Who knew the "Batmobile"...

[Empty Pockets]

...was originally the 1955 Lincoln Futura concept car!

I'm a bit 'iffy' with regard to the twin glass canopy thing, but otherwise I really LIKE the looks of the "Futura" even today...'far out' as it may be looks-wise. ('MUCH rather have it than any 2012 model Lincoln is offering.)

http://www.1966batmobile.com/background2.htm

 

[2112]

Looked better before Barris got his hands on it.

Just sayin.

 

[Kingman]

Looked better before Barris got his hands on it.

Just sayin.

Heresy I say....Heresy!!

 

[Empty Pockets]

Looked better before Barris got his hands on it.

Just sayin.

I totally agree!

(Herb doesn't know what the devil he's talking about!:lol)




(Yeah, I know you were just being sarcastic, King'... :wink)

 

[DoctorV8]

Looked better before Barris got his hands on it.

Just sayin.

That's pretty much always the case.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/11/17/ebay-find-of-the-day-george-barris-olds-toronado-70-x-is-wrapar/

 

[ChipBeck]

OK, be honest here......

.......I want to know......

If I'm the only GT owner that has, on at least one occasion, gotten into my GT and stared at the red start button. And before pushing it said out loud or in my head, "Atomic batteries to power, turbines to speed".

Am I the only one??

Chip

 

[Empty Pockets]

Uuuuuuuuuuh...............probably! :facepalm::biggrin

 

[2112]

That's pretty much always the case.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/11/17/ebay-find-of-the-day-george-barris-olds-toronado-70-x-is-wrapar/

Ugh, at least he was an equal opportunity car-ruiner.

That Toronado is an abomination. :ack

 

[Empty Pockets]

That's pretty much always the case.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/11/17/ebay-find-of-the-day-george-barris-olds-toronado-70-x-is-wrapar/

I saw that Toronado up close a couple months ago. It's actually worse in person than it is in those photos. The interior work looks a lot more sub-par these days than it does in those pics. To say it's design concept and execution (inside and out) are "crude" would be an under statement.