|
General » rec.autos.driving » For Brent :)
| For Brent :) [message #797717] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 03:54 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: For Brent :) [message #797719 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 03:57 |
|
On Mar 11, 9:54=A0pm, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt... [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think you have expressed similar sentiments regarding the new Shelby
> Mustangs. :)
>
> http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s87/Evilways75/STupidMust ang.jpg
> --
> "Dave's not here, man!"
> =A0 - Tommy Chong
ROTFL! That's priceless! Pun intentional. :)
F ix
O r
R eplace
D aily
|
|
|
| Re: For Brent :) [message #797725 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 04:04 |
|
In article <7dhet31jk14bgtjur991kp40mf7pbn81h4 [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
>I think you have expressed similar sentiments regarding the new Shelby
>Mustangs. :)
>
> http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s87/Evilways75/STupidMust ang.jpg
I don't know about the 'deserve to drive a ford' part, should have come
up with something not so brand wars-ish. But yeah, Ford's idiotcy is only
surpassed by the people who are spending 60 grand for these cars.
I stopped at two dealerships recently (when they are closed so I can look
with out a sales droid bothering me) Both dealerships had the following
in the showroom: A ugly silver or greyish GT500 coupe and a blue w/white
stipes shelby GT. I might stop in one of them to see what the current
surcharges are... but if I am going to pay even $40K for a car it's going
to be in the color I want with the options I want, not whatever some ford
marketeer decided the 'hot' colors for the chicago are would be.
It is highly unlikely two unreleated ford dealerships ordered the
exact same shelby mustang inventory, but even if they did I wouldn't buy
them even at list... maybe well below invoice I can be convinced to live
with the color.
|
|
|
| Re: For Brent :) [message #797726 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 04:04 |
|
Scott in SoCal wrote:
> I think you have expressed similar sentiments regarding the new Shelby
> Mustangs. :)
>
> http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s87/Evilways75/STupidMust ang.jpg
Heh...
I can think of one car that probably wouldn't even break into the 12s
that I would have paid big bucks for... of course, that was an all-black
(and I do mean all) '53 Stude hardtop with just the nicest custom
leather interior you could imagine (old school, not "pro street" style)
old 5-spoke mags, 327/4-speed, absolutely pristine... amazing
workmanshop and attention to detail on everything. Nothing fancy, just
an old school hot rod done the way it would have been done back in the
60's if someone had enough $$ to build absolutely everything right. I
think the car I'm thinking of did change hands for something north of
$40K last year.
Yes, I thought about it, then checked my wallet...
Of course, you wouldn't see yourself coming in that car pretty much
anywhere outside of a car show...
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: For Brent :) [message #797732 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 04:20 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: For Brent :) [message #797739 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 04:29 |
|
In article <euiet3dd7o1eijak7e7ijplce2110g7rrl [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:04:33 -0500, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com
>(Brent P) wrote:
>
>>It is highly unlikely two unreleated ford dealerships ordered the
>>exact same shelby mustang inventory, but even if they did I wouldn't buy
>>them even at list... maybe well below invoice I can be convinced to live
>>with the color.
>
>Wait about a year, then pick up a used one. That $40,000 MSRP will
>translate into about a $25,000 trade-in value and a sub-$30,000 dealer
>retail price. :)
You do know they've been out there for two years or so now and the used
ones for sale are asking for absurd prices... I really should get another
car... I dunno... maybe I should get something plain and then get an old
aussie falcon for fun....
|
|
|
| Re: For Brent :) [message #797740 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 04:31 |
|
On Mar 11, 10:29=A0pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <euiet3dd7o1eijak7e7ijplce2110g7... [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wr=
ote:
> >On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:04:33 -0500, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com
> >(Brent P) wrote:
>
> >>It is highly unlikely two unreleated ford dealerships ordered the
> >>exact same shelby mustang inventory, but even if they did I wouldn't buy=
> >>them even at list... maybe well below invoice I can be convinced to live=
> >>with the color.
>
> >Wait about a year, then pick up a used one. That $40,000 MSRP will
> >translate into about a $25,000 trade-in value and a sub-$30,000 dealer
> >retail price. :)
>
> You do know they've been out there for two years or so now and the used
> ones for sale are asking for absurd prices... I really should get another
> car... I dunno... maybe I should get something plain and then get an old
> aussie falcon for fun....
Several car models are like that. Last fall a local dealer had a '72
El Camino and was asking $7200 for it. I think that's higher than the
original MSRP when new.
|
|
|
| Re: For Brent :) [message #797742 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 04:42 |
|
In article <26ad451a-858a-4107-a017-84438c5aeeb7 [at] p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, MLOM wrote:
>Several car models are like that. Last fall a local dealer had a '72
>El Camino and was asking $7200 for it. I think that's higher than the
>original MSRP when new.
Only $7200... not as absurd as most stuff that even smells like old
muscle/pony car these days... rusted out hulk?
There needs to be a pin pushed into the old car bubble.
|
|
|
| Re: For Brent :) [message #797746 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 04:59 |
|
On Mar 11, 10:42=A0pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <26ad451a-858a-4107-a017-84438c5ae... [at] p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.=
com>, MLOM wrote:
> >Several car models are like that. =A0Last fall a local dealer had a '72
> >El Camino and was asking $7200 for it. =A0I think that's higher than the
> >original MSRP when new.
>
> Only $7200... not as absurd as most stuff that even smells like old
> muscle/pony car these days... rusted out hulk?
That particular one wasn't...but the other cars were priced even
higher. Last I saw, one of those real-estate sale signs was on the
property.
I had a '73 in college. Its 17 mpg was good for the day but would be
Papa Oscar Sierra mpg these days.
>
> There needs to be a pin pushed into the old car bubble.
That might happen when gas gets in the Lincoln-note-per-gallon range.
At the current oil trading price, that may happen this summer (only an
estimate; not a prediction like AJ did last year).
I'd bet the demand for diesel vehicles is low now. In KC gas is $3.09
but diesel's running at $3.65.
|
|
|
| Re: For Brent :) [message #797760 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 14:31 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: For Brent :) [message #797762 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 14:37 |
|
In article <iomft357fd0qqm0v2jvej93cr3qqj1n1ps [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:29:13 -0500, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com
>(Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article <euiet3dd7o1eijak7e7ijplce2110g7rrl [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
>>>On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:04:33 -0500, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com
>>>(Brent P) wrote:
>>>
>>>>It is highly unlikely two unreleated ford dealerships ordered the
>>>>exact same shelby mustang inventory, but even if they did I wouldn't buy
>>>>them even at list... maybe well below invoice I can be convinced to live
>>>>with the color.
>>>
>>>Wait about a year, then pick up a used one. That $40,000 MSRP will
>>>translate into about a $25,000 trade-in value and a sub-$30,000 dealer
>>>retail price. :)
>>
>>You do know they've been out there for two years or so now and the used
>>ones for sale are asking for absurd prices... I really should get another
>>car... I dunno... maybe I should get something plain and then get an old
>>aussie falcon for fun....
>
>Or you could turn back from The Dark Side and buy a Corvette. :)
I don't really like corvettes. Don't fit in them too well either.
Too bad the holden GM is bringing over is a 4 door.
The BMW 135i seems interesting... but $500 extra for metalic paint and
lousy color choice is annoying for a car of that price. Same with the
GT500 on color choice last I looked. I dunno... I'm probably too cheap
to buy either. Maybe I should just find another '96-98 mustang for a few
grand and just have two nearly indentical cars ;)
|
|
|
| Re: For Brent :) [message #797765 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 15:43 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: For Brent :) [message #797767 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 15:48 |
|
On Mar 11, 8:04=A0pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
> Scott in SoCal wrote:
> > I think you have expressed similar sentiments regarding the new Shelby
> > Mustangs. :)
>
> > http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s87/Evilways75/STupidMust ang.jpg
>
> Heh...
>
> I can think of one car that probably wouldn't even break into the 12s
> that I would have paid big bucks for... of course, that was an all-black
> (and I do mean all) '53 Stude hardtop with just the nicest custom
> leather interior you could imagine (old school, not "pro street" style)
> old 5-spoke mags, 327/4-speed, absolutely pristine... amazing
> workmanshop and attention to detail on everything. =A0Nothing fancy, just
> an old school hot rod done the way it would have been done back in the
> 60's if someone had enough $$ to build absolutely everything right. =A0I
> think the car I'm thinking of did change hands for something north of
> $40K last year.
>
> Yes, I thought about it, then checked my wallet...
>
> Of course, you wouldn't see yourself coming in that car pretty much
> anywhere outside of a car show...
Exactly. It's like having an old 911. Not a clapped-out beater, but
one that has been kept well, and runs well, and the niggling issues
addressed (as only Porsche enthusiasts can address them.). First, you
pay big bucks to the enthusiast to pry it out of their loving hands.
Then you have to think carefully about how you're going to use the
car. If you're going to drive it more than 7k miles/yr., then
specialty insurance is out. Like Haggerty or similar. Even then,
would you dare risk such a nice car on the roads such as they are?
Mommy on her cell phone in the minivan, with two screaming brats in
the back?
So, if you're going to have a car you don't drive much, and just show,
might as well be a hot rod, hmmm?
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: For Brent :) [message #797768 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 16:09 |
|
In article <kvqft394b9g56gb83br2culh3ebor8e35j [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:37:16 -0500, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com
>(Brent P) wrote:
>
>>Maybe I should just find another '96-98 mustang for a few
>>grand and just have two nearly indentical cars ;)
>
>But don't you want a FAST car? :)
The problem is the old saying... speed costs money how fast do you want
to spend?
|
|
|
| Re: For Brent :) [message #797771 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 17:25 |
|
On Mar 12, 10:48=A0am, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 8:04=A0pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Scott in SoCal wrote:
> > > I think you have expressed similar sentiments regarding the new Shelby=
> > > Mustangs. :)
>
> > > http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s87/Evilways75/STupidMust ang.jpg
>
> > Heh...
>
> > I can think of one car that probably wouldn't even break into the 12s
> > that I would have paid big bucks for... of course, that was an all-black=
> > (and I do mean all) '53 Stude hardtop with just the nicest custom
> > leather interior you could imagine (old school, not "pro street" style)
> > old 5-spoke mags, 327/4-speed, absolutely pristine... amazing
> > workmanshop and attention to detail on everything. =A0Nothing fancy, jus=
t
> > an old school hot rod done the way it would have been done back in the
> > 60's if someone had enough $$ to build absolutely everything right. =A0I=
> > think the car I'm thinking of did change hands for something north of
> > $40K last year.
>
> > Yes, I thought about it, then checked my wallet...
>
> > Of course, you wouldn't see yourself coming in that car pretty much
> > anywhere outside of a car show...
>
> Exactly. =A0It's like having an old 911. =A0Not a clapped-out beater, but
> one that has been kept well, and runs well, and the niggling issues
> addressed (as only Porsche enthusiasts can address them.). =A0First, you
> pay big bucks to the enthusiast to pry it out of their loving hands.
> Then you have to think carefully about how you're going to use the
> car. =A0If you're going to drive it more than 7k miles/yr., then
> specialty insurance is out. =A0Like Haggerty or similar. =A0Even then,
> would you dare risk such a nice car on the roads such as they are?
> Mommy on her cell phone in the minivan, with two screaming brats in
> the back?
>
> So, if you're going to have a car you don't drive much, and just show,
> might as well be a hot rod, hmmm?
>
> E.P.
Assuming I had the money to buy the thing in the first place, I would
drive the wheels off of it. Unless I was driving the '73 911RSR that
I also had the money to buy. Hey, driving is unpleasant enough, you
might as well do it in style if you can.
Of course, this is all just my warped gearhead fantasy world, which I
far prefer to actual reality. Although reality isn't all that bad, if
I can just find the time to get my '55 back together (it actually
looks pretty similar to the car I'm thinking of from 40 feet or
so...) I'm still conflicted on the Ch*vy engine issue; I like the
torque, cool uniqueness factor, and the "oh my God, what the hell was
THAT?" exhaust note of a Stude 289 but the revs and light weight of a
327 make their own compelling case...
nate
|
|
|
| Re: For Brent :) [message #797787 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 19:48 |
|
On Mar 12, 9:25=A0am, N8N <njna... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 10:48=A0am, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So, if you're going to have a car you don't drive much, and just show,
> > might as well be a hot rod, hmmm?
>
> Assuming I had the money to buy the thing in the first place, I would
> drive the wheels off of it. =A0
We are in 100% agreement.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: For Brent :) [message #797791 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 20:21 |
|
> > There needs to be a pin pushed into the old car bubble.
ISTR that the priec of Detroit muscle bubbled up and went poof once
before -- in the early 90s, if memory serves. Speculative markets are
inherently super-risky. Unless you're really astute about buying low
and selling high, and willing to stay on top of things so that you
know when to jump off that ride, stay away from old cars as an
investment -- buy them only because you like them, and be ever mindful
of non faddish models that would give you satisfaction similar to the
craze du jour for a lot less money.
> That might happen when gas gets in the Lincoln-note-per-gallon range.
Digging even further into memory, we find a Popular Mechanics (or
somesuch) retrospective on the history of the V8, from another climax
of gas prices in the early 80s. At its conclusion, someone is in his
garage sometime in the future, starting up "the 454 Chevelle he's been
faithfully anointing for decades" just to listen to "a sound like the
beating of a thousand angels' wings..."
I wish I could remember when that putative future was supposed to be,
and wonder if it's around now.
> That might happen when gas gets in the Lincoln-note-per-gallon range.
That had a lot to do with said concluding image. Of course, at the
time, people thought there would be a third wave of the energy crisis;
instead the OPEC nations decided they'd rather bicker among themselves
than hoover our wallets, and oil prices went on a long plunge to
inflation-adjusted historical lows. However, OPEC or at least less
formalized instantiations of the general concept were too good an
idea to stay down forever...
>I'd bet the demand for diesel vehicles is low now.
Not quite sure I have anything approaching a comprehensive
understanding of the market forces that push diesel to higher prices
than gasoline, when intuitively one thinks of the heavier petroleum
fractions as being cheaper and more readily available. I am reminded
of a Wall Street Journal article from a few years ago, about a study
which noted that crude prices had become dominated by futures
speculation and were no longer strongly and directly coupled to supply
and demand (they seemed to nod with approval at this sign of oil's
finally achieving maturity in the commodity pits). I wonder if this
is true of refined products as well. This page suggests, however,
that growth in demand worldwide, combined with a US transition to
ultra-low-sulfur diesel, has been a main driver for diesel's price:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/diesel/ Also, diesel might
compete more directly with other uses, such as home heating oil, than
does gasoline.
Diesel passenger cars never caught on in the States as they did in
much of the rest of the world even after the technology of small
diesels available here got better in the mid-80s -- a combination of
cheap gasoline and the woeful GM diesel V8s of 1970s vintage, I reckon
-- though they've long been available here, from foreign makers that
had a home-market base for a good diesel passenger-car engine
(Mercedes, VW, BMW, Isuzu, Peugeot...) I think Mercedes and VW have
been the only ones consistently able to keep the things on the
market. (In recent years, pollution rules -- aimed particularly not
at the stereotypical black smoke, but invisible particles, from
diesels -- have emerged as another damping factor.) It must have been
frustrating for the manufacturers to ride this popularity roller
coaster tied to gasoline-price fluctuations, plunging just as they're
getting settled into the market.
Pickup trucks have become the great exception. The Cummins
turbodiesel in Dodge pickups was bellwether of a new generation of
diesels from all three major manufacturers that over the last 10-15
years has become very common. This makes sense when you think about
it -- diesels scale up more easily and rewardingly than they scale
down, and lend themselves more readily to that usage and driving
style. Also, you don't pay nearly the mileage penalty when you start
towing or carrying a heavy load that you would with gassers.
Heavily built and well designed and maintained ones can also soldier
on for a very long time.
One thing about diesels, though -- as others have pointed out
recently, they can be run on ersatz fuels, notably biodiesel (from oil
recycling or from biological processes). This might influence their
sustainability in some future scenarios. Also, it has about ten
percent more energy content than gasoline, and another nontrivial
percentage more than gas/alcohol blends, so all else being equal,
you'd be going further for the higher price.
--Joe
|
|
|
| Re: For Brent :) [message #797793 ] |
Wed, 12 March 2008 20:49 |
|
On Mar 12, 3:21=A0pm, Ad absurdum per aspera <jtc... [at] california.com>
wrote:
> > > There needs to be a pin pushed into the old car bubble.
>
> ISTR that the priec of Detroit muscle bubbled up and went poof once
> before -- in the early 90s, if memory serves. =A0Speculative markets are
> inherently super-risky. =A0Unless you're really astute about buying low
> and selling high, and willing to stay on top of things so that you
> know when to jump off that ride, stay away from old cars as an
> investment -- buy them only because you like them, and be ever mindful
> of non faddish models that would give you satisfaction similar to the
> craze du jour for a lot less money.
Absolutely - and there's some real underappreciated gems out there.
Unfortunately for the would-be collector, magazines like Hemming's
Muscle Machines have started giving some serious coverage to the
obscure but still interesting older vehicles. I don't know how many
times I've seen George Krem's "Plain Brown Wrapper" Stude featured in
there (definitely at least once every PSMCD writeup,) and I'm not sure
if I should be happy or sad about this...
>
> > That might happen when gas gets in the Lincoln-note-per-gallon range.
>
> Digging even further into memory, we find a Popular Mechanics (or
> somesuch) retrospective on the history of the V8, from another climax
> of gas prices in the early 80s. =A0At its conclusion, someone is in his
> garage sometime in the future, starting up "the 454 Chevelle he's been
> faithfully anointing for decades" just to listen to "a sound like the
> beating of a thousand angels' wings..."
I was thinking something like "the drum intro from 'Hot for Teacher'"
myself...
VTEC is nice, but there's just something intrinsically wood-inspiring
about the sound of a rediculously over-cammed engine shaking and
spitting at idle. Too bad that technology marches on and has rid us
of that "inconvenience." Sure, HC emissions are through the roof,
around-town gas mileage is awful, and there's really no torque to be
had below 3000 RPM, but still...
nate
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Fri Nov 21 23:14:29 CET 2008
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.25488 Sekunden |
