- #17293 of 23969
-
Re: Help identify this car piece? [boomchek]
by sharonlpk
-
Jul 03, 2008 (4:45 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: boomchek (Jun 27, 2008 9:48 am)
"The age could be anywhere from new to 10-20 years old but because of the platic's condition (very clean, out and underneath, I would guess it was newer rather than older.
Ok, give me a few days, I'll work on it and figure it out. Unless omeone else solves this mystery. "
Thanks for any and all help I kind of think it may be a rear-end piece just because of how it would have had to enter the tail light...?... and since the impact was enough to get my van's left sliding door/rear windows out of align. It's so darn frustrating, and I hope I can stop eyeing every potential vehicle that I see while I'm driving, it's kind of distracting lol
The plastic is definitely newer, and since it's deep black and not smooth, that has ruled out alot of potentials that I've come across...! Again, thanks!
|
- #17294 of 23969
-
New>
by andys120
-
Jul 03, 2008 (6:12 am)
-
|
|
- #17295 of 23969
-
Re: ??> [lemko]
by andre1969
-
Jul 03, 2008 (6:29 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: lemko (Jul 03, 2008 4:35 am)
Is that a '73 or '74? I thought the '73 was the only one that still had the two round taillights on each side, while '74 had a horizontal rectangular piece? I think that style looks really good with the large rectangular window and no vinyl on the top. I wish Pontiac still offered that type of window by the time the '76-77 LeMans came out, but by then you could just get the opera window, like what mine has, or louvers like what's on the Can Am.
Did they still offer a Chevelle SS in '73? Maybe that one above is an SS? I wonder what that back seat came out of? It's certainly not stock.
|
- #17296 of 23969
-
Re: ??> [andre1969]
by lemko
-
Jul 03, 2008 (6:32 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jul 03, 2008 6:29 am)
The bumper is the giveaway. In 1973, the 5-mph bumper was used only on the front. In 1974, it was extented to the back as well.
|
- #17297 of 23969
-
Re: New> [andys120]
by qbrozen
-
Jul 03, 2008 (6:33 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: andys120 (Jul 03, 2008 6:12 am)
now that's a good mystery pic. They all look too damned similar now. I know it ain't the Genesis. Could be Lexus/Bimmer/Toyota. Or maybe Kia is trying their luck with a luxo barge. ;P
I'll say new bimmer 7-series (although the taillights look more like Infiniti style).
|
- #17298 of 23969
-
Re: New> [qbrozen]
by jlbl
-
Jul 03, 2008 (7:18 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: qbrozen (Jul 03, 2008 6:33 am)
New bimmer 7-Series.
I've no merit; I've just seen some pictures of the new bimmer in the Luxury Lounge here at Edmunds, as posted by other poster fellow! (But the shark-shaped antenna should be unmistakable.)
#13715 of 13716
Revealed: 2009 BMW 7-series by louiswei
Regards,
Jose
|
- #17299 of 23969
-
Re: Slick> [hudsonthedog]
by fintail
-
Jul 03, 2008 (7:34 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: hudsonthedog (Jul 02, 2008 8:08 pm)
It's funny, a couple of those XMs hit ebay from time to time. Those independent CX imports hit ebay frequently...they all have to be a labor of love.
|
- #17300 of 23969
-
Re: New> [jlbl]
by qbrozen
-
Jul 03, 2008 (7:36 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: jlbl (Jul 03, 2008 7:18 am)
I think other companies are using that sharkfin, though, ain't they?
For me, it is the roofline that is definite bimmer. But the Genesis stole the c-pillar slope, so nothing is really "definitive" anymore.
|
- #17301 of 23969
-
Re: ??> [lemko]
by ssoperator
-
Jul 03, 2008 (7:50 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: lemko (Jul 03, 2008 6:32 am)
Sharp looking Chevelle (Malibu?), The 73's were the last ones with the round tailights. They are the best looking year of the new for the 73 model year body style. My uncle bought a new one in 73, turned into a 'wish I had not let that one go story', with the exception of being in a flood and standing in water over the roof. I think that the simple uncluttered two round tailights worked on the '68 Chargers (the best looking cars of the first mucle car era), which this body reminds me of.
|