The top trim of KHI’s pony car, the Stellia.
Features a 158ci boxer-six motor, providing the 2,361lb car with 180 horsepower.
The five-speed manual allows those horses to send the car up to 60 mph in 6.4 seconds.
All achieved with a comfortable banner of solid reliability, good comfort, and a fun driving experience unique to the Stellia platform.
1983 RAUK HULDRA 16 VALVE
MORE PICTURES:
1980 Knightwick Puma
The Knightwick sports family of Puma fastback and S-Roadster.
The S-Roadster was launched in 1975 as a lightweight sports car offering two variant of sohc 2.0l four cylinder, one an eight valve and the “sprint” model a sixteen valve.
1978 saw the Puma launched, this offered the same basis as the S-Roadster however a fastback style body is used and small rear seats are part of the car now for carrying occasional adults or children.
Engine choices were either the 2.0l “sprint” engine or a new 4.0l created by merging two four cylinder engines to make a light and powerful 32V V8 engine. V8 models have extra air intakes mounted at the rear of the bonnet.
The rear of the Puma has a streamlined look with modern tail lights running into rear side markers for the usdm market.
Optional dealer fit accessories as shown include rear louvered window cover, larger rubber rear spoiler, front spotlights and removable roof rack and cross bars.
Domestic performance options were few and far between in 1979, so when Armor Motors unveiled the new Hurricane S/C, expectations were high.
Riding on a wheelbase as long as a Trans Am, yet physically only the size of a fox-body Mustang, the Hurricane utilized short overhangs to keep it manageable both on the track and in the parking lots. 15" wheels were standard on V8 models, as were the hideaway headlights.
But the big news for the S/C was the new engine. A brand new 303 cid (5.0 liter) V8 bowed with a 16-valve SOHC layout, producing an advertised 265 horsepower (tested as 263.8 hp). It’s new serpentine belt drive system aided tremendously in cost and maintenance of the timing chains. 0-62 mph times were a reported 6.2 seconds, which was one of the quickest American cars that year (sadly, the next fastest car wasn’t even a car; Dodge’s Lil Red Express truck took 6.8 seconds to reach 60 mph). The S/C was almost a full second quicker than a Trans Am, and 2 seconds quicker than a Mustang.
Today’s feature car is an extremely well-maintained example, wearing it’s original (and very rare) Storm Blue paint. The seller is looking at all reasonable offers, but luckily for you the market hasn’t fully caught on to these S/C’s yet.
Thank you! I just realized I use that body a lot lol.
Well, it’s very versatile, one could almost say that it is for the 70s what the BMW body is for the 60s and the Commoner body for the 80s…
…in a similar fashion to the '88 Indicator body sets being a good choice for the 1990s and 2000s, and the edgy W204-esque body sets fitting right into the 2000s and 2010s.
Speaking of the Commoner body sets, their smooth styling helps keep them fresh well into the 1990s. As for those Mobula body sets, despite being introduced in 1969, their crisp lines make them most well-suited for '70s and '80s builds, although they can also be used as the basis for retro 2000s muscle/pony cars if you want.
Good-looking, versatile morphs, easy to work with for interiors especially, and easily adaptable across at least three decades, what more could one want?* I find myself using the Mobula bodies for a good half of my builds. Including what will likely be for sale somewhere in Oklahoma before too long…
That Hurricane is one of the better-looking cars I’ve seen lately, period.
*I could want more accurate frontal area, more realistic drag, and wagon bodies not having unfathomably increased front weight bias.
Can’t find much info on this thing, and I’m not certain it’s real, but if it is, it’d be the same as the sedan E60: 1993-1994.
I’m going to be frank, that unicorn Volga was easily findable even, while this - I can’t even find it with reverse image search. I have a strong feeling that it’s just a well-made photoshop, and I can’t even find it on the Russian Mercedes forum that it’s supposedly from.
So no dice.
I was hopeful for a minute, but yeah, it almost certainly is a photoshop, in part from the suspiciously neat angle of the photo, and in part because builds like these (along which lines are the Volga, and a one-off Mk.4 Jetta coupe conversion I saw somewhere) tend to be well-documented somewhere. The post doesn’t divulge much anything. I’m sure someone got more than halfway through making one in a shed outside Norilsk or something similar (I can’t find a series of videos I saw of someone successfully reviving an S600 in a shed near Murmansk), but even so, we can’t exactly call that a production vehicle. Oh well.
So just the general question for now: are retro bodies a la Volga or Stutz (or the SSR) kosher?
Ah yes, your question from earlier. My apologies.
The answer to that is: It depends. An SSR-style body is, uh, “kosher” and realistic because it still conforms to modern aero and crash stuff; A Stutz, too, was just a 70s car that dared to incorporate some earlier styling cues. But suffice to say you will lose quite a few points in realism if you, for example, try and submit a 2008 car that looks exactly like a 1950s Ford Anglia.
Currently I am making a car for CSR156, and I had the terrible idea of making it for both that and CW5.
So how terrible of an idea is that?
You’re not the only one with this idea… though it should be pointed out that the budget for CSR156 is just over half of what a 1987 car can cost for this comp.
Chevy Cavalier Z24 and Cadillac Cimmaron
do it I dare you
The fact that the cimarron by virtue of being the more expensive one, must the cool one is terrifying
