Superbird

[Fleet 500]

Let's compare...

[Matra et Alpine]

Let's compare...

Superb, Fleet.

Sorry I have to be the one pointing out the OBVIOUS

Look at the two pictures and are you saying you really do NOT see the difference ??

OK,.... look at the guys BACK -- it is UPRIGHT.
Look at the womens posture, that are semi-recumbent.
Sorry, Fleet, even to the youngest kid they know that PROVES one is deeper thatn the other and THAT was the point being made earlier.
The point you try to show evidence to the contrary and in fact succeed in proving.

Granted - they're not "lying down", but semi-recumbent ain't sitting up and both picture CLEARLY show the difference in depth adn I ouwld suggest possibly even that it IS as much as 50% different as I'd guessed at the first time !!!!

[Fleet 500]

It's obvious to me, too. The trunk on the Dodge is bigger and can fit more people inside! And, as can be seen, it is also very deep. Look how huge that opening is!

[Matra et Alpine]

[MOPAR KICKS ASS]

now the dodge daytona and the superbird are praticaly butt kicking cars of old if they get remade for todays genneration of new american muscle cars

[Fleet 500]

Lol. Even she can see that the trunk of the Dodge is the bigger of the two!

How do you know that the Dodge's trunk is not deeper than the Leyland's?

[MOPAR KICKS ASS]

I realy don't care about trunk size I just care about the hp of the superbird and daytona and highest mph the superbird and daytona have. Not the trunk space

[Matra et Alpine]

Lol. Even she can see that the trunk of the Dodge is the bigger of the two!

Well funny how you didn't come back on the DEPTH which was what was pointed out.
You switched tactics again and whittered on about getting 5 women in

How do you know that the Dodge's trunk is not deeper than the Leyland's?

erm, did you mean length ? Never brought it into the debate ( another switch-trick ?? )
Depth coudl be deeper if the guy is a midget I guess !!!!
Please go back, the points were spelled out relatively clearly.

[Fleet 500]

Well funny how you didn't come back on the DEPTH which was what was pointed out.
You switched tactics again and whittered on about getting 5 women in

erm, did you mean length ? Never brought it into the debate ( another switch-trick ?? )
Depth coudl be deeper if the guy is a midget I guess !!!!
Please go back, the points were spelled out relatively clearly.

I mean deep as in height. From the trunk floor to the lid.
If I meant length I would have said length.

No switch-tricking here... the Dodge clearly has the bigger trunk of the two. ;-)

[Matra et Alpine]

I mean deep as in height. From the trunk floor to the lid.
If I meant length I would have said length.

No switch-tricking here... the Dodge clearly has the bigger trunk of the two. ;-)

so we see AGAIN that you failed to read and missed the comparison that if you DID mean depth then the guy must have been a midget. You relly try to hard to "win" rather than discuss AND I didnt' say ion this occasion whether the boot was bigger or smaller - another fabrication or a switch-trick

in the words of Jesus --- feck off judas

[Fleet 500]

so we see AGAIN that you failed to read and missed the comparison that if you DID mean depth then the guy must have been a midget. You relly try to hard to "win" rather than discuss AND I didnt' say ion this occasion whether the boot was bigger or smaller - another fabrication or a switch-trick

in the words of Jesus --- feck off judas

Gee... I didn't mean to upset you, Matra. You sure are sensitive today.

Anyway, let's not make a big deal about a Leyland having a deep trunk. Other cars have had deep (meaning height, not length) trunks, too.

[Matra et Alpine]

Gee... I didn't mean to upset you, Matra. You sure are sensitive today.

Is it a surpise ? I was sufferring deja-vous on teh deja-vous !!

Anyway, let's not make a big deal about a Leyland having a deep trunk. Other cars have had deep (meaning height, not length) trunks, too.

Nobody ever said there weren't OTHERS. These dont' take away from the point about the long low trunk versus hte Oz one posted. Keepign ON that point, then the top car is getting close.

[Fleet 500]

Is it a surpise ? I was sufferring deja-vous on teh deja-vous !!

Nobody ever said there weren't OTHERS. These dont' take away from the point about the long low trunk versus hte Oz one posted. Keepign ON that point, then the top car is getting close.

You seem to suffer from that with a lot of other UCP members.

Yes, the top car is close. Of course, the height and build of the person in the car would have to be taken into consideration.

[Matra et Alpine]

You seem to suffer from that with a lot of other UCP members.

funnily .... NOT oh damn I gave you ownage to infinity already hadn't I

Yes, the top car is close. Of course, the height and build of the person in the car would have to be taken into consideration.

Shame we had to point it out to you rather than intelligence being applied before posting

[Fleet 500]

funnily .... NOT oh damn I gave you ownage to infinity already hadn't I

Shame we had to point it out to you rather than intelligence being applied before posting

Where did you get the idea it had to be "pointed out to me?" That was one of the first things I thought of when I saw that guy in the trunk of the Leland- his height.

BTW, I took a few measurements of a car similar to the one I posted ('57 Dodge). It is a '57 DeSoto which was at a weekly car show I frequent (original, non-rebuilt 341-2 bbl Hemi, incidentally). The length from the trunk lip to the partition separating the trunk from the back seat, was 64". And the width (from the inside left fender to the inside right fender) was 73"- over 6 feet!