Autoblog love for our Spiders

burlybryan · Post by **burlybryan** » Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:40 am

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/02/25/hage ... -bs-video/

SunnySideUp · Post by **SunnySideUp** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 3:50 pm

It's about time the Fiat 124 / 2000 gets some more recent positive press!

I have been getting really tired of hearing about MGs, Triumphs, and that "M" car from all the news outlets.

bradartigue · Post by **bradartigue** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:35 pm

SunnySideUp wrote:It's about time the Fiat 124 / 2000 gets some more recent positive press! I have been getting really tired of hearing about MGs, Triumphs, and that "M" car from all the news outlets.

Cars with 1930s technology. We have no pushrods. We have two cams.

70spider · Post by **70spider** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 6:14 pm

Same year as mine

, did some of the "70's come stock with the 1608? I also noticed it has a bubble hood. Nice car, I love the sound of the IDF's, throaty. Great to see good press.

focodave · Post by **focodave** » Fri Feb 27, 2015 6:34 pm

Is it just me, or does anyone else find the guy's slightly effeminate giggle at the very end a little creepy ---- when he is talking about the car being good for a single man to be cruising around in?

srwilson · Post by **srwilson** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 6:45 am

LOL Dave, I had to crank it up to even hear the little giggle, but yeah, a little creepy.

Nanonevol · Post by **Nanonevol** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:00 am

Could that be the creepy music fading in? Anyway It's a vote against the "chick car" description. or not?

RRoller123 · Post by **RRoller123** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:45 am

Not sure, it is kinda odd. I think that the joke is probably that a Camaro or Mustang would have been more of a magnet.... probably what he is hinting at.

Nanonevol · Post by **Nanonevol** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 11:23 am

Early Mustangs I think could be called chick cars but then they had a sex change later years.

johndemar · Post by **johndemar** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 11:40 am

Nanonevol wrote:Early Mustangs I think could be called chick cars but then they had a sex change later years.

If you mean the 64-66, I'll give you that. High School buddy had a black 67 fastback, 390, 4BRL, 4spd. No way was it a chick car, other than to attract them.

Nanonevol · Post by **Nanonevol** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 4:12 pm

Sounds awesome. Loved the fastbacks.

RRoller123 · Post by **RRoller123** » Sun Mar 01, 2015 5:26 pm

You mean like my buddy Art's award winning '67 Shelby?

Nanonevol · Post by **Nanonevol** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 8:13 am

I'll shutup now. I'm starting to sound insecure in this "chick car" debate and I had a '68 Mustang myself but I'm not enough of a gear-head to expound on anything in the car world.

RRoller123 · Post by **RRoller123** » Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:33 am

LOL, no worries, see you at Millis. Art brings the Shelby regularly, I will let you know when and we can all meet up.

Pete

Nanonevol · Post by **Nanonevol** » Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:43 am

That would be terrific! To have you give my '77 an assessment would be invaluable to me. Meanwhile, all the "chick" car comments I retract. Really sexist and offensive to all the competent female drivers and mechanics and surprised I havent' been called out on it.

Autoblog love for our Spiders

Autoblog love for our Spiders

Re: Autoblog love for our Spiders

Re: Autoblog love for our Spiders

Re: Autoblog love for our Spiders

Re: Autoblog love for our Spiders

Re: Autoblog love for our Spiders

Re: Autoblog love for our Spiders

Re: Autoblog love for our Spiders

Re: Autoblog love for our Spiders

Re: Autoblog love for our Spiders

Re: Autoblog love for our Spiders

Re: Autoblog love for our Spiders

Re: Autoblog love for our Spiders

Re: Autoblog love for our Spiders

Re: Autoblog love for our Spiders