some reading material

kcobra302

Founding Member

Mar 22, 2000

864

1

16

latham ny

Apr 15, 2004

#1

• Apr 15, 2004

• #1

http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?n=158,215&sid=215&article=5896

love the title of the article

 

C

cobraii74x

New Member

Aug 27, 2003

253

0

0

Altoona, PA

Apr 15, 2004

#2

• Apr 15, 2004

• #2

Hah thats a good one..ruined the cobra name ? heh then why did so many Cobra II's sell ? i wonder where they get their material ? automotive enquirer ( hah if you don't understand theres a mag around here called national enquierer.. they know bat-boy and hilary clintons alien lover ).. the fact of the matter is that is just someone's opinion

 

T0BASC032

New Member

Apr 3, 2004

146

0

0

Wisconsin

Apr 16, 2004

#3

• Apr 16, 2004

• #3

He makes some valid, albeit redundant, points when talking about the II's, but then makes himself look like a schmuck when he includes the Pacer on his list of "laughable" muscle cars.

Since when did people consider the Pacer a muscle car? Possibly their streamlined aerodynamics had something to do with it?
Maybe he was thinking of a half dozen other AMC products that could have possibly fit the bill?

Not only that, but I read the other article linked on that page, and he advises people to rush out and buy a Pontiac Fiero, because they will become highly collectable in the near future the same way the muscle cars of the late 60's/ early 70's did

I bet 10:1 odds the author of that article owns a souped up Chevette

 

Eos

Oh Heather Oh yeah... I want your pink taco

Jun 13, 2003

734

3

0

oklahoma

Apr 16, 2004

#4

• Apr 16, 2004

• #4

I believe they had puny "13 inch" wheels haha, but the person who wrote the article is clearly ignorant. Did he not know that most 60's muscle cars came stock with 14 inch wheels? It was the norm.
He also failed to mention the 79 mustang "same engine" or what about the 80-82, where they didnt even have a 5.0? I wasn't around in the 70's but apparently this guy wasn't either. He could do some research though and figure out that do to the government the mustang II couldn't have more then 200 hp.

Not a real mustang? Our beloved II's are more mustang then he could ever hope to own!

 

perce111

Founding Member

Feb 29, 2000

632

0

16

Bellingham, WA

Apr 17, 2004

#5

• Apr 17, 2004

• #5

I'd probably be real un happy if I was an 80 Corvette owner.
But I've made the point before that nobody really had any real muscle during that period. At least we have a good base to work with.

Later

 

Blue coyote

Founding Member

Sep 14, 2002

347

0

16

North America's hemp-basket, BC, Canada

Apr 17, 2004

#6

• Apr 17, 2004

• #6

Another point of reference...he completely forgot the V8 Pacers. Ugliest damned cars on the road, but LOTS of performance. My guess is that he owns the 95 Civic with a dead cylinder that he referred to...

 

C

COBRAIIW

New Member

Apr 26, 2003

562

1

0

CT

Apr 17, 2004

#7

• Apr 17, 2004

• #7

I sent him a video clip of a black II burning up the road.

 

stangii

Founding Member

Aug 27, 1999

356

0

0

Houghton Lake, Michigan

Apr 17, 2004

#8

• Apr 17, 2004

• #8

I think it would be great if everyone sent him an email.

Of course, it won't do much good. I sent him a few emails concerning his misunderstanding and it further showed his obvious lack of Mustang knowledge. In his replies, he kept going on and on about how much better the Fox bodied Mustang performed, how the Mustang II was the slowest around and how EVERYONE then and now hated the Pinto based Mustang. I finally gave up. Some people don't have a problem showing their ignorance and he is definately high on that list.

Of course, if you check his bio, you will see that he wears a bowtie. He owns a Monza (are they still around??) and a Camaro ('nuff said).

Have fun with him, but don't expect much out of the conversation.

 

westernlady1123

New Member

Feb 23, 2004

123

0

0

Homestead, FL

Apr 18, 2004

#9

• Apr 18, 2004

• #9

Ignorance must be bliss. This guy needs to do more research before writing such fiction. If the King Cobra "ruined" the limited edition/high performanced cobra then why in 1978 did production climb to 192,410 units? Somebody out there really liked them. Besides the 1970's were not about speed and hp. People then were more concerned with fuel economy ( after the OPEC fuel embargo ). Which the mustang II provided while keeping their sporty look. The idiot is comparing king cobras in 1978 to cars of today. I don't own a 78 king cobra but I bet there is one out there that can do the quarter mile in better time than 16.59 sec at 82 mph. People like this make me sick

 

westernlady1123

New Member

Feb 23, 2004

123

0

0

Homestead, FL

Apr 18, 2004

#10

• Apr 18, 2004

• #10

Ever go to a junk yard? I believe you'll find more Honda Civics there than mustang II's

 

T0BASC032

New Member

Apr 3, 2004

146

0

0

Wisconsin

Apr 18, 2004

#11

• Apr 18, 2004

• #11

stangii said:

Of course, if you check his bio, you will see that he wears a bowtie. He owns a Monza (are they still around??) and a Camaro ('nuff said).

Click to expand...

Ahh, now it becomes crystal clear!
He is a Monza guy (II's chevy counterpart), that never could understand why everyone liked the King Cobra more than his Spyder, so he went out and got a Camaro to feel worthy

 

L

LXXVICOBRA

Founding Member

Jul 10, 1999

506

1

0

Central NY State

Apr 18, 2004

#12

• Apr 18, 2004

• #12

T0BASC032 said:

Ahh, now it becomes crystal clear!
He is a Monza guy (II's chevy counterpart), that never could understand why everyone liked the King Cobra more than his Spyder, so he went out and got a Camaro to feel worthy

Click to expand...

You probably hit the nail right on the head. Obviously too, he neglected to include any reference to any of the similar GM offerings of the 70's. I'd love to hear his viewpoint on the Monzas and Camaros of the same era, and his justification for excluding them from the list.