Dave@Moon

That is the trademark of Standard's supplier. I've been trying to find the name but "W-B" logos are too common. I've found at least 3 different firms using those initials in trademarks over the years in Birmingham alone. Here's a better picture: http://www.pbase.com/mgrove/image/125776450

English Ford Zodiac Mk. 2 (w/ custom rocker panel trim), 1956-1962.

English Ford Zephyr Mk. 2, 1956-1962.

Soviet-era UAZ again, same as dump truck.

Soviet UAZ dump truck (apparently only sold in this color!).

Wow. Cuba cars usually don't look this good. This is a well-cared for car. Unlike most it would be worth restoring/correcting for other markets!

That trim is for a 1956 Olds 98, but that does not appear to be the C-body car that would have that name in the U.S. It looks like a 1954-56 Olds 88 dressed up to look like a 98.

It's a 1953-1962 Mercedes-Benz W120/121 car, sold worldwide as a "180" or "190" series.

The blue car on the left is a 1950 or 51 Studebaker. If it's been id'ed already I haven't seen the thread yet.

...with 1958 Oldsmobile and what looks like a car Chevrolet supposedly never made, a 4 door 1952 Fleetline sedan. By 1952 they were supposed to be 2 doors only.

1948-1950

Green car: 1953 Buick Special. Blue car: 1949 Ford (or at least the trunk lid is 1949) with unusual back up lights. Partial blue car: 1954 Chrysler.

The two cars on the right are pretty clearly late 1970s/early 1980s Russian Lada 1500s, by far the most popular car in Cuba. BTW, the 1956 Chevy is a 210, but the 1955 is a BelAir.

It would be nice if all 5 were sports cars. By any reasonably strict definition of the term only the 911 and the GT6 are sports cars at all. They are the only two that were suitable for autocrossing or other "sports car" activities. The other 3 are supercars that were never driven as sports cars. ever. The worst example is the DB6, which is an expensive sports-tourer. A great car, but about as suitable for racing and autocross as a Buick Riviera. The GT6 is a GREAT car, which is seriously under-appreciated because it's first version came with an unstable swing-axle rear end. The Mk. 2 version of the GT6 is one of the most rewarding cars to drive I've ever experienced. To call it a "weak engine" is laughable to anyone who's also driven ANY MG, non-V8 Sunbeam, Fiat sports car, early Porsche (i.e. 356), etc. Before the 240Z came out it would dust just about anything in it's price class, and also in it's displacement class for years after. If it came as a soft top I'd likely prefer it to my TR6. (BTW: "tons of people" having this "classic car" must be literal (as in about 4000 lbs worth), as good GT6s are not easy to find. Compared to TR series Triumphs and all post-war MGs you'd have to call them rare.) That said, any sports car list that doesn't begin (for Americans) with the MG T-Series simply isn't valid. This is one of the worst "automotive lists" I've ever seen.

I think Keiser nailed this one out of the gate. the 1965/66 Belvedere caps were quite different.

1955 Chevy 210's were available in 2-tone colors just like the BelAirs. For example see: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jacksnell707/3006178428/ This 1955 BelAir is painted Shoreline Beige over Gypsy Red, paint code 615.

1957-1960 Opel Rekord P1, a.k.a. Opel Olympia Rekord P1.

Ray Miller's book Thunderbird!, an Illustrated History of the Ford T-Bird is very clear about this. Although the "Porthole" top was much more popular in 1956 than the solid top, both were available in 1956. There are photos of each, including one identical in every way (although in b/w) to this car.

Another intriguing car. The wide set headlights indicate a "2CV Special" model, and the straked trunk lid indicate most likely a 1980s model. However I've never seen those taillights (or any light) in that location on a 2CV, and these appear to be fared in at the factory. It they are custom they were done with more care than the rest of the work the car exhibits. Meanwhile the lack of a C-pillar window indicates that at one time this was a high-end 2CV, like the French Charleston version. This may be a special South American model of some sort, perhaps assembled locally from a knocked-down kit.

The most interesting car in the photo is the one behind the bus. I wish I could see more of it. It appears chopped, or it could be an early '50s Hudson.

This one is interesting. It is either a 1949 Plymouth with what appears to be a Canadian 1949 Dodge Kingsway grille installed, or it is the Kingsway with 1949 Plymouth or similar parking lights (and possibly fenders} installed. Either way the coveted fluted front bumper has been replaced. 1949 Dodge Kingsway: http://www.surreyclassicvehicleclub.com/Our%20Cars/Dodge%20Kingsway/Dodge%20Kingsway.html

There are quite a number of manufacturers (i.e. Hella, Sirius, etc.) that make separate element bulb replacement units for H6024 (7") and H5006 (5 3/4") headlights. I have Hellas on my TR6 that came with the car that I'm very happy with, however... There's a serious caution with 'brighter" headlamps that must be considered. DOT requirements for headlamps specify a brightness in candlepower at a distance, and many of these units exceed those standards and as sold for "off road use only". Beware those units. You could get stuck like me. I can't use my high beams anywhere where law enforcement may lurk, and that's almost anywhere. The low beams are legal, but the brights are obviously not.

There are darn few places where studded snow tires are not permitted, but among the glaring exceptions are Wisconsin and Minnesota. Would somebody please explain to me why they're OK in New Orleans but not in Wausau?:confused: See: http://drivinglaws.aaa.com/laws/studded-tires/ More weight as a percentage over the drive wheels, yes. More weight in general, certainly not. Anyone who's experienced being in a VW Beetle in the snow driving rings around supposedly invincible Jeeps (there just weren't that many 4WDs @ that time) can tell you: a lighter car doesn't need as much traction to move in snow as a heavy car does. The best snow car I ever owned was a 1971 Datsun 510. Driving around stuck and spinning Buicks and Wagoneers on snowy hills in Pittsburgh was a daily occurrence.

Absolutely. And in the rain, where traction improvements generally/completely overcome the added weight (because the effect is minimal relative to snow) the choice is AWD every time (for safety/handling). However ALL of those systems, even the excellent VW/Audi system which is the best of the bunch, add weight to the vehicle and wheels which would otherwise not be there. Given the choice of trying to do an emergency stop or maneuver in an Audi A4 at normal winter travel speeds around a curved road on ice or snow I would choose the 2WD version over the 4WD version any day. The best systems minimize the difference, but none can completely eliminate it. Trying to accelerate around the same corner (however unwise) the choice would be different. However if (personal preference) I'm going to error in my choice for winter driving I'd rather error on the side of getting stuck for traction than on the side of sliding off the road and/or into something due to multiple momentums. I find it more important to avoid obstacles and other drivers in snowstorms than to conveniently accelerate away from them after I've avoided them (if indeed I have). And getting stuck is easier and cheaper to fix should non-avoidance become an issue.

Studded snows are alive and well in Ohio as well, especially on the back of my 2WD Ford Ranger. Without a limited slip differential that truck is worthless in the snow and ice, but with the studs it's better than my FWD daily driver Yaris and Prius. You just have to remember that you lose traction on dry pavement relative to non-studded tires (although not a huge amount, it is noticeable), and drive accordingly then as well. If only that were true. Handling and braking are WORSE with AWD/4WD than in a comparable 2WD vehicle, and in ALL driving conditions...not just on snow/ice. The added weight (especially the unsprung drivetrain weight) and height impact both negatively, often to a high degree. This becomes a serious problem when drivers succumb to the urge to install a "lift kit" in their 4WD as if they're going rock-crawling, when we all can pretty much guess they're in the vast majority just compensating for something as they drive to Walgreens for more toothpaste. As an illustration one need only look to the crucible of racing. AWD rules the roost in rally car driving where traction is often a serious issue, but in stock/track/touring/Indy/F1 car driving it has never really succeeded when tried.