65 Mercury Cylcone vs 65 Plymouth production cars - 65 Cyclone vs 65 production Plymouth.jpg (0/1)
 

Now the question comes to "Which came 1st the Chicken or the Egg? "

he, he

65 Mercury Cylcone vs 65 Plymouth production cars Oops I FORGOT TO ATTACH THE PHOTOS - 65 Cyclone vs 65 production Plymouth.jpg (0/1)
 

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:56:21 -0700, Doby > wrote:

>>Now the question comes to "Which came 1st the Chicken or the Egg? "
>>
>>he, he

65 Mercury Cylcone vs 65 Plymouth production cars Oops I FORGOT TO ATTACH THE PHOTOS - 65 Cyclone vs 65 production Plymouth.jpg (1/1)
 

65 Mercury Cylcone vs 65 Plymouth production cars Oops I FORGOT TO ATTACH THE PHOTOS - 65 Cyclone vs 65 production Plymouth.jpg (1/1)
 

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:02:09 -0700, Doby > wrote:


It is not a good comparison. What those photo's do not show is that
Mercury is a 1965 Comet which was at that time, labeled a "Compact
Car" and is a bit smaller than the Plymouth which looks to be a 1966
Fury that at the time was labeled an "Intermediate Car" so the The
correct comparison should be one of a Valiant to a Comet.

Fred

65 Mercury Cylcone vs 65 Plymouth production cars Oops I FORGOT TO ATTACH THE PHOTOS - 65 Cyclone vs 65 production Plymouth.jpg (1/1)
 

He's just comparing the styling not the size or market. To boot, the
Cyclone was a large "compact" like the Dodge Dart of the same era, bigger
than the Falcon on which it was based, and the Mopars were roundly
criticized in their day for being smaller than their full size
contemporaries from GM and Ford. There may not have been a great deal of
difference in size.
By the way, the Fury was classified as full sized, not intermediate. The
Satellite was the intermediate sized Mopar, which is what this example
appears to be. As such, it might be quite close to the Cyclone in size.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
"Fred C. Dobbs" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:02:09 -0700, Doby > wrote:
>
>
> It is not a good comparison. What those photo's do not show is that
> Mercury is a 1965 Comet which was at that time, labeled a "Compact
> Car" and is a bit smaller than the Plymouth which looks to be a 1966
> Fury that at the time was labeled an "Intermediate Car" so the The
> correct comparison should be one of a Valiant to a Comet.
>
> Fred

65 Mercury Cylcone vs 65 Plymouth production cars Oops I FORGOT TO ATTACH THE PHOTOS - 65 Cyclone vs 65 production Plymouth.jpg (1/1)
 

He's just comparing the styling not the size or market. To boot, the
Cyclone was a large "compact" like the Dodge Dart of the same era, bigger
than the Falcon on which it was based, and the Mopars were roundly
criticized in their day for being smaller than their full size
contemporaries from GM and Ford. There may not have been a great deal of
difference in size.
By the way, the Fury was classified as full sized, not intermediate. The
Satellite was the intermediate sized Mopar, which is what this example
appears to be. As such, it might be quite close to the Cyclone in size.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
"Fred C. Dobbs" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:02:09 -0700, Doby > wrote:
>
>
> It is not a good comparison. What those photo's do not show is that
> Mercury is a 1965 Comet which was at that time, labeled a "Compact
> Car" and is a bit smaller than the Plymouth which looks to be a 1966
> Fury that at the time was labeled an "Intermediate Car" so the The
> correct comparison should be one of a Valiant to a Comet.
>
> Fred

65 Mercury Cylcone vs 65 Plymouth production cars Oops I FORGOT TO ATTACH THE PHOTOS - 65 Cyclone vs 65 production Plymouth.jpg (1/1)
 

Not being technical, he is looking at who stacked the headlamps first, I
have to go with Pontiac on this one!!! LOL Really though, they do look the
same (cars pictured)!

TS
"Fred C. Dobbs" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:02:09 -0700, Doby > wrote:
>
>
> It is not a good comparison. What those photo's do not show is that
> Mercury is a 1965 Comet which was at that time, labeled a "Compact
> Car" and is a bit smaller than the Plymouth which looks to be a 1966
> Fury that at the time was labeled an "Intermediate Car" so the The
> correct comparison should be one of a Valiant to a Comet.
>
> Fred

65 Mercury Cylcone vs 65 Plymouth production cars Oops I FORGOT TO ATTACH THE PHOTOS - 65 Cyclone vs 65 production Plymouth.jpg (1/1)
 

On Fri, 1 May 2009 07:12:05 -0700, "Skip" > wrote:

>>He's just comparing the styling not the size or market. To boot, the
>>Cyclone was a large "compact" like the Dodge Dart of the same era, bigger
>>than the Falcon on which it was based, and the Mopars were roundly
>>criticized in their day for being smaller than their full size
>>contemporaries from GM and Ford. There may not have been a great deal of
>>difference in size.
>>By the way, the Fury was classified as full sized, not intermediate. The
>>Satellite was the intermediate sized Mopar, which is what this example
>>appears to be. As such, it might be quite close to the Cyclone in size.

Right on Skip. The purpose is to show that spies in every company seem to
sneak out proto or design info to competitors. Some are too obvious to just
be a chance in a million coincidence. I imagine money paid has a lot to do in
these cases too. If they were on the road then any photographer can take the
photo. I've done it myself were known, but disguised vehicles travel. Never
had any publish or made any money on them.

Doby

65 Mercury Cylcone vs 65 Plymouth production cars - 65 Cyclone vs 65 production Plymouth.jpg (0/1)
 

"John Bradley" > wrote in message
rlakestechnologygroup...
> Ou, le poulet?

Chicken indeed. And it's a good thing.
--
Pat

65 Mercury Cylcone vs 65 Plymouth production cars - 65 Cyclone vs 65 production Plymouth.jpg (0/1)
 

L'oeuf
jean

"Doby" > wrote in message
...
> Now the question comes to "Which came 1st the Chicken or the Egg? "
>
> he, he
>