Traction bars

[whitetop]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MosportGreen66</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The vast majority of the cars modified as &quot;day-2&quot; did not happen on the very second day of ownership. The transformation happened over time and evolved with changing tastes.

I guess all of these cars are day-2 clones now... LOL

</div></div>

Exactly.... My Mustang was built in 1974.

BTW Where does my car fit in? I'm replacing 3/4 of the original speed equipment with NOS pieces because the original were damaged.i.e.e the Offie tunnel ram on it was rotted out inside(All ford sb's do this because water lays in the passage), Sun Tach and gauges had major face damage from the sun, one of the M/T valve covers was cracked because the owner tightned it a bit too much at one time, I have found all original NOS Cragars etc that are the same size as the pitted originals...orig cal Custom water neck is corroded to pieces, Hurst Super boot has rips in the rubber on and on.

Let's also talk about quality of workmanship(as Tommy brought up humorsly) I'm redoing the hood scoop hole and making it better. Quality was not exactly the high point on many of these cars back then. The best of the cars on the ISCA show circuit back then would be placed in the basement with the rat rods at shows today.

So does that make my car a survivor or a repo?? What about cars that were original D2, restored in the 80's/90's then put back to D2 status recently with nos speed equipment that matched the original version?

All what matters in my mind is the parts be authentic for the year you want to car to represent. Original survivor Day 2 cars are great but there is so few of them out there.

I'm just glad guys are building Day 2 cars and I don't care about the pedigree TBH

[PxTx]

It's kinda crazy weeding through what is and isn't a legit day 2 car. When the term was first introduced to me, I thought I knew what it was. I then listened to others and realized they had a different interpretation than mine.

I don't think we'll all agree, but I'm not offended by differences in opinion here.

I don't know thr previous owners or history of my 65. I've owned it since about 1991. I don't consider it a real day 2 car. I added the crossram and vertigate shifter when I was 17 and it wasn't to fit some category or to make people like my car more. The only way it could be a day 2 car was if previous owners had modified it early on in life- like 3 years max. That is my definition. If old history on my car ever becomes available maybe I'll change my mind.

I've got the benefit of perspective from my dad's 67 Nova. It had 302 and 427 motor swaps, a name written on the car by a local artist and influenced many people on early aftermarket style...all by 1969. I'll walk a local car show, and people remember the car. Some from the 60's, some recall it a bit later when it began a sleeper theme, but it left an impression with many locals. If you don't have that, you might not have a real day 2 car.

I do enjoy these day 2 themed builds. Without a historical connection to a previous aftermarket equipment configuration, a current day 2 build is only a theme. I would like to understand those who feel differently. Without using analogies, does anyone care to share?

[Fast67VelleN2O]

So Sam's Deuce is more Day 2 because the parts were put on a few years before someone else's day 2 car? [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[DarrenX33]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fast67VelleN2O</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So Sam's Deuce is more Day 2 because the parts were put on a few years before someone else's day 2 car? [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/rolleyes.gif[/img]</div></div>

Really? You really wanna keep this going? [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[Salvatore]

Matt, I consider you a smart car guy and a knowledgable parts person. You know what I was driving at.

[Fast67VelleN2O]

For the record, I was just pushing buttons. Hopefully no one took any offence. No matter who or how its labeled, &quot;Day 2&quot; kicks ass!

[Hemicolt]

Romans were just people living at a particular time in history and did not know or care that they would be remembered.
But Edward Gibbon spent years researching and writing &quot;The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire&quot;.
If not for Gibbons work, we may not have ever known about this important time in human history.
So which is more important, the Romans for just living their lives, or Gibbon for doing the work to pass on that history to future generations?
I personally don't look at either one of them being more important than the other. They were just people, at different times in history, doing what they do.
Get it?

[wheelhop]

This post is getting too political for me.

[Hemicolt]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wheelhop</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This post is getting too political for me. </div></div>

[img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/haha.gif[/img] [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/haha.gif[/img] [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/haha.gif[/img]

[Schonyenko2]

Fred's buyin PBR, passin out the mouse chewed zig zag papers, (nothin else) but NOBODIES usin his back seat. Except maybe Fred.