In article <13qurkt62t2do4d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
"Mac Breck" <macthevorlon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
> > In article <13qu2uv64s1r70d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > "Mac Breck" <macthevorlon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >> Obveeus wrote:
> >>> "Anim8rFSK" <ANIM8Rfsk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> KoshN <macthevorlon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>>>> ...or any of the 32,653 1982-1983 Trans Ams that were produced,
> >>>>> and a hell of a lot of them were the basic 0.29Cd, black version.
> >>>>> Those things were everywhere.
> >>>>
> >>>> I had two of 'em. The black '82 I got before I ever heard of
> >>>> Hassledorf, and the black '84 I replaced it with when it got
> >>>> totalled, that had the gold screaming chicken on the hood.
> >>>
> >>> The 32,653 number seems really low. Does anyone have an actual link
> >>> to the production counts for the Trans-am/Firebird/Camaro in
> >>> 1982-1983?
> >>
> >> That number was for Trans Am Hardtops (which is what the Knight Rider
> >> car was, i.e. *not* a convertible), '82 + '83 production numbers.
> >> http://www.thepontiactransampage.com/production.html
> >
> > Actually Knight Rider was a t-top. Is that counted as a hardtop?
>
> Yes, obviously the T-Top was a hardtop option, unless they had a
> Jeep-style soft-doors version on a convertible. (I'm kidding! Can't
> believe anybody even asked that question. I must have woke up in The
> Twilight Zone.)
Well, they didn't OFFER a convertible at all, so if you're seeing more
than one top configuration, it would be the t-top. :P
You also couldn't get the manual in the t-top (at least in certain
years) for some obscure emmissions reason.
--
Star Trek 08:
No Shat, No Show.
|
