I will likely get hate mail and death threats for suggesting it, because it has become so iconic, but the wing on the Charger Daytona/Superbird is pretty egregious. It wasn’t even its function as a spoiler that drove its stratospheric height. Legend has it that tests of shorter wings were just as effective at preventing lift, but they impeded opening the trunk.

Well, I enjoy my Pontiac-badged, 400hp, Omega coupe, if that helps.

Audrey was only half right. Betty Crocker never sliced up a watermelon and called it “cooking.”

As if the rear seats weren't useless enough, they are now completely inaccessible. Why not remove them? This car seems to be a list of compromises. I love the idea, but the execution is either too far, or not far enough. I'd love the car if it were a stock-ish 944 with an LS2, or if it were an all-out track monster, but this in-between car isn't for me.

If I wanted to re-create a classic car, 3D printing wouldn’t be my method of choice for any but the smallest and least significant of parts. It’s not an efficient means of manufacture.

3D printing has, however, come a long way. Cores for castings can now be “grown”, but I’d still just grow the mold, and cast the actual part. Just about any car with any semblance of parts availability wouldn’t make any sense to try to 3D print to any significant degree. It would be cheaper and easier to just track down the parts. 3D printers are slow, and the costs associated with making even a small part are incredibly high. 99% of the parts of a car, even if those parts aren’t available, make more sense to manufacture using more conventional means. It will be cheaper (and better) to cut a new carburetor housing out of billet than to grow one on a 3D printer, and any sort of sheet metal components will be better, and cheaper if fabricated from actual sheet metal. If you have 3D CAD files to make a car, you’d have a better car cheaper and faster, if you loaded those files into a 5-axis VMC rather than a 3D printer.

T-Bird is close. I'm fairly sure it's a Lincoln Mark VII LSC, which shares the platform.

The bottom car is a Triumph Stag.

I don’t know if it is the best, but an Aston Martin would be my choice to flaunt my wealth without (much) ostentation. Since the DB9 is no longer available with a manual transmission, and the V12 Vantage has those hideous hood louvers, I might even have to go used (!), which might not go over well at the country club, but I don’t care what those blue bloods think of me and how I spend my (hypothetical) money.


Image stolen from edmunds.

To be honest, I do feel that there are many people on the road who are a testament to it being too easy to get and/or keep a license, but the alternative is more hoops to jump through for the drivers who are at least satisfactory. It really is a balancing act, and I’m not sure that making it more difficult to become licensed will get the worst of the bad drivers off of the road. Many are already driving on suspended licenses, and a few are circumventing testing requirements by having someone else take the test for them (as in the example above). I, like most people, like to consider myself a good driver, but the fact is that I am probably just adequate. I feel confident that I could pass any additional testing requirements that they might throw at me, but I really don’t want to have to. Honestly, in many parts of the country, driving is barely optional, and many who might not meet stricter guidelines wouldn’t give up driving. We’d just see a spike in the number of unlicensed drivers. Most drivers are okay, and to inconvenience them all to catch the few makes little economic sense.

The term manual transmission isn't antiquated, but referring to them as "standard" transmissions might soon be, if it isn't already.