63_Fairlane said:Miatas can hold there own on a road course or auto-cross, but I agree the Z3 was a much better car. Then again, the Z3 was really an MG. BMW "borrowed" the design from MG in the early 90's.
As for the price of cars, they have followed the price of all other durable goods including houses. Houses that cost 20K thirty years ago are in the 120-150k range now. I agreed that the level of inflation is rediculous, but it is across the board.
You also have to look at the content of the car. A new 05 will be equiped with at least a 6 speaker CD/MP3 stereo with XM as an option, airconditioning, overdive, airbags, three point seatbelts, possibly leather, 17 inch tires, 12.5 inch front brakes, antilock, taction control, halogens(possibly HIDs, 3 valve overhead cam heads, fuel injection, stock 300 HP (something on the order of ~400 HP by the old gross standard of the 1960's), windows that actually roll up and seal, etc...
So you are paying for some engineering in there somewhere
By the way, how far from Greenville do you live?
ttown said:Sorry I posted Jim, seems you just want to argue. You claim a 300hp car is too much and then you want to compare gas mileage to a 4 or 6 cyclinder car of the 60's. Sorry don't follow you logic on that one, some new cars with 4 and 6 cyclinder engines are getting 50mpg but what does that have to do with a performance car?
I can tell you for a fact my 66 w/289 4v (BTW 225hp NOT 300hp) and 69 351/4v maybe got 15mpg and the 351 got better gas mileage since I always drove it above 70mph.
My mileage figure are right on for cars with that HP range and don't forget in 1973 they started figuring HP differently, a 300hp car today is about equal to a 350/375hp car of the 60's.
What are you comparing? You I-6 Mustang with the new GT, no wonder you think there too high. You should be on the 6 cyclinder talk thread.
250k miles on a car from the 60's with 60's parts?Most people traded before 50k because they couldn't rely on them anymore. Since your running better oil, better gas (non-leaded), and better parts you can now rebuild your 60's car to be more like a new one but your sure not using 60's technology are you.
JimF65 said:289 4V D-Code engine was certainly not 4 or 6 cylinders. My first 65 was a V-8. (I don't know of any 4-cylinder Ford cars in the 60s... do you?)
tylers65 said:The 1961 Mustang I concept car was a mid engine I-4. So yes, I can think of a Mustang with a 4 cyl in it from the 60's.
JimF65 said:You are correct, almost. Actually it was a Taunus V-4. Blew everything away at Watkins Glen, as I remember. You are right, but I was thinking of American production cars. Should have said so.
tylers65 said:I knew what you meant, I just had to be a jack ass for a minute. I am feeling much better now.
You seem to have a better memory than I do. My wife calls me the Mustang Encyclopedia because I rattle off so much useless Mustang info all the time. I just can't believe you remembered the Taunus V-4.
You must be REALLY OLD
tylers65 said:The 1961 Mustang I concept car was a mid engine I-4. So yes, I can think of a Mustang with a 4 cyl in it from the 60's.
Hmmmm I wonder if I'll be telling a bunch of young punks 40 years from now....I bought the Mustang I have now for....27k and watch them all go whooaaa....that's cheap.JimF65 said:>chuckle< Thanks a lot!! Just applied for SS last week (early), so many may think so. But I'm a modern oldfart... Applied on line!!! Actually, I'll be 62 in March. Not too old to enjoy a fast car!!! (but I like s l o w boats, as in sail). I was 22 when I bought my first Mustang. 25 when I bought the one I have now... for $950.
tylers65 said:Seriously?
351CJ said:That is correct, the original Mustang concept car had a V4.
tylers65 said:I know, we had been discussing it through several posts and then someone had to pipe in and say the exact same thing that had been said 3 posts prior. Essentially I was being a sarcastic jerk.
tylers65 said:I know, we had been discussing it through several posts and then someone had to pipe in and say the exact same thing that had been said 3 posts prior. Essentially I was being a sarcastic jerk.
This is why you and everyone else have been blessed with an "edit" button. It allowes you to alter your post if you make an error.BigBlockStang said:At least you admitted it. Seriuosly. I had not read the entire post until it was to late. Sorry
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?