JonJon said:Definately not. There are tons and tons and tons of the newer Mustangs.
livyx95gt said:You can't look at it that way... if you were to do that then the 65 wouldn't be a collectors car now. There were about 3 times as many of the 65's in a year as there are of the 05's or any other current years.
I do agree that this car will probably NOT be collectible... due to the fact that lots of people are going to think these are gonna be collectibles. Compare them to the new Star Wars toys... everyone is saying "well, the originals are collectibles, so then I should keep these new ones in the original package so my Chewbacca is as sweet as the original" It doesn't work when people are thinking ahead like that. The reason the original cars are collectibles is because no one thought they would be.
are you completely off your rocker???/ they are only going to make a zillion of themdinger2 said:Just curious if anyone out there is purchasing this car as a summer driver and "collector" car to put away. I'm wondering if this will be as valuable now/collector car status wise 30-40 years from now like the fastback's are now? Anyone?
scottie1113 said:You have to look at it that way. Most of the cars that have achieved true collector status were limited production runs. No Mustang is ever going to be in this category. If the you look at the original purchase price of a 60's Mustang, factor in adjusted costs for inflation and insurance over all those years, you'll see that they really aren't collectible, just desirable...
You can find anomolies anywhere if you look hard enough, but one goofy purchase price does not baseline an entire market. In 1998 my dad bought a 1993 Cobra R with only 92 miles on it for $21K, thousands less than it sold for new. In '96, he bought a '79 Turbo Pace Car with 35 miles on it for $7500, thousands less than it cost new. I know right now where a '90 LX 5.0 5-speed with 60 miles can be had for $13K, just about what it sold for new (and they're having a heck of a time unloading it). As far as well-cared-for, lower-mile one-owner vehicles go, I've got an absolutely flawless triple-black '90 GT convertible that I found at a Fun Ford event for sale this last summer. Literally, this car does not have a dent or scratch from new, and the leather was covered from new, so the interior is flawless. Totally 100% stock and original, 43,000 pampered miles, $6900 bucks. It sold new for $20K. So, $26-28K for a 100 mile '96 GT?? There's a sucker born every day....Put it this way, a year ago someone sold a black 96' GT on ebay, with less than 100 miles on it, it was garaged, it sold for the same price as a brand new Mach 1.
RICKS said:You can find anomolies anywhere if you look hard enough, but one goofy purchase price does not baseline an entire market. In 1998 my dad bought a 1993 Cobra R with only 92 miles on it for $21K, thousands less than it sold for new. In '96, he bought a '79 Turbo Pace Car with 35 miles on it for $7500, thousands less than it cost new. I know right now where a '90 LX 5.0 5-speed with 60 miles can be had for $13K, just about what it sold for new (and they're having a heck of a time unloading it). As far as well-cared-for, lower-mile one-owner vehicles go, I've got an absolutely flawless triple-black '90 GT convertible that I found at a Fun Ford event for sale this last summer. Literally, this car does not have a dent or scratch from new, and the leather was covered from new, so the interior is flawless. Totally 100% stock and original, 43,000 pampered miles, $6900 bucks. It sold new for $20K. So, $26-28K for a 100 mile '96 GT?? There's a sucker born every day....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?