(no subject)

[exsequar]

So I was in the grocery store last week, and I stopped to browse through the magazine section like I always do. One popped out at me - it proclaimed MUSCLE CARS across the top and had a gorgeous Shelby Mustang on the cover. Of course I immediately snagged it. It's part of the HOT ROD Archive Series, and contains over 200 vintage photos of muscle cars, taken back in the day by car magazines. And my god, it's SEXY. I read the whole thing front to cover and it was basically a crash course in muscle cars, which was so much fun!

However, there was NOT ONE IMPALA. Lots and lots of Chevelles, some Camaros, and even a couple El Caminos, but NO IMPALA. *pouts like whoa* The only mention of our baby was in a caption for the El Camino that said it was based on the Impala's frame. NOT ON, HOT ROD. So this says to me that the Impala wasn't actually an important muscle car in the grand scheme of things, even though it was obviously being built in the late 60's and looked just as, if not more, sexass than all of the cars in this magazine. Does anyone with more knowledge of this subject know why they would so completely omit the Metallicar? It was disappointing.

But the magazine was just awesome. I was drooling profusely. Nnnngh. I would make scans if I had a scanner! But my dad has one at home, so maybe I'll do those when I go home for break, if there's any interest!

Comments

[bexone.livejournal.com]

All I can give you is that, according to my dad, the Impala was the car "for the father who wanted to think he had a muscle car." Take that with as many grains of salt as you'd like. *g*

[exsequar.livejournal.com]

HEEE. That's hilarious. And also awesome. Oh, John!