Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
MG Man wrote:nismoid wrote:MG Man wrote:Five he sellin the yaaaag?
And the other fella, why not a 2nd gen ?
'Old school' is a relative term. I have a magazine somewhere that considers the vr4 galant as old school
relative to a new car i agree but hardly what is generally considered in this thread as old school, 2nd gen ran from 86-91, the model pictured is the latter.
and if a 2nd gen, why not a 3rd gen and scrap the whole idea of old school cause its only one year older(1992) than a 2nd gen. but i guess anything goes
Problem is terms like old school, vintage, classic etc are relative terms. There are guys who think anything after 1950 is not old school either.
Maybe we could define it as cars with carbs, or at best , mechanical fuel injection. That would rule out the. 'New' stuff with electronics
dougla_boy wrote:so the 2nd gen is nuh ole school?
cinco wrote:trinibuggy wrote:volvo is actually a parts donor and well as cinco said the jag is rotting but only the trunk and that part where the tail pipes used to be. car cover to be bought for it soon
lol i see the P plate volvo there the other day too
Mr. Red Sleeper wrote:Rory Phoulorie wrote:wagonrunner wrote:. . .according to wiki. . .
You have just nullified your argument there.
For your information, on the local market the 260C which was sold from registration series PU to PX did not have the chrome trim around the taillights. The 280C which was sold from registration series PY to PAC did have the chrome trim around the taillights.
So I reiterate, for a PW registration series 260C as shown in the photo, the taillights are period incorrect.
Accurately said.
Well done!
BANzai Rastafarai wrote:WR..you tekkin thah beat dong jusso boi?...
wagonrunner wrote:Ent local dealers always bought in ALL the models, including higher trim ones before FU? right?
hell, not like they would even remove such items (radios / trim / etc) and sell them as options? RIGHT??!!
Rory Phoulorie wrote:What does any of that have to do with a PW registered Datsun 260C having the incorrect taillights? The 260C and 280C on the 330 chassis were not sold at the same time on the local market. That is why I said that the taillights, based on the registration plate, are period incorrect.
trinibuggy wrote:cinco wrote:trinibuggy wrote:volvo is actually a parts donor and well as cinco said the jag is rotting but only the trunk and that part where the tail pipes used to be. car cover to be bought for it soon
lol i see the P plate volvo there the other day too
once i get permission from my pops i will create a thread for the build in process of the p plate
Dragist wrote:^^^ Cool stuff , good ole days .
dougla_boy wrote:trinibuggy wrote:cinco wrote:trinibuggy wrote:volvo is actually a parts donor and well as cinco said the jag is rotting but only the trunk and that part where the tail pipes used to be. car cover to be bought for it soon
lol i see the P plate volvo there the other day too
once i get permission from my pops i will create a thread for the build in process of the p plate
Still cyar believe u call me dat
moti wrote:Not sure where to put this.
They do seem to like this color combo though.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests