If not, I highly recommend picking up the Feb '09 issue ASAP. Inside is quite possibly the most hideous '67 fasback of all time. Like a lot of trailer queens, it looks serious and has lots of speedy parts and high tech-ness spread everywhere. But unlike most of the magazine queens, they actually took this one to a track, brought none other than Roberto Guerrero to test this missle and guess what happened? Not much. The super-high-zoot paddle shifter refused to work at all at first. Then they had the techs from the paddle shift company replace the whole mess (in only 5 hrs) after which time it worked. For about 100 ft, then it refused to shift out of first. The they parked it, only to be greeted by a puddle of anti-freeze spewing out from under the high-dollar pile. Did I say high dollar? Expensive is all relative, I realize that much. I mean to most of us, ANY '67 fastback is expensive these days. But to a guy buying a '67 GT500, that $10K fastback seems cheap. So what was the price tag on a '67 fastback that could be outrun on a road course by my well-worn '91 Mazda B2200? $1,300,000. That's not a typo, this car cost one million, three hundred thousand dollars. And it's butt-ugly. Here's a link http://www.obsidiansg1.com/ They sure TALK a good story, but then don't most posers?
all i can say is, shyte happens, and the more high tech the combination, the more, and easier, shyte that happens. if it was a new build, then give them time to work out the bugs.
This car isn't new and a few simple bugs like shifting should've been fixed, what, before it went around the block the first time? But kudos to them for at least trying, that's what it's all about. Some people are content treating their big-dollar show cars like pretty dead butterflies pinned to a case. These guys aren't.
That is the ugliest high-dollar mustang I have seen. The paddle shifter setup in the car is nothing more than a gimmick, and one that doesn't work that well. They should have stuck with a conventional shifter. I also like the twin intercoolers mounted on top the engine that did nothing more than obscure vision and collect heat in what has to be the ugliest hood treatment ever in a pro-built car.
Don't get me wrong, I love lots of different types of cars. High tech, old school, stock, as long as it has a good look, I can overlook bunches of stuff. My brother hates "fairground cruisers", you know, the type, a blown '41 Willys on methanol, zoomies and slicks that gets unloaded out of the trailer, then idles around the car shows for a few laps shaking the ground and looking impressive. Me? I don't mind 'em all that much. As long as they have "the look" and the owner isn't trying to tell me it's an 8 second car. But "Obsidian" (accurate name, since you'd have to be dumb as a rock to spend that kinda money on it) takes it to a whole new level. Every mod they made looks ridiculous, and is non-functional to boot. THEN the owner is so convinced it's as high-tech as any supercar, he invites Hot Rod mag out to flog it on a road course and report about it, good or bad. Hot Rod was less than kind about pretty much everything, but to be fair, they did offer a repeat when he gets the bugs worked out. Fat chance. I'll go on the record right now as saying it's about as sorted as it'll ever be. Bet on it.
That does look like C R A P !!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't understand why they continue to do stuff like that to the classic vehicles. There is a black 69 or 70 Stang that I have seen in the magazines that looks almost as bad as this one.
