So after a 30-year hiatus I'm thinking about another fox (had a '94 GT 'vert way back when) and looking around the interwebs, McLarens seem to be significantly cheaper than an equally well preserved/low mileage GT convertible... is it just the 'love it or hate it' styling or is there some sort of inherent structural problem that developed from them starting with a notch rather than a factory convertible? It's not like ASC doesn't know how to build a convertible (didn't they in fact do the prototyping for Ford in '82 for the 83 models? Relying on memories from 12-year-old me here, so the old hard drive has some bad sectors).
Poking around I don't see the usual "don't buy a mid 90's Tacoma because the frames disintegrate" or "don't buy a GM muscle car with a vinyl roof because of the dissimilar metals used they all rot out" or "T-10 transmissions have a weak second gear and can't handle the 427's they were put behind" etc. etc. Seems the cars which are legendarily bad it's to find 10,000 references to why they are bad, but the McLaren just seems to be forgotten and ignored for no real reason that jumps out at me. Sure, the wheels and body kit didn't age well but those are easily changed. For some reason I'm feeling the bug for a phantom Saleen roadster
Poking around I don't see the usual "don't buy a mid 90's Tacoma because the frames disintegrate" or "don't buy a GM muscle car with a vinyl roof because of the dissimilar metals used they all rot out" or "T-10 transmissions have a weak second gear and can't handle the 427's they were put behind" etc. etc. Seems the cars which are legendarily bad it's to find 10,000 references to why they are bad, but the McLaren just seems to be forgotten and ignored for no real reason that jumps out at me. Sure, the wheels and body kit didn't age well but those are easily changed. For some reason I'm feeling the bug for a phantom Saleen roadster