The infamous car #17 2005

Like the name says...

Re: The infamous car #17 2005

Postby the armourer » Mon Aug 30, 2010 6:07 am

Gasoline wrote:Lol.....

We can all laugh about it but there are some people out there that actually own vehicles from films and movies and we shouldn't poke fun at them.
My Nan owned the USS enterprise for about 15 years. The real one.
Not a model and not even a lifesize replica, but the actual enterprise.
It was capable of warp speed and everything. She didn't fly it very often obviously as you would need like a hundred crew.
Parking was difficult too and it cost too much to register it each year.
Here is a picture of one time she touch-parked the mountain behind her house

Image

I would show you more pictures but she has already traded it in for the millenium falcon.
Not a model and not even a lifesize replica of the millenium falcon, but the actual one..........blah blah. :lol:


I agree with her trading up to the Correllian ship. I've always liked the YT-1300 series. Fast, manuverable, fairly easy to maintain, and best of all, it can enter and leave atmosphere. Can't land a Constitution-class starship. Of course there are always trade-offs. The Enterprise is matter-antimatter powered, virtually unlimited range. The YT is a fuel burner. No contest when it comes down to firepower, but then the starship is a war machine, the YT a mid-bulk freighter with a few gun turrets retro-fitted. The YT can be handled by a single pilot as can the starship for a short time, but it's just too much for one man for an extended period. I believe the minimum crew for a Constitution-class is 20. Since I'm not fighting a war, but just in need of simple, reliable, interstellar transport, my choice hands down is the YT-1300. 8-)
"There are over 550 million smallarms in worldwide circulation. That's one weapon for every 12 people on the planet. The only question is: How do we arm the other 11?"

"The Teutonic reputation for brutality is well founded. Their operas last for 3 or 4 days and they have no word for 'fluffy'."
the armourer
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:15 pm
Location: Up to my elbows in a '69 Dodge, getting ready for a wastelands run....

Re: The infamous car #17 2005

Postby bike » Mon Aug 30, 2010 10:18 am

You guys are mean. I am jealous that your nan has the Enterprise, while my old granny has to make do with an old witch`s broomstick. She`s always moaning about bashing into trees (no lights) and getting wet.

By the way, I have possibly the last and very rare piece of air which the original interceptor drove past! Rumour has it that the Mighty Wez blew it out his ass too, but I cannot confirm this. Serious bidders can contact me but should be prepared to pay the real market value for this very special and rare piece of air. Shipping worldwide.
User avatar
bike
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 10:01 pm

Re: The infamous car #17 2005

Postby Foxtrot X-Ray » Mon Aug 30, 2010 3:45 pm

I'm confused. Which is our bigger beef?
The condition/accuracy of the car or the fact that it's either previously or currently been part of a fraudulent claim - actual movie stunt car.

If it were being sold as (JUST) a replica, I'd certainly give it due consideration.
I actually like the carbs... Makes me wonder if the supercharger is functional. (Well, not with an On/Off switch or anything, but a real Boost producing draw-through supercharger)
"Go ahead and run. Run home and cry to mama! Me, I'm Through runnin'!"
User avatar
Foxtrot X-Ray
 
Posts: 1737
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2002 5:44 am

Re: The infamous car #17 2005

Postby the armourer » Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:37 pm

Foxtrot X-Ray wrote:I'm confused. Which is our bigger beef?
The condition/accuracy of the car or the fact that it's either previously or currently been part of a fraudulent claim - actual movie stunt car.

If it were being sold as (JUST) a replica, I'd certainly give it due consideration.
I actually like the carbs... Makes me wonder if the supercharger is functional. (Well, not with an On/Off switch or anything, but a real Boost producing draw-through supercharger)


I don't believe the blower is functional. The manifold looks strange. You can see how it overhangs the distributor on what looks to be two aluminum plates. The front of the bottom opening would be partially blocked. Now it was common back in the early days of street supercharging to take a standard 4-barrel intake and bolt a thick plate like that to it to mount the blower on, but such a setup was really restrictive. What we have here looks like an attempt to mount the blower and still keep the short drive snout. Fords, like Mopars, usually require a long drive snout because the manifold sits father back then say a Chevy because of the front mounted distributor. Also, the rear bearing plate looks too thin. The aftermarket plates are thinner then the stock plates, but this one looks too thin. I wish there was a pic of the back of the blower. When I build my faux blower setup, (Yes, my wasteland cruiser will be 'supercharged') I'll be using a similar arrangement. I intend to bolt a thick plate to the manifold and my carb will be mounted to that. The carb won't care as the plate will act just like a 1" spacer. Then the gutted case will be milled out so it will totally encompass the carb and the throttle cable will run out an opening milled into the plate. Whatever injector setup I go with will also have the butterflies or barrel valve operated by a linkage controlled by the same cable. I'm not doing the on/off capability, I intend to run the unit full time. Without an up-close inspection, it will appear to be real.
"There are over 550 million smallarms in worldwide circulation. That's one weapon for every 12 people on the planet. The only question is: How do we arm the other 11?"

"The Teutonic reputation for brutality is well founded. Their operas last for 3 or 4 days and they have no word for 'fluffy'."
the armourer
 
Posts: 548
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:15 pm
Location: Up to my elbows in a '69 Dodge, getting ready for a wastelands run....

Re: The infamous car #17 2005

Postby roadwarriormfp » Mon Aug 30, 2010 11:19 pm

Foxtrot X-Ray wrote:I'm confused. Which is our bigger beef?
The condition/accuracy of the car or the fact that it's either previously or currently been part of a fraudulent claim - actual movie stunt car.

If it were being sold as (JUST) a replica, I'd certainly give it due consideration.
I actually like the carbs... Makes me wonder if the supercharger is functional. (Well, not with an On/Off switch or anything, but a real Boost producing draw-through supercharger)


Well yes the fraudulent claim is my bugbear.... (as a "replica" its er... well ill say its: aweful. Simply because nothing on the car is glassed in, but just banged on with no effort to make it look correct. Now add the crap that the car is "real" and you start raising the ire of some).

I posted this picture in a previous thread:

Image

The card says; "This GENUINE movie car is from MadMax, Road Warrior"

Nice replica, but the claim is bullshit.
Why is it nescessary to lie to the public?
Its replica, end of story.
We are 100% snafu....
User avatar
roadwarriormfp
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 1999 7:10 pm
Location: Suncity, Australia

Re: The infamous car #17 2005

Postby aussie muscle » Tue Aug 31, 2010 10:05 pm

Foxtrot X-Ray wrote:I'm confused. Which is our bigger beef?
The condition/accuracy of the car or the fact that it's either previously or currently been part of a fraudulent claim - actual movie stunt car.


no one here will berate it for being a replica, as in that respect, it's really good. When you start saying it's the real-deal mad max car, you loose my respect if i know you're lying. it's like copying a Mona-lisa and trying to sell it as an original Da Vinci. Dishonest, Low...
User avatar
aussie muscle
 
Posts: 916
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Bombala Australia

Re: The infamous car #17 2005

Postby PursuitSpecial » Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:59 pm

I talked to a guy in town today who builds detroit diesel 6-71's for gas and mentioned Mad Max to him.

He informed me the original car with the blower was based on a Holden and that it's now in Scottsdale Arizona.

Some people....
_________________


"I pursued my enemies and overtook them;
I did not turn back till they were destroyed."
-Psalm 18:37

Username: Jon (Jun. 28, 1999 - Oct. 17 1999)
Username: JtB (Oct. 17, 1999 - Mar. 31, 2000)
Username: PursuitSpecial (Mar. 31, 2000 - present)
User avatar
PursuitSpecial
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2001 2:54 pm

Re: The infamous car #17 2005

Postby Peter Barton » Thu Sep 02, 2010 3:19 pm

Peter Barton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 1999 3:15 pm

Re: The infamous car #17 2005

Postby roadwarriormfp » Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:31 pm

Hahah.. maybe John should go down to the Isle of Mann to have a word with this fellow???
We are 100% snafu....
User avatar
roadwarriormfp
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 1999 7:10 pm
Location: Suncity, Australia

Re: The infamous car #17 2005

Postby Foxtrot X-Ray » Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:53 pm

OK, that's reasonable.

Just galls me that the car's owner is trying to bilk people like that. OR He himself was bilked and doesn't actually KNOW #17 is just a replica. (The reasonable must acknowledge this as a possibility)

Surprising to me that any fan (And I'll admit, it wouldn't necessarily BE a fan buying a supposed bit of movie memorabilia like that. "Investor") wouldn't spot the differences right away.

Just for a bit of perspective, Mrs. X-Ray doesn't know cars... doesn't even know what a spoiler is called and she spotted the difference in the spoilers right away. (And it's been Years since I last made her watch either movie with me)
"Go ahead and run. Run home and cry to mama! Me, I'm Through runnin'!"
User avatar
Foxtrot X-Ray
 
Posts: 1737
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2002 5:44 am

PreviousNext

Return to Film Cars and Replica Cars

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest