenator, and I'm sure there were some other tweaks.

lemmer

ateixeira

Looks like a Passat but it's not. Could be a SEAT maybe, in Spain?

I see a CR-V in the background, do I get bonus points? :P

-juice

lemmer

You are warm.

ateixeira

Gotta be the other subsidiary, then.

Skoda Octavia? Is that the name?

-juice

andys120

I'll go with Skoda Octavia as well, they're nearly impossible to tell from Passats at that angle. Oddly SEAT doesn't seem to offer a version of the Passat but they have
one of most other VWS.

andys120

lemmer

Skoda SuperB, really just a Passat as you say.

lemmer

It looks like a 456 or a 550.

andys120

Skoda SuperB, really just a Passat as you say.

Doh! I knew that, the Octavia is the rebadged Bora/Jetta.

BTW, it's Superb, not SuperB

andys120

It looks like a 456 or a 550.

Which is it?

navigator89

Ferrari 456M.

lemmer

I really have no idea how to say it, but my friend who drives it is a Slovak living in Slovakia, and he says his car is a SuperB. Who am I to argue?

navigator89

Mr_Shiftright

Why they called the second car in the series a Mark V instead of a Mark II....well, you got me! Perhaps you are right, they had plans for the name MK II ??? Dunno....

firemanjack

If I'm not mistaken, the 64.5's had 13 inch wheels too..

firemanjack

Is this a '66? Pretty car
Jack

andys120

Is this a '66? Pretty car
Jack

'67 Plymouth Belvidere.

andys120

Yep, it's a Ferrari 456M, I've long been a fan of Ferraris 2+2 Gentleman's Expresses.

Your VW Transporter Van (#4211) must be the latest iteration of the Eurovan/Transporter/Microbus. I've lost track of what they call 'em now. :confuse:

andys120

Very classy ride IMO.

imidazol97

1964 Buick Electra (convertible)

firemanjack

Electra 225 bout a 65

andys120

That's right it's a '64 Electra, ain't it sweet?

fintail

Those are one of the very few wheels that look OK with a whitewall

andys120

Mr_Shiftright

Okay you have to tell me the model NAME of this rare wagon...."210" is not the correct answer.

ateixeira

Chevy Nomad?

That Buick looks as big as about 4 of my Miatas, same color even.

-juice

fintail

That's a Holden from around 1965....Premier I believe

Aussies liked sunvisors through the late 60s and even later

imidazol97

1957 Chevy. 210 4-dr wagon. It's not a Nomad. The Nomads all had the chacteristic wrap-around rear window.

Nomad example:



Who can identify the car next to the Nomad? I'm not sure but it sure looks familiar.

fintail

Didn't some late 50s wagons have odd names like "Townsman" or "Brookwood" etc?

lemko

I believe the Brookwood was the equivalent to the 150 or Biscayne. The Parkwood was the equivalent to the 210 or Bel Air. The Nomad was the Impala equivalent. I recall for 1956, the low-end wagon was the Handyman and the high-end nine-passenger wagon was the Beauville. I think the 210 version was the Townsman. Not sure about that '57 pictured above.

Mr_Shiftright

Nope, none of you got it.

GIVE UP?

Hint: it is a 9 passenger wagon, rather rare, but it had a name other than the 210 designation, which it is.

So it's a 210, but also a "___________"

imidazol97

Suburban????
Beauville?
Townsman?