Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

'58 Packard

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • acolds
    replied
    Two things I find wrong with this car is that I'm not the owner, it being in my garage

    Leave a comment:


  • 5859
    replied
    What a great looking car! I love the setting in which it was photographed.

    Leave a comment:


  • dnevin
    replied
    Thanks Dave. Now I know.

    Leave a comment:


  • StudeDave57
    replied
    Originally posted by Warren Webb View Post
    The 58 Packard wasnt the most beautiful Packard but it would win hands down parked next to a 58 Buick or Olds! As far as being correct goes, the STP sticker doesnt belong either, but I wouldn't care.
    I do believe you are correct- on both counts!!!!




    StudeDave '57

    Leave a comment:


  • Carl Purdy
    replied
    If it didn't have those last minute head lights and some gold mylar down the side I would park it in one of my garages for the winter and try to keep it warm.

    Leave a comment:


  • Warren Webb
    replied
    The 58 Packard wasnt the most beautiful Packard but it would win hands down parked next to a 58 Buick or Olds! As far as being correct goes, the STP sticker doesnt belong either, but I wouldn't care.

    Leave a comment:


  • StudeDave57
    replied
    Originally posted by Corvanti View Post
    "if loving (that) is wrong, i don't wanna be right"!!!
    I'm with you there- I just wonder why they didn't do it right-
    That way we wouldn't have to be so wrong.



    Originally posted by dnevin View Post
    Dave--what's wrong? (I'm honestly curious and wanting to learn.)
    The engine shoud be silver for one thing, and that 'caution fan' sticker doesn't belong there. I can't quite tell for sure, but the dash pad doesn't look right to me either. I might be wrong.

    Seems to me that a 20,000 mile car should'a showed them what it was supposed to look like.




    StudeDave '57
    Last edited by StudeDave57; 11-02-2011, 09:33 PM. Reason: more #@*&%$ typos!!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • dnevin
    replied
    Dave--what's wrong? (I'm honestly curious and wanting to learn.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Corvanti
    replied
    "if loving (that) is wrong,
    i don't wanna be right"!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • StudeDave57
    replied
    uh oh...

    Why would someone go to such an extreme with a "thorough refurbishing" when
    the car's "odometer read only 20,800 miles"?

    And then turn around and do it oh soooo WRONG?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

    I just don't get it...

    Leave a comment:


  • Bullet
    replied
    That is B E A U T I F U L !!!!! WOW

    Leave a comment:


  • David
    replied
    ^^ More EYe CaNdY! Wow

    Leave a comment:


  • Studedude
    replied
    Sweet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • rockne10
    replied
    The car in question?

    http://www.rmauctions.com/CarDetails...F11&CarID=r209

    Leave a comment:


  • Roscomacaw
    replied
    Bob, any chance there's a Frederick Samuel Fish in your family tree???

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X