BXquishite!

toddao · Post by **toddao** » Fri Aug 22, 2008 2:52 pm

what is this??

M · Post by M » Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:40 pm

Could it be the BX Cottage?

CitroXim · Post by **CitroXim** » Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:06 pm

Fo a very tall dog perhaps?

Reserve Popemobile?

Cunningly disguised tank?

Enclosure for a huge subwoofer?

Whoever did the conversion did a poor job with the badges. There in the top picture but gone in the next

Blown off by the camera flash...

kermit the frog · Post by **kermit the frog** » Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:25 pm

I see it has a tow bar to presumably tow a proper carravan so why bother with the conversion.

It could be a cunningly disquised aerodynamic thingy but i very mich doubt it.

It is indeed the most pointless thing i have ever seen well apart from,

No i was right the first time it is the most pointless thing i have ever seen.

I bet it is not water tight.

Regards Kermit

MULLEY · Post by **MULLEY** » Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:57 pm

An early Mclaren F1 spoiler test mule.....

cavmad · Post by **cavmad** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 6:45 am

Mobile canine portaloo? Might as well be as it looks utter dog shite.

mike st gilles · Post by **mike st gilles** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:02 pm

Might be a conversion for a wheelchair...........pretty claustrophobic but there aren't any pics of the front where there might be a window.

roy.hassell · Post by **roy.hassell** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 4:18 pm

Its either two versions sharing a number plate or two photos taken with a time lapse for developement ( the car thingy or whatever it is ).
Why, well as already identified one has badges, the other hasn't --- now look at the back window --- two different designs .
Tell me, is April 1st late this year, or has the 2009 version been brought forward ???
Either way, BUG UGLY !!

andmcit · Post by **andmcit** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 5:05 pm

It seamlessly blends in with the original lines of the Bx in a way that can
only say it's manufactured by Citroen as an Accessoiré!

The rear C pillar graphic is truly bizarre too. It really doesn't seem to have
any particular purpose - you don't get additional sleeping space so it's not
a camper, there's no windows or entry ramps etc so it's not a disability car,
and the 'extra space isn't going to allow much extra useful carrying capacity.
I'd guess he's a frustrated owner who wanted an estate for his dogs to sit
in the back of!

Remember, occurrences like this are very rare ladies and gentlemen,
so don't have nightmares...

Andrew

Terry · Post by **Terry** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 8:50 pm

Oh dear, how sad, when for 10p they could have used a public toilet.

ed4ferrets · Post by **ed4ferrets** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 10:37 pm

Not too good Photoshop perhaps ..... Phil?

Philip Chidlow · Post by **Philip Chidlow** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 10:46 pm

Well, I wouldn't bother, so affronted I am

But my reckoning is that that isn't the full story: Looking at it, I wouldn't be surprised that there's the equivalent of a sort of trailer tent, fold out arrangement there. I reckoning the top lifts up, and there's some sort of two-person awning that miraculously issues forth.

Or maybe not. I which case WTF is it doing?

ed4ferrets · Post by **ed4ferrets** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:13 pm

Philip Chidlow wrote:Well, I wouldn't bother, so affronted I am

Harhar, you are not the suspect Phil ... just thought you could throw some light on the Photoshop possibility

There are just too many discrepancies between the two pics: badges, rear window, black band/stripe is just too black on pic 2, also in pic 1 the 'Accessoiré' appears to be as wide as the roofline ... now look how wide it is in pic 2 ie as wide as the widest part of the car

Philip Chidlow · Post by **Philip Chidlow** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:27 pm

I agree. It could be a Photoshop job. But for all the general awfulness, it would be a good one. It occurred to me that it might be - but why bother? Also there are parts of it that point to it being a real shot, namely the uneveness of the 'roof' of the extension: it's warped/rippled in the same way on both images...

but I am prepared to be proved wrong!

andmcit · Post by **andmcit** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:41 pm

I'd suggest it does actually exist, but has had some 'cleaning up' in
Photoshop to help make it look 'better'; after all, it's challenged in
so many ways already!! The denting in the aluminium roof is
consistent in the two views with the car sitting in a different position
on the drive suggesting different time/day the 'project' was
photographed! Why bother spending time on such a creation in
Photoshop; to what purpose would there be any point?

The biggest difference is the rectangular tape/frame on the 3/4 view,
though heaven knows what that's all about, and who cares anyhow.

The 3/4 view has suspect photo edging to the number plate and the
badges do just look a tad stuck on the pic though...

Anyway, there's a chance it all uncouples off the back and the car
returns to normal again - here's hoping!

Andrew

<edit - I've just gone for a preview and made identical points as Philip
- I'll post anyway even though I was beaten to the draw!!

>