Author | Message |
---|---|
◊ 2011-05-01 23:59 |
Is /vehicle_395636-Ford-LTD.html the same as this, no? ![]() |
◊ 2011-05-02 00:00 |
That one looks bluer. |
93montero ◊ 2011-05-02 14:10 |
Not only is it bluer the other capture is much later in the movie and this one just got hit by a bulldozer ![]() |
◊ 2011-06-13 16:57 |
83-87 judging by the taillamps. |
◊ 2011-06-13 19:26 |
With no side tag, not and '83 or '84. |
◊ 2011-06-13 19:39 |
Isn't the C-pillar badge missing? Is it possible the side tag might be as well, especially since this is a stunt car? |
◊ 2011-06-13 22:28 |
Of course. Missing trim is always possible. But we usually base ID's on what we see and don't just assume modification. (If you look real close, it appears to me there might be a C-pillar nameplate.) |
◊ 2011-06-13 22:33 |
I actually do that all the time with the 1995-1997 Crown Victorias (1995's had name badges next to the front doors). In that case many of those 1995's came without the badges due to prior removal (usually for decal placement)so I never assume they are 1996-1997 models just because the badge is missing. That's my take anyhow, at least with vehicles which were clearly part of fleets before (police, taxi, etc). I don't know about this one's prior history though. |
◊ 2011-06-13 22:46 |
Fleet vehicles are indeed a special case and lots had such badges removed before special fleet painting and signage was applied. |
◊ 2011-06-13 22:53 |
Exactly. But I suppose we can leave this one as you ID'd it since we don't know its prior history, especially considering those wheel covers it has. |
◊ 2011-06-14 00:57 |
This car has already been rebuilt once judging by the bumper rub strip on the front but not the back, and that the little plastic piece behind the bumper is a different color then the body. So the badges, or lack thereof is probably the least of the modifications. |