The rear track is too narrow, wheels look goofy (as does the ride height), but the motor sure looks purty under there...
-Rob
The rear track is too narrow, wheels look goofy (as does the ride height), but the motor sure looks purty under there...
-Rob
Feedyurhed wrote: Pretty cool and at no reserve too. Should be interesting to watch.
and 9-1/2 days left
yes, interesting
Very cool. I'd be more concerned with the American ride height than the rear track width, but both are easily fixable.
Not how I expected the engine to be installed- with the narrow track comments and what not.
Interesting...
Neither genius or blasphemy... just eccentricity by example. I'd love to hear the decision process that led to that combo.
Maroon92 wrote: Those are BBS RKs. I have a set for my Mazda 3. I love them.
I had RKIIs on my Saab NG900.. they were the best part of the car.
Personally, I think the SHO powered Lotus is pure genius. I am sure Chapman would have approved
True genius usually is blasphemy. I'm not a huge fan of the choice of power, but I deffinately admire the idea.
Over all genius, needs to get the suspension gap down a bit, rear tires as all others said.
Would not use a paper bag over the head or hit the light switch otherwise!
I wouldn't touch that with a 10-foot pole. That's a monster waiting to jump out and steal your wallet.
If it is functional, it is OK. Face it, we've all seen stranger.....and it is usually something that one of us did!
With all the dubious charm of a Tasmin or TR7 and an engine/trans that only really runs every third try . . . why not? What's to lose?
Although, there's IS that massive "Why even bother?" question sitting unavoidably obviously over in the corner.
You'll need to log in to post.