wow...
>>28894008YOU AIN'T SEEN NUTHIN' YET, SON
>poor man's D-type
>>28894144
>>28894008I just don't get the appeal. It looks like a pinched hot dog.
>>28894156oh I get it you're more of a nut guy
>>28894159i'm all about the N U T
>>28894159I didn't even know Planters had a vehicle and now I know why, it looks like such absolute garbage next to the glory of the Weinermobile. They didn't even give it a custom windshield and the side windows are all janky and surrounded by Bondo and it looks like someone rattlecanned it in an afternoon.>those standard RV headlights and blinkers sticking out the front because they couldn't find ANYTHING that would fit their fiberglass turd betterSAD
>>28894144One of the few cars where the convertible looks better than the coupe
>>28894156Yea needs a fucking wide body kit and some nigger wheels huh you little auto-only loving ricer
>>28894202Somebody call for Chip Foose?
>>28894202Calm down, autist.
>>28894205Man I hate boomer ricers
>>28894205W E W
>>28894191Agreed. Though the Eagle low drag gt fixed that
>>28894165Just went and read the Nutmobile history and it's clear they have no idea what they're doing. They almost had something with the 1999 version but the 5 (!) versions since are all built around corporate slop speak (sustainability! there's a selfie-station!) rather than an image.
I wanna eat foooo ood>i wanna eat! eat!
>>28894008>>28894144>>28894160>>28894205Why don't people make cars that look like this anymore? Every modern sports car looks like a downgrade. Are there any that look exactly like they looked in the 60s? Like not just sharing similarities?
>>28895021Safety and emissions standards
>>28895021Morgan. Pembleton. Factory Five. Etc.They still exist, they're just not for the worthless masses.
>>28895044I like the Factory Five one, it looks the closest. It's only $25k though, what's the catch?
>>28895053You have to build it, and it doesn't come with the engine.
