Home Keaton Car Kilmer Car Clooney Car Tumbler 66 Animated Miscellaneous Collection Discussion Links Guestbook
You are viewing old version of our website. Please click on HOME link to be redirected to new site. Thanks.
Batmobile Forum


  89 vs 92
 From: rusty | Posted: 3/9/2006 11:44:29 PM |

Posts: 915
RE: 89 vs 92

tim i see what your saying but my body wouldnt fit that frame in the first picture


 From: Tim | Posted: 3/9/2006 11:49:40 PM |
Anton Who?

Posts: 2411
RE: 89 vs 92

Okay, I'll stop, but my point is that the angles here are very close yet if would appear that their is more space on the right then there is on the left. Of course we know that is not correct because it's the same picture.

This just shows that the lines are the same length.





 From: rusty | Posted: 3/9/2006 11:52:23 PM |

Posts: 915
RE: 89 vs 92


hold on i did some photo shopping and it just might fit



 From: Tim | Posted: 3/9/2006 11:54:12 PM |
Anton Who?

Posts: 2411
RE: 89 vs 92

I'm studying the pictures and I haven't figured out a good way to tell why you think that yet... What size tires do you have on there now?


 From: rusty | Posted: 3/10/2006 12:07:07 AM |

Posts: 915
RE: 89 vs 92

the no car had 33 inch tall tires now look at how much frame is sticking past them ..not just the angles the mounting holes how much more thats hanging out. the car in tunica stops right after the mounting holes jacks stops right after the holes(just picture his with 33 on it) mines bobbed off .. why do they stop at them holes because thats the end of the body.. now the no 1 car dont it keeps on going several inchs and then the exhast gos on out .. but im going to get under a capice and put a tape on it and see if anything would fit passed them holes

Last Edited by rusty: 3/10/2006 12:07:54 AM

 From: Webmaster | Posted: 3/10/2006 12:08:13 AM |
I RULEZ!!!

Posts: 1517
RE: 89 vs 92

I think Tim and Jack are right about the vents.





 From: Webmaster | Posted: 3/10/2006 12:08:31 AM |
I RULEZ!!!

Posts: 1517
RE: 89 vs 92




 From: Webmaster | Posted: 3/10/2006 12:09:02 AM |
I RULEZ!!!

Posts: 1517
RE: 89 vs 92




 From: rusty | Posted: 3/10/2006 12:16:41 AM |

Posts: 915
RE: 89 vs 92


im just asking ..i know jack ,nitro, kevin,mark, paul have been all over these cars. now please tell me. would your body fit this frame..mine wouldnt


Last Edited by MOD: 3/10/2006 12:34:19 AM

 From: Jack | Posted: 3/10/2006 7:41:44 AM |
N'D middle

Posts: 1947
RE: 89 vs 92

Rusty, do you have a shot of the inside of yours where the rear of the frame sits in the body? But to answer your question. It would depend on the width of that frame and how high or low the body was placed over the frame. I'll try to take some measurments this weekend based on the position of the turbine in the picture you posted.
Sorry just very busy right now.



 From: Jack | Posted: 3/10/2006 8:22:06 AM |
N'D middle

Posts: 1947
RE: 89 vs 92

Rusty I guess you are trying to help Mark prove that the 89 and 92 are different? Why doesn't Mark just post his proof? Like I said before I'm not buying (not yet anyway). If there are more cars why aren't there more pictures. What would that make the OnStar cars? Repaints of the 89 or the 92? Just another Bat urban legend or maybe they never left England. Mark you made the statment so lets see some proof. No I'm not trying to be an ass I just don't want to have to wait for 2 months like the last time.


 From: Mr A | Posted: 3/10/2006 2:18:23 PM |
Mr A

Posts: 281
RE: 89 vs 92

Chip's & cheese, from what I can see.

Isn't the Carmel car just set the exhaust & afterburner further forward in the chassis? The afterburner does seem to be the wrong size & shape. Most definatly the wrong 'feathers' on the afterburner (call me Rainman, cause talking to myself while on this site, is how my family see me just now). Just look at the exhausts, they hardly clear the body. Also, it might be just me, but dosn't the phoney car have a lower canopy? It looks to me like it's shorter than the rear fins (from the ground).

The hero car looks like the canopy is at least the same height as the rear fins, perhaps taller? Also the rear end (exhaust & afterburner) fittings are clearly set up futher back on the frame (further from the front ). The exhausts also look like they stand out from underneath the body shell. Look at where they are in relation to the body shell, then it's plain to see the difference.

Check back on the pics & see what you think.


Last Edited by Mr A: 3/11/2006 5:21:01 AM
Mr A


"There is no end but, the end is near!"

 From: Mr A | Posted: 3/10/2006 2:21:03 PM |
Mr A

Posts: 281
RE: 89 vs 92

Hell, I'll ask.

Whats the length of your car & height (ie, body only)? Then we can compare differences, right?

(Also I might learn something more)


Last Edited by Mr A: 3/10/2006 2:41:12 PM
Mr A


"There is no end but, the end is near!"

 From: rusty | Posted: 3/10/2006 6:23:17 PM |

Posts: 915
RE: 89 vs 92

jack i had this discussion with nitro a long time ago and just because i agree with someone makes me a defender ...no.. and im talking about the frame length behind the rear wheels ..i see where yours stops and i see where the no.1 stops could your frame stand to be about a foot longer? and im just going with what i see and think...i dont need someone to lead me.


 From: Jack | Posted: 3/10/2006 7:55:59 PM |
N'D middle

Posts: 1947
RE: 89 vs 92

Look how short they cut these. Also notice that is how the frame is actually positioned on the 6 Flags cars, same with the car in Tallahassee. They lifted the suspension to near full travel using air shocks and then mounted the body. Note the position of the exhaust tips.



Last Edited by MOD: 3/10/2006 7:58:04 PM

 From: Jack | Posted: 3/10/2006 8:24:16 PM |
N'D middle

Posts: 1947
RE: 89 vs 92

I just measured mine. At the longest possible for the way I have my body positioned over my frame the length from the center of the hole would be 9". The frame would be touching the body. Now I really should have put my body lower over the frame with the frame higher (not as high as the Six Flags car of course). Tim was nice enough to do a little photo editing and came up with this frame being around 9+ to the center of the hole. Actually 9 3/4" since the hole is 1 1/2". So could my body fit over it? Probably depending on how much it was sat over the frame. But with the way mine is sitting right now, NO it would hit by up to 3/4".








Now these are just guesstoments.... But you can see it's not a foot longer probably closer to 4 to 5 inches longer.

So we are back to waiting on the proof. Come on Mark stop holding out.



 From: Tim | Posted: 3/10/2006 8:27:15 PM |
Anton Who?

Posts: 2411
RE: 89 vs 92

You don't have to provide "proof", just tell us why you think that the 92 is shorter than the '89... ??


 From: Jack | Posted: 3/10/2006 8:29:10 PM |
N'D middle

Posts: 1947
RE: 89 vs 92

Yeah good point the whole Proof thing does sound kind of rude. Why do you think they are two differnt cars?


 From: Nitro | Posted: 3/10/2006 8:38:27 PM |
Number 3

Posts: 741
RE: 89 vs 92

Jack I think BatGod and I talked about this once also. I dont remember what he said.I think he said there where shorter cars out there for the stunt shows at six flags .I think he knows the scoop on the returns cars as well.God any thoughts?


 From: Jimmy | Posted: 3/10/2006 9:50:50 PM |
Brokebat Mtn

Posts: 117
RE: 89 vs 92

I've seen so many damn photos of this car that I think I would know if some of them were shorter than others. So would so many of the other members of this board. Why the hell would they make the 92 shorter than the 89? That just doesn't make sense. Mark is either misinformed or full of .

Nice job getting everyone going though f*ckhole...


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Mark Towle's Batmobiles don't suck. But WTF do I know?

 From: rusty | Posted: 3/10/2006 11:33:01 PM |

Posts: 915
RE: 89 vs 92

i been telling you why i think it this whole thred. and my car wouldnt fit that frame there would be four or five inchs sticking out the back and im not trying to be rude i just notice stuff like that and if i didnt we would have one less thing to talk about ...a lease a got people to talk


 From: Justin | Posted: 3/11/2006 12:10:21 AM |
"Tumbler"

Posts: 1355
RE: 89 vs 92

Indeed! It DID give us something Keaton car related to talk about since we have been kind of dry recently.

------------------------
For more information on replica Batmobiles and "kits", check out www.thebatcave8k.com

 From: Jack | Posted: 3/11/2006 2:25:17 AM |
N'D middle

Posts: 1947
RE: 89 vs 92

Yes great topic indeed. Although with Rusty and Nate sharing pix we have been doing a lot of "back on track" 89 talk. I can't believe that everyones not talking about the great deals from Batgod and Mark. I would have bet every member of CLTC would have jumpped on those deals. I know I would have.


 From: Kevin | Posted: 3/11/2006 9:49:04 AM |
"Not"

Posts: 906
RE: 89 vs 92

Just to let you know the 89 and the 92 cars are one in the same. The two cars were fitted with new gadgets and a different paint scheme. I donít know who has been passing around that the two cars are different, it just isn't so.

The two OnStar cars are the real cars repainted and OnStar buttons installed. I am sure that Dave can confirm this for us as well.



 From: Jack Knight1979 | Posted: 3/11/2006 11:51:31 AM |

Posts: 212
RE: 89 vs 92

I've up close to the onstar cars. (like touching it) It's the 89, no doubt about it.

I don't have a batmobile, but I have a remote R2-D2
www.c4-designs.com/ciii



Pages:    12345678910








Copyright © 2004-2005 chickslovethecar.com "Chicks Love The Car"
Batman is a registered trademark of DC Comics and Warner Bros.
This is a purely fan based site. No copyright infringement is intended. Click here for privacy policy