File :-(, x, )
60s-70s automobiles Anonymous
post 'em
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Kinetic-kaze
     File :-(, x)
>> Kinetic-kaze
     File :-(, x)
>> Kinetic-kaze
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>428043

lores shit should be in /o/
>> Anonymous
>>428292

Assholes should be in /b/.
>> Anonymous
>>428486
>>428292
Cocksuckers should be in /hc/
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>428511

Smartarses should... Nah, you make a fair point.

Have some Trans Am.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Where the fuck is the '69 Shelby Ford Mustang Cobra?
>> Anonymous
someone post a White valiant charger? or anything similar
>> Anonymous
...Would kill for a nice pic of a '70 LTD
>> Anonymous
There are no words to express how much I approve of this thread...only wish I had something too contribute.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
:D my favourite era of the automobile industry
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Bat Guano
     File :-(, x)
>>430191
That's a French Renault FT-17 tank, first made in 1917, not an automobile made in the 1960s and 70s.

Pic: 1971 Dodge Charger R-T 440
>> Anonymous
>>430236
An excelant choice in cars my fine sir! I quite enjoy the late 70s trans ams my self.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Am I too late?
>> Anonymous
>>431564

no, thanks for bumping a great thread.