http://www.ebay.com/itm/Other-Makes-Lincoln-Bugazzi-MOST-AMAZING-GEORGE-BARRIS-CREATION-EVER-BUILT-1972-lincoln-bugazzi-the-/391051113836?forcerrptr=true&hash=item5b0c76756c&item=391051113836&pt=US_Cars_Trucks
Ultimate pimpmobile!
Makes me want to puke :eeew:
The inside look like a bathroom. Marble and brass/gold , gaudy crap.
Pukemobile.....
I would think that would be right up some basketball or football player's alley. Especially like the expensive steering wheel cover --- perfect for the car. :No:
To me, this underscores how "right" Lincoln got the car.
Even Kings of Kustoms couldn't change anything that'd improve upon it.
Eldos were for " pimpin' " . . .
Marks were for straight bidtness. :rotfl:
The Marks were full of styling cliches to begin with. But that is just ugly. Who ever said Barris ever did anything tasteful anyway.
Mike
You said it, Mike. I have never seen a Barris car that I would want to own or drive. Most of his work is just plain stupid and without any class or good taste whatsoever.
Personally, I always liked the Lincolns and Mark series. Their performance wasn't worth a damn, but their ride and interior noise level beat Cadillac hands down.
Ueah, you can stuff in a lot of insulation and hold it up with marshmallows to get that. And add steering that has utterly no mechanical (or so it would seem) connection to it as well. I always hated the way early to mid 70's Fords drove. Lincolns were the worse.
Mike
The Mark V's were my favorites. The most memorable being the Diamond Jubilee Edition. It was a Silver Blue that was just awesome.
Rode in a 70s Lincoln once.
It made me seasick.
Those Designer Editions were just so gauche.
Mike
Neither one of you two like Ford products, it's as simple as that. For some reason you like those boxy Caddy's and Chevy's. To me they just plain butt ugly.
I don't dislike all Fords. Besides a boxy Cadillac is better looking than a tacky designer Mark.
Mike
Ueah never did like Furds. Vaguely remember dad's 60 sunliner and his 66? Econoline for work.
Clearly recall telling the neighbor kid our 68 CADILLAC was better than his parents' station wagon (Country Squire).
Funny how the Squire will fetch more than the Cadillac today, though.
So will a Chevy II. So what's that say? That it's better?
Mike
Funny you should mention Cheby II; that's what mom drove.
Or a Mustang, Bronco, Camaro, Chevelle, etc. ad infinitum. It's just interesting that Cadillacs in general are fair to middlin' when it comes to desirability by enthusiasts.
Nothing wrong with that. Yes, there are a lot of big dollar Cadillacs, but low prices mean that they are easier to enjoy. I hope it stays that way for a long time. All the others can spend the big bucks on the cheaper cars all they want.
Mike
Quote from: guidematic on February 15, 2015, 11:43:24 PM
I don't dislike all Fords. Besides a boxy Cadillac is better looking than a tacky designer Mark.
Mike
This argument could go on til the cows come home. The facts are, it all boils down to a persons opinion. You keep you shoe box and I'll drive the Lincoln. You'll be happy and so will I.
That said, I like Cadillac up until 1977 when they went small. The spaciousness of a 76 Fleetwood or Sedan just screams comfort and room to move. Lincolns were just as big but I'd still rather have the Cadillac. I've had all three types of cars. It's a simple matter of personal preference. That's why there are multiple makes and styles of cars.
It could. Styling is very subjective. I really love the big pre-downsized cars, but the boxy Cadillacs are still quite practical for everyday use. Plus they are still quite large inside and have cavernous trunks.
Mike
A trunk is one thing my Eldorado simply does not have. With the full sized spare in there, 2 car show chairs and the hard and soft boots, it's packed full.
But it does have that 20 foot hood on it. :yeah baby: :yes:
As much as I love them, I could never own an Eldorado of this vintage for that reason. Their use of space is horrific. Tiny trunk and a back seat that can barely accommodate anyone.
Besides, I have that heroically long hood on the `70. Plus a huge interior and a cavernous trunk. That works for me.
Mike
I'm thinking that the trunk space difference is illusion or perception. :chin:
I'd almost bet my Misfit registration that there isn't a six-pack's difference between '70 Dev and "Fly" Eldo trunk space.
...and since a case would nicely rest on the Eldo's flat tunnel-less floor, that didn't matter. :rotfl:
Fly Eldo trunk 'clearance' spec is easy to remember, at 13.6'.
How 'bout the '70 luggage space specs, what'd Cad say for them? :read:
70 Fleetwood is 19.5 cu ft if I remember right. What is it in the 71 -78 Eldo?
19.5 on the boxies too. 21 on the 93 - 96 if memory serves me right.
Mike
Ueagh, but going by memory just opens this to more speculation. :confused2:
Someone must have O-fficial '69 '70 data?
Eldo '72 is 13.6, per Cadillac/AMA data.
Not that I track such things, but that's an easy figure to remember in the States.
Probably didn't change much through the '78 run.
Maybe with the compact spare? :chin:
Any Eldo spare wheel has a deep offset, so flipping it over frees up that circular space; not sure if Cadillac calculated same.
I'll have to dig. I have all the info somewhere. And those numbers won't be far off if at all. 13.6 cu ft is pretty small, though.
Mike
Quick search through brochures. The boxies, 19.5. 93 - 96, 21.1. No quick find on the 1970.
Mike
Perhaps the answer is here? http://cadillacmisfits.com/index.php?topic=5274.0
Although I guess a fire or something wiped out the records from 1968 to 1973. Will 1974 help?
I think the '56 is about 24 or 25 cft. Maybe even more.
Late 50's early 60's trunks were huge. The 1960 Chevrolet was something like 29 cu ft.
Mike
Ueah Uncle Guido says, late 50s trunks 'sleep 6 comfortably'.
I was thinking' '54-6 mighta been the trunk stowage king. :chin:
:read: But no need for Cad's burned records, the data is published like mad at introduction time.
Salesman's data book, anybody?
59 Data book, specs for most all the engine internals but no numbers for interior or trunk footage.
I'll deal with this when I get up.
Denrep? You're laying odds that Eldorado and Coupe'/Sedan/Fleetwood have like sized trunk space?
Where can I lay my $20 against you. Full spare or SpaceSaver, they really are small. I can't remember ever filling the truck of my 69-70-71-72 Full sized cads.
I'm guessing that there isn't that much difference in specs.
Maybe a couple cubic feet? :confused2:
Basically a beer case.
Quote from: Fins on February 17, 2015, 06:51:54 AM
I can't remember ever filling the truck of my 69-70-71-72 Full sized cads.
I filled the trunk on my 63, when we went camping with a family of 4.
You drink some huge cans of beer for a case to make a couple of cubes. A case of bottles isn't even 2cf.
Hey...Just layin out those Denrep technicalities.
I still can't put my fingers on the 1970 specs. But I do remember trunk capacity being just a tick smaller in the Fleetwood. I'd just like to remember where I read those specs.
Mike
http://www.dimensionsinfo.com/beer-case-dimensions/
QuoteThe typical US beer case dimensions are 16 x 16 x 24 inches. Beer cases of this size usually hold 24 bottles or cans of beer. . . .
1.33 x 1.33 x 2.0 = 3.54 cf. :confused2:
Quote from: guidematic on February 17, 2015, 03:54:23 PM
I still can't put my fingers on the 1970 specs. But I do remember trunk capacity being just a tick smaller in the Fleetwood. I'd just like to remember where I read those specs.
AMA specifications.
Gotta be around.
I tried to find the exact volume for the '56 in the stats given in the link I posted . No luck. They have every dimension of the trunk interior you can think of - max height, min height, depth, max width, max diagonal width, width of lid opening, etc. - but no volume calculation.
I have them here somewhere. I just need to find them. I looked in brochures, the shop manual, The Standard Catalog of Cadillac.....
Mike
We'll hafta fill 'em up with water and measure.
:Muttley:
El Paso on that deal. I know an Eldorado ain't got sh*t for room back there.
And you don't need hard numbers, calculations or buckets of water to tell that.
Mike
:No:
Hand me that horse whip, we ain't done here yet. :rotfl:
Quote from: guidematic on February 17, 2015, 11:09:54 PM
And you don't need hard numbers, calculations or buckets of water to tell that.
Yah you do. :hammer:
Let's get the tape measures out.
They were made to the same ol' "envelope" out of the same ol' stuff... how much difference can there be? :confused2:
We've got supposedly 13.6 for Eldo.
One of these days I'll measure one to confirm that.
What say? We measure from seat-panel to tail-panel and quarter to quarter and floor to deck, and then compare notes?
Like I said, appearances aside, I'll bet we won't find a beer case of difference.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Eldo rear pan is even the same basic stamping as used with RWD. :chin:
There will also be a difference in the non-convertible trunk. You lose the entire upper deck with a vert. Anything placed there either will break the glass or prevent the top from going down all of the way. You also need to take in account space saver spares or full sized spares when calculating usable space.
Right, and right.
With convertibles there's a top-down and top-up AMA number.
I'm not sure how the spare is calculated, we'd have to compare years when it was available to not.
Or maybe the spec is without spare? :chin:
We'll have to check the specs' specs. :read:
I would think rear AC would subtract space too.
Quote from: Denrep on February 17, 2015, 04:34:03 PM
http://www.dimensionsinfo.com/beer-case-dimensions/
QuoteThe typical US beer case dimensions are 16 x 16 x 24 inches. Beer cases of this size usually hold 24 bottles or cans of beer. . . .
1.33 x 1.33 x 2.0 = 3.54 cf. :confused2:
Wow, that would be huge, I don't buy it for a second.
I just measured a 24 bottle case and got 9" high, 10-1/4" wide and 15-1/4" long = 0.81 cf. But then of course our Canadian bottles are 341mL instead of 355 mL.
Those dimensions would "case" only bottles of less than 2.5" diameter.
Is that typical up north?
Yup, that's the standard. If they were any wider they would be like a stubby and would be shorter.
Your beer bottles are not much different.
24 beers is ~0.3 cf of liquid, packaging that in anything larger than 1cf would be such a waste of space.
No way do you need to measure. Just look. I noted the sizes of the boxies, that`s from the brochure. 6-6 1/2 cu ft bigger. That`s a fair amount.
Mike
Won't cost us anything to measure. Then we can use our own known accurate data.
The "boxies" are a different animal.
I thought we were comparing contemporaries, of the late '60s early '70s era - Mark, Eldo, RWD...
Of those, I'm still of the opinion that Eldo and RWD Cad end up neckNneck.
They're cut from the same cloth, I don't see how there could be any great difference. :confused2:
Different bodies. E body and C body.
There is no way the trunk in the Eldo is as big as the trunk in my '70. Or that of the trunk of the '75 CDV I had.
Mike
Sure, technically E and C are classified as different platforms.
But practically, they were thrifty reworks of shared parts.
They're more like two subspecies of the same basic components.
And not just hidden basic parts, even plainly visible exterior components were shared between E and C. :confused2:
Which brings us back to trunk space...
Being of shared components, similar dimensions, ''foot prints" silhouettes, etc., I don't see how there could be a significant difference. :confused2:
Guess we'll hafta break out the tape measures some day.
I don't care enough about the whole deal anymore to do that.
Mike