a '57 Chevy in good running condition would cost more to buy than a modern tank.
'Why tanks? Why not '57 Chevys?'
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
'Why tanks? Why not '57 Chevys?'
Discussion is locked
a '57 Chevy in good running condition would cost more to buy than a modern tank.
and there are some that range from 40-90K. Condition is not known and rocket launcher would be a retrofit.
Long ago in the '80's General Dynamics showed up with their tank with Stinger missile launching pods attached to a military capabilities demonstration. Ford protested. At the time Ford was trying to get into the military tank business.
Rocket launchers are pretty much an addon.
of the 55 style change, the best IMO. Bloat set in, in 58.
Had the compromise Hilborn fuel injection option on the 283 V8. One (SAE) HP per cubic inch. Coupes and droptops get the best prices of course.
with 'blown' Hemis? or perhaps my fave - 1965 Corvette : maybe one of the most beautiful muscle cars ever. I'll take one with a 'mild' 327 and Muncie 4spd, thank you... :^)
Rick " 'I feel a need for speed' " Jones
as having retained popularity due to Carroll Shelby and Steve McQueen. As I recall, the base model in V8 trim was a 260 with a 3-speed manual transmission. It was fairly potent as is...at least in a straight line. A hot-rodder's dream perhaps.
The main reason is it would not stroke the the draft dodgers ego.
As for the 57 I had one of those.
Baby blue convertible with a white top.
283 engine with a 4 barrel carb.
Dual exhaust with low restriction mufflers.
411 gears.
4 speed trans with a hurst shifter.
It was at a point of my life when I did not have any brains and a great way to waste money.