RE: Equus Bass 770
Discussion
NGK210 said:
"Brilliant"?? It's leaden, wannabe tosh - here's the real thing (and it's now't to do with the all-star cast or the budget's extra $s 
):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwRDEsdYUyE
Seen it, like it too, but not in the same way. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree... ):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwRDEsdYUyE
Chuffmeister said:
NGK210 said:
"Brilliant"?? It's leaden, wannabe tosh - here's the real thing (and it's now't to do with the all-star cast or the budget's extra $s ):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwRDEsdYUyE
Seen it, like it too, but not in the same way. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree... ):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwRDEsdYUyE
Shoshi said:
Pommygranite said:
Thought it was stunning till I saw this
Because one photo changes everything... What a silly way to go about things. Most cars out there have angles that are not optimal. In fact a lot of cars these days do not look as good in a photo as they do in person.As I said I thought it was stunning but now think it is pretty decent. Certainly not stunning. And having seen the video and all the gallery photos doesn't change that.
If you had looked at the gallery on their site you would see that photo is the clearest yet of its proportions.
Pommygranite said:
No what is silly is presuming that if its not regarded as stunning then it is being referred to as ugly.
As I said I thought it was stunning but now think it is pretty decent. Certainly not stunning. And having seen the video and all the gallery photos doesn't change that.
If you had looked at the gallery on their site you would see that photo is the clearest yet of its proportions.
Fair enough! Your comment was unclear and you know how people online can be. I did not know you that you still liked how it looked after seeing the one photo. As I said I thought it was stunning but now think it is pretty decent. Certainly not stunning. And having seen the video and all the gallery photos doesn't change that.
If you had looked at the gallery on their site you would see that photo is the clearest yet of its proportions.
Interesting mash-up. Grille is most similar to a '71 Roadrunner:
Yet the lower air intake/foglight mounting is obviously inspired by the 1967 GT500 "Eleanor" from the (inferior) remake of Gone in 60 Seconds.
The side profile is virtually identical to a '67 or '68 Mustang, strangely, a standard one, not the GT500:
And the taillights are obviously inspired by the '67 GT500:
Overall, it looks good, but agree with someone on here who said it looks like a car from the Grand Theft Auto video game series.
Why they put a GM engine in there is beyond me (though possibly because the LS motors are lighter and easier to package than Ford's DOHC "mod-motor".)
The vid is weird, too long for a commercial, and the CGI of it jumping in front of the train is so terrible, it's hilarious!
Yet the lower air intake/foglight mounting is obviously inspired by the 1967 GT500 "Eleanor" from the (inferior) remake of Gone in 60 Seconds.
The side profile is virtually identical to a '67 or '68 Mustang, strangely, a standard one, not the GT500:
And the taillights are obviously inspired by the '67 GT500:
Overall, it looks good, but agree with someone on here who said it looks like a car from the Grand Theft Auto video game series.
Why they put a GM engine in there is beyond me (though possibly because the LS motors are lighter and easier to package than Ford's DOHC "mod-motor".)
The vid is weird, too long for a commercial, and the CGI of it jumping in front of the train is so terrible, it's hilarious!
The thumb looked like a Hakusaku GTR to me.
Anyways, Bullitt Mustangish, 250 Large . . . I must cough.
Value respected I'd visit a decent Yank Muscle and get me a C2 gem.
Or maybe a slightly altered one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh_8zMVlNVM&lis...
Not a bad effort, but the price tag is silly.
Anyways, Bullitt Mustangish, 250 Large . . . I must cough.
Value respected I'd visit a decent Yank Muscle and get me a C2 gem.
Or maybe a slightly altered one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh_8zMVlNVM&lis...
Not a bad effort, but the price tag is silly.
dvs_dave said:
I was about to accuse it of being a coachbuilt Camaro, but it looks like a bespoke chassis with Chevy bits bolted in. Although how they got it through US type approval regs would be of interest. I suspect each one starts off as a factory Corvette (rear mounted gearbox is the give away), gets stripped down, the shell binned, and then the bits bolted into this chassis so it's consequently classed as a "specially constructed" vehicle....i.e. a kit car, or a re-bodied Corvette
Thanks for that pic dave. I think thinking WTF engine is it using as The FORD GT500 plant is 5.8 (2013 and up)! Edited by dvs_dave on Wednesday 25th September 17:25
Front suspension looks similar to the Vettes also. So i would guess, like you, its Corvette based with a new body.
I like this, but I think it's been played with too much. It’s a great looking car no doubt, but because it’s trying to re catch the looks of the late Mustang GT500, you are expecting it to be like the Singer is with its 911, and what the Eagle speedster is with the E-type. Both of these cars have been insanely fettled with to combine what we can do today to the sheer beauty of these two cars that makes them a masterpiece of work. I think this what Hyundai (JOKE) have tried to do with this car. I think they were close to doing it too, but the front end has let this car down. It's like what someone commented earlier. Its looks like a GTA copy. They should have stuck to making it look like a Mustang, though I suspect Ford's empire of Solicitors (or if you’re American, Lawyers) would have something to say about it.
A very nice looking car though, none the less.
A very nice looking car though, none the less.
PascalBuyens said:
bobberz said:
And the taillights are obviously inspired by the '67 GT500:
1969 Charger upside down...Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff