![]() 09/20/2013 at 13:42 • Filed to: None | ![]() | ![]() |
This was easily the most beautiful thing for miles around.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 13:43 |
|
"Even though I don't particularly care for the styling" but why not? 'Tis beautiful.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 13:46 |
|
Just doesn't do it for me. I can't explain it. It's like when people ask why you don't like to eat something. I just don't like salmon or jags.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 13:48 |
|
You've done it. You've made me realize that there's something slightly wrong about the rear lights to my sense of aesthetics, though I can't quite put my finger on it. They changed them for the V12, but they're still not right somehow.
You've just ruined the E-type for me. Ass.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 13:49 |
|
I actually despise the exhaust on those - it looks like it was purely an afterthought, and totally distracts from the sleekness and beauty of the rest of the car. The rest of the car is gorgeous enough to more than make up for it, but it is something that has always annoyed me about them.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 13:49 |
|
'65-67 Series 1 Roadster.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 13:49 |
|
Fair enough. Maybe.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 13:50 |
|
I'd say I'm sorry, but that'd be a lie. Welcome to the Calzone side.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 13:51 |
|
Good. Possibly.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 13:51 |
|
I agree, it needs side pipes
![]() 09/20/2013 at 13:59 |
|
Think putting 'em in recess with the two extra lights as "blades" one over the other and in parallel to the outside would fix it?
Like:
= o [ ] o =
With the bumperette shoe mostly replaced with a ring for bumper-through exhaust?
![]() 09/20/2013 at 14:02 |
|
They changed the rear of the car for the '69-71 series 2 cars. Safety regulations dictated that they needed better bumpers and more lighting.
S1
S2
The later taillights is what looks like an after thought. The V12 cars changed even more.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 14:04 |
|
See, while I think putting lights below the bumper helps in some respects (doesn't break the lines on the succulent butt), it doesn't help overall in that the rear lights are EGAD! levels of ugly on US-spec when you finally do see them.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 14:10 |
|
No, it'd still be an E-type.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 14:15 |
|
Series 1 E-type.
Thou shall not speak ill of.
Series 2 and 3.
Bleh! Go nuts.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 14:18 |
|
I do what I want!!
![]() 09/20/2013 at 14:27 |
|
I like the smooth underside of the S1 cars. The smooth underside remained in the S2 cars, but was obstructed by that fascia and lights that look like they were from a trailer. Then came the S3, where they just said 'fuckit' and filled in the area with a deeper trunk.
It was important that the styling of the E-Type was close to the LeMans dominating D-Type.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 16:20 |
|
Where was this in Maine btw?
![]() 09/20/2013 at 16:21 |
|
Lewiston
![]() 09/20/2013 at 16:26 |
|
Ah I'm in York. So far south its almost NH. lol
![]() 09/20/2013 at 16:28 |
|
I live even farther north, but not so far that it is almost Canada.
![]() 09/20/2013 at 16:45 |
|
God damnit it's happened to me too.
What I'd do is integrate the lights into the rear bumper, relatively unchanged.
That way you'd get the slim look of the lights and uininterrupted curves above and below the bumper. Job done.
I'd do that to an S3 V12 roadster with a shortened wheelbase (to put the proportions back right), a less busy front chrome front and the gorgeous tailpipes and flared wheelarches that work so well on the E-Type shape.