![]() 09/09/2013 at 09:51 • Filed to: WAT | ![]() | ![]() |
Sadly, not a 'shop. !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .
![]() 09/09/2013 at 09:59 |
|
Except for the portholes and reverse hood scoop... it's not bad.
![]() 09/09/2013 at 10:00 |
|
IT BELONGS IN A MUSEUM
![]() 09/09/2013 at 10:00 |
|
CRAAAAAS!
![]() 09/09/2013 at 10:03 |
|
OK, this made me chuckle. :)
![]() 09/09/2013 at 10:09 |
|
![]() 09/09/2013 at 10:09 |
|
![]() 09/09/2013 at 10:13 |
|
I thought the same thing. The overall build work appears to be better than factory. I guess that isn't saying much, considering the quality of work that Chrysler was putting out at the time.
![]() 09/09/2013 at 10:21 |
|
They weren't bad cars at all. They had some odd design elements in the mechanical department, but when taken care of they were reliable, decent machines.
![]() 09/09/2013 at 10:27 |
|
![]() 09/09/2013 at 10:27 |
|
![]() 09/09/2013 at 10:27 |
|
![]() 09/09/2013 at 10:27 |
|
![]() 09/09/2013 at 10:27 |
|
![]() 09/09/2013 at 11:21 |
|
Agree.
in some twisted way, this thing is nice!
![]() 09/09/2013 at 11:45 |
|
I like it. I wouldn't be caught dead in it, but it's creative and some serious quality work went into it. Nice.
![]() 09/09/2013 at 11:47 |
|
It is a mullet expressed in metal.
![]() 09/09/2013 at 12:25 |
|
It's actually not the worst thing my eyes have seen. I would lose the portholes, and paint it a dark metallic blue. I've always thought the Concorde looked Camaro-ish in the front. Sure, why the hell not?