![]() 05/14/2014 at 17:58 • Filed to: None | ![]() | ![]() |
Questions answered: What would a last-gen LeSabre look like as a convertible? Answer: Really damn good why the hell didn't they do this.
Questions asked: WHY?
Losing the C pillar really makes it look like less of a Grandpa car, but why the lack of a grille? And why on earth is the rear lowered more than the front?
Why is the dash popped up on the right side? Good job on the speakers and reapulstory, though. Looks pretty decent.
UM.
Why would you put a super-busy graphic like that on here? It looked decent (aside from the rims) before you did that. Ugh.
Also, them speakers. WUB WUB WUB WUB WUB WUB (trying to fill up space to get to the next line) WUB WUB WUB WUB WUB WUB WUB.
Whatever.
Why, again, is it lower in the back? This isn't a truck, you don't do the Alabama Squat in a luxury sedan. Though I will say yet again this looks better (the idea of this car as a convertible) than any convertible available at the time (I dislike wedges)
Bonus hellaflush Buick. Not sure why the trunk lid is rippling like that/misaligned. Hell, all of the body panels look misaligned. I'm pretty sure the car is collapsing in on itself due to losing half of its structure. Perhaps a targa-top conversion a-la Fiat 500 would have been better?
![]() 05/14/2014 at 18:03 |
|
No Bueno. I'll bet the underside looks like some spaghetti.
![]() 05/14/2014 at 18:07 |
|
It's lower in the back because cutting out the front fenders to allow similar levels of quasi-functional drop with the giganto-wheels might've looked dumb or something. Since he probably didn't want to need a whole parking lot to turn around, but wanted maximum low across the board, this happened.
![]() 05/14/2014 at 18:09 |
|
Now, if it'd been methgineered instead of crackgineered, you'd stand about 30% chance of some hideous girders of square tube stock under there, that would scrape periodically and only keep it stiff until the welds cracked.
![]() 05/14/2014 at 18:13 |
|
Yeah, taking a look at the suspension setup of my car... you can't really get any low in the front without some serious money expenditure.
![]() 05/14/2014 at 18:15 |
|
Those doors pretty much destroyed all my words. So. Have this.
![]() 05/14/2014 at 18:17 |
|
This made my day.
![]() 05/14/2014 at 18:17 |
|
SO cuuuuuuuute
![]() 05/14/2014 at 18:17 |
|
Where is the build thread. I must read it.
![]() 05/14/2014 at 18:19 |
|
![]() 05/14/2014 at 18:19 |
|
And we both know the achievement of Maximum Low is not where all the money went, here.
![]() 05/14/2014 at 18:19 |
|
I can see that. If the suspension weren't ruined, it wasn't painted yellow, it didn't have an awful looking interior, the workmanship wasn't shoddy, it wasn't wearing giant chrome rims, it didn't have ugly graphics, it didn't have smoked headlights and taillights and it didn't have a dumb sticker on the windshield it might be alright.
![]() 05/14/2014 at 18:20 |
|
I couldn't find one, Just a bunch of pictures .
![]() 05/14/2014 at 18:21 |
|
Yeah, a stock LeSabre with the top chopped off would be a pretty decent looking convertible. This is hideous, but whatever.
![]() 05/14/2014 at 18:28 |
|
No, no, despite me poking fun, i do agree with your original point. The Stock car is just a touch "bubbly" for my taste. Chopping the top makes it much more "slab" like, which is badass.
![]() 05/14/2014 at 18:30 |
|
Yup, like I said in the post the C-pillar is the one part that makes it way too "grandpa-car" to really look sporty. Ditch that and you have a Dodge Challenger that someone took the "autosmooth" tool to. Could use an inch lower, possibly, but nothing excessive.
![]() 05/14/2014 at 18:49 |
|
Great looking car ruined by pimps .
![]() 05/14/2014 at 19:36 |
|
Oh dear. That's...um...