Tocky on 19/4/2012 at 03:37
Sweet 68 Sombras.
There's a bodyshop guy near me with a Grand National exactly like that Queue, color and everything. Make him an offer.
Ah, highschool. I had this one-
Inline Image:
http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/3144/skylarku.jpgA great ride but the back seat was small. Not too small.
Sombras on 19/4/2012 at 17:35
Yup, had a '70 Chevelle for a few years--exact same GM dimensions. You're right about that back seat. Made ya real glad the rear window cranked down! :)
SubJeff on 19/4/2012 at 21:32
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
...To get past the people doing 50ish. It's not rocket science.
You're one of these idiots, aren't you?
You should mover over, let the guys going at 70 pass and then switch lane to pass the 50mile and hour people. Why hold up the rest of the traffic? That's real asshole behaviour.
Tocky on 20/4/2012 at 03:50
Quote Posted by Queue
What year GS is that, Tocky? *jealous* It looks like a '71.
I would have loved a '71 GSX:
Fuck me...when did Buick become cars for preachers and insurance salesmen?!
That one is a 71. I actually had a 72 with a dark green top and interior but they look the same otherwise. Mine had a 350 instead of the 455 but still managed to beat my buds in the quarter. Notice those heavy slanted bumpers? You could ride down a pine thicker than your arm and only bust out the plastic grille. The day Dad got it he came in from work and said "let's go get a car" just like that. He tried to stear me to safer bigger blocky style caprices and such but I made a line for that one and stuck. I would give every car I've ever owned for one evening of just sitting and talking to him now but damn I loved that car. God I remember the time Laurie had me blow the horn as we circled the Oxford square so her friends would know what she was blowing and they all blew thiers and cheered. Those were great days.
Well crap. That one is a 72 after all. I traced it to Ebay where it is up to 26000 bucks and only has about that many miles on it. Still hasn't met the reserve and I don't blame him. I wouldn't want to sell it either.
heywood on 20/4/2012 at 05:22
I say count your blessings.
Those old Buick Grand Nationals look a bit like a mid-80s NASCAR racer on the outside, and the '86-87 models were faster 0-100 than a 'vette. I get that much of the appeal. But it's still a Regal, which makes it a quintessential '80s American turd bucket. Nasty looking interior with the cheapest materials, dash panels that didn't fit together right, lots of tacky chrome coloured plastic shite everywhere, bad handling, bad suspension, scary brakes, head gaskets that couldn't deal with the combustion pressure from a turbo, and transmissions that died really quickly if you were in the habit of launching hard from stoplights (and why wouldn't you be?) I don't get how these are now considered classics.
At least that '71 GSX had classic styling and an under-stressed 455 ci V8. That's the one you should regret. And it would have been relatively easy to find back in the '80s for a lot less cash than a Grand National. And it's still a chick magnet. With a Grand National, you'll have to explain to everybody why it's cool because anybody who wasn't into cars in the mid-80s is going to think you're driving a ghetto crap wagon.
It could be worse though. You could have used your college money to buy a Mustang SVO.
Ulukai on 20/4/2012 at 09:51
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
You're one of these idiots, aren't you?
You should mover over, let the guys going at 70 pass and then switch lane to pass the 50mile and hour people. Why hold up the rest of the traffic? That's real asshole behaviour.
Never try to reason with cyclists, you point out they've just run a red light and the next thing you know you've got sweaty lycra dude
in your face :D
SubJeff on 20/4/2012 at 14:22
He's a cyclist? Bah, should have known.
Al_B on 20/4/2012 at 23:35
Although I'm not a cyclist (despite sometimes taking to the road myself in something with less than four three wheels) I don't think the 50mph / 60 mph analogy is completely fair. A difference of 10mph in speed is approximately a 4.5 m/s difference between the car in front and the one its overtaking.
Assuming a car is less than 4m long (I have an obvious UK bias here), it should only take a maximum of 3-4 seconds for a 60mph dawdler to overtake a 50mph snail and pull back in with a reasonable breaking distance still intact.
Clearly the problem is those who set their cruise controls to 50mph and due to inherent inaccuracies travel at 50.01mph overtaking those who's speed has settled to 49.99mph.
heywood on 22/4/2012 at 02:51
You're forgetting about the space between cars. But anyway, the impact on traffic flow depends on the traffic density and prevailing speed in the passing lane.
It should be pretty simple really. If traffic in the passing lane is faster than you, and you want to pull out there to pass someone, first wait until there is a gap big enough for you to accelerate into, then change lanes and accelerate up to the speed of traffic, make the pass, move out of the passing lane, and then slow down to the speed you were going.
Nothing worse than self-righteous drivers of whatever speed who don't care if they're disrupting the flow of traffic. This includes the asshats trying to go 90 in heavy 70 mph traffic who weave back and forth cutting people off and leave a wake of brake lights.
I'm also a cyclist but I've found that as long as I obey traffic rules & controls, ride single file and try to share the lane fairly with traffic whenever it's safe to do so*, and avoid riding narrow heavily trafficked roads, then I very rarely have any problem with aggressive drivers. Some cyclists seem to be road rage magnets. But I find that drivers are much more likely to pay attention to my safety when I'm doing what I can to keep traffic moving and not hold them up.
*Sometimes we have to take the full lane for safety reasons, e.g. descending a steep winding road, approaching a choke point
It's all about exercising courtesy while sharing the resource.
