Sorry - This is not very technical - C4 (1985) NM

**John Chesher** · September 26, 2006, 08:32 AM

Re: Sorry - This is not very technical - C4 (1985)

In fact, not technical at all ;-)

**Michael H.** · September 26, 2006, 08:39 AM

Re: Sorry - This is not very technical - C4 (1985)

Looks like a 21st century version of a late 60's VW hippy bus heading for Woodstock.

**John Chesher** · September 26, 2006, 09:33 AM

Re: Sorry - This is not very technical - C4 (1985)

Sorry, I didn't see the URL. Thought it was an empty post! One ugly Vette...

**Gene B.** · September 26, 2006, 09:38 AM

Re: Sorry - This is not very technical - C4 (1985)

Why would you do this to any car, Corvette or otherwise?????

Gene

**Dick W.** · September 26, 2006, 10:58 AM

Re: Sorry - This is not very technical - C4 (1985)

Bad Drugs??????

**Terry M.** · September 26, 2006, 11:14 AM

Re: Sorry - This is not very technical - C4 (1985)

A couple of years ago (maybe four or five) this was at Carlisle. It is more striking in person than in photos. It sure did attract a lot of attention.

**Dave H.** · September 26, 2006, 01:08 PM

Hey Guys... This is an ART CAR

This isn't really a corvette... it's an ART CAR!

Ken Gerberick, a good friend of mine, has built many art cars... but he can't afford to use corvettes. Check out http://www.kengerberick.com/kenframeset.html

Also, there are conventions! He just attended the annual Art Car Fest in San Francisco. See http://artcarfest.com

If you think your corvette attracts a lot of attention when you drive it, it's nothing like the looks you get going down the road in one of these!

Dave.

**Chuck S.** · September 26, 2006, 03:06 PM

Re: Hey Guys... This is an ART CAR

This is a "CRUSHER" car. A dedicated enthusist should buy the car and put it in an art museum (I once saw an XKE salad bar in a restraurant! ), Or...Euthanize it at the scrap yard.

**Kent K.** · September 26, 2006, 09:05 PM

Re: Sorry - This is not very technical - C4 (1985)

Hey Dickie, It's either bad drugs or an indicerphiable paint code.

**Dick W.** · September 27, 2006, 12:55 PM

Re: Hey Guys... This is an ART CAR

My vote is for euthanization!!!!!!

**Patrick H.** · September 27, 2006, 01:03 PM

Re: Hey Guys... This is an ART CAR

I think it needs this:

Appropriate Fate (movie)

**John H.** · September 27, 2006, 04:30 PM

Re: Hey Guys... This is an ART CAR

Patrick -

Someone inside the suburban was feeding LOTS of ammunition (7.62, not .30 cal.); we had one of those GE mini-vulcans on each side of our gunships, and we couldn't lift more than 16-18 seconds worth of ammo.

Tidbit: That gun had two 48-volt electric motors - one drove the barrels, and the other one drove a mechanical ejector system - gravity wasn't enough to expel 6,000 rounds per minute (100 rounds per second, 17 rounds per second per barrel). Those motors weren't much larger than a soup can, made by Philco-Ford Aeroneutronics, and were $8,000 each (in 1964).

**Terry M.** · September 27, 2006, 04:49 PM

Re: Hey Guys... This is an ART CAR

At least in the Suburban there is room for lots of ammunition. Not nearly as much of a weight issue as your rotary wing bird. I'm a little surprised they didn't use poly-phase AC motors. Lots more torque and small size from 400 cycles (HZ now days) AC. That is what we used in the fighter aircraft to drive the radar antennae, and nothing would stop them from moving.

I once saw a road test of one of those mini-gun equipped Suburbans – wish I could remember where. The floor under the gun is a grating -- the spent brass falls through the floor to the ground. It was designed before the days of IEDs though -- I doubt such a design would work well now days. Their target market was governments of small countries with rebellious populations.

Sorry - This is not very technical - C4 (1985) NM