What cars would you buy?
Dan Lukiw
1999 they would buy brand new. I'm not looking to buy another car, but
before I bought my Stang I had a whole list of cars that I was willing
to buy before I made my final decision. Here was my list:
1. 1999 Firebird Formula or Trans Am WS6 (Pontiac wouldn't budge with
prices, so I had to go with #2 on my list)
2. 1999 Ford Mustang GT or Cobra (went with the GT for insurance
purposes, happy with my choice)
3. 1999 Chevy Camaro Z28 or Camaro SS (sorry Camaro guys, I prefer the
Stang more than the Camaro for personal preference.)
4. 1999 Subaru 2.5 RS (Is that the one? AWD baby!)
5. 1999 BMW 328i (A little over priced, but that's BMW for ya!)
6. 1999 Acura Integra GS-R (If I didn't need a car desperately, I would
have waited for the Type R to come out as well.)
7. 1999 Dodge Dakota SLT (5.9 Liter, V8. I probably would have put
monster tires on it though)
8. 1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS-T Spyder (Or even the coupe! Supercharged
AWD!)
9. 1999 Nissan Maxima SE (my friend has a 96' SE. I think that's the
year. It's a very comfortable car!)
10. Honda S2000 (from the tests I've seen, only about .4-.5 seconds
slower than the 99 Mustang GT in the 1/4 mile and the 0-60 and the 700ft
slalom. Not bad, but overpriced for a Honda. $6000 less would have been
reasonable.)
Those were my top 10. Of course, there were other used cars that were of
interest and became affordable. Those would have been:
Toyota Supra (The TT I think. The one with 320HP)
BMW Z3 Roadster (I've seen these go for a little less than 30 grand)
Toyota MR2 Twin Turbo (Ran into a few on the road.. pretty quick)
Mazda RX7 (The newer one)
Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4 (Accept nothing less than a VR4!)
I've seen good prices on these cars, but I wasn't into getting a used
car. The reason being is because I felt that I was getting someone elses
problem. If the person had a problem before with the car and didn't
mention it when he/she sold it, it would have became my problem. Bumper
to Bumper service was the way to go anyway! Of course, the new C5 Vette
is the car of my choice if I had the money, but I don't. I took a ride
in one of those and must admit, it's a great car! Let me know what your
top 10 are!
-Dan-
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Check out my Homepage!
Make sure you sign the Guestbook!
http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Dome/4440/
AOL IM: dlukiw16
ICQ #26583882
My Imagine Radio Station (Requires Real Audio):
http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name=dlukiw
Email: dlu...@injersey.infi.net
1999 Black Mustang GT, 4.6L V8
1965 Burgandy Red Mustang 289 V8
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rexven
<dlu...@injersey.infi.net> wrote:
>I'm just looking for others opinion as to what 10 *affordable* cars for
>1999 they would buy brand new. I'm not looking to buy another car, but
>before I bought my Stang I had a whole list of cars that I was willing
>to buy before I made my final decision. Here was my list:
What do you classify as affordable? (IE: what is your $ cut off)
>4. 1999 Subaru 2.5 RS (Is that the one? AWD baby!)
2.5 RS is the sporting version designed to look like the rally car.
It's also quite fun to drive though it needs about a 25% power
increase across the board. They are all AWD and the manuals are
certainly worth a look. Any car that is faster off the road than on is
something to enjoy :)
>5. 1999 BMW 328i (A little over priced, but that's BMW for ya!)
Or you can drop it around $4,000-6,000 and go for a 323iS which is
only .5 seconds slower across the board, a bit lighter, a bit more
agile, and just as much fun. The sport suspension is very nice
indeed!
>6. 1999 Acura Integra GS-R (If I didn't need a car desperately, I would
>have waited for the Type R to come out as well.)
I had a prenegotiated price on a '99 Type-R (staying with the
Championship White over the black) but they never came out so there
went that idea. To bad they screwed us with the Civic Si.. it's boring
junk. :(
>8. 1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS-T Spyder (Or even the coupe! Supercharged
>AWD!)
Turbocharged, not supercharged. ;) but after this year it's not even
that.
>9. 1999 Nissan Maxima SE (my friend has a 96' SE. I think that's the
>year. It's a very comfortable car!)
Probably the most fun of the mid-class sedans though the 2000 has to
be the ugliest car on the road this side of a Taurus. (personal
opinion)
>10. Honda S2000 (from the tests I've seen, only about .4-.5 seconds
>slower than the 99 Mustang GT in the 1/4 mile and the 0-60 and the 700ft
>slalom. Not bad, but overpriced for a Honda. $6000 less would have been
>reasonable.)
Aye.. and when you figure in dealer gouging it will be much worse..
Looks good on paper though I'm waiting to see it in person.
>Toyota MR2 Twin Turbo (Ran into a few on the road.. pretty quick)
Twin Entry Turbo, not twin turbo. Big difference. I meet so many
people who claim to have a twin turbo MR2 it's not even funny!
____________________
Red light means stop
Green light means go
Yellow like means drivelike mad because it's going to
turn red and make you stop!
Rumpelstiltskin
to do with Corvettes??
Rumple
89 Black 6spd
**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****
FilterX
Dan Lukiw
>
> On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 16:02:30 -0400, Dan Lukiw
> <dlu...@injersey.infi.net> wrote:
>
> >I'm just looking for others opinion as to what 10 *affordable* cars for
> >1999 they would buy brand new. I'm not looking to buy another car, but
> >before I bought my Stang I had a whole list of cars that I was willing
> >to buy before I made my final decision. Here was my list:
>
> What do you classify as affordable? (IE: what is your $ cut off)
$ cut-off? 35 grand. I would budge a little bit more if necessary, but
35 grand is getting up there already. Personally, anything from 15K-30K
is good enough for me.
>
> >4. 1999 Subaru 2.5 RS (Is that the one? AWD baby!)
>
> 2.5 RS is the sporting version designed to look like the rally car.
> It's also quite fun to drive though it needs about a 25% power
> increase across the board. They are all AWD and the manuals are
> certainly worth a look. Any car that is faster off the road than on is
> something to enjoy :)
Yeah, I was really looking into this car at a point, only because I was
never able to find any good insurance for the "sports" class cars
(insurance had Mustang, Camaro, Firebird considered as sports cars).
This was really high on my list and thinking twice, I would still keep
it high. Great car to drive, and like you said... off-road!
>
> >5. 1999 BMW 328i (A little over priced, but that's BMW for ya!)
>
> Or you can drop it around $4,000-6,000 and go for a 323iS which is
> only .5 seconds slower across the board, a bit lighter, a bit more
> agile, and just as much fun. The sport suspension is very nice
> indeed!
Yeah, I've seen those.. I didn't personally like the looks of those. The
new 99 328i was going for 32 grand, a bit expensive as I said. My
neighbor owns a BMW, great car and has not had any major problems with
it.
>
> >6. 1999 Acura Integra GS-R (If I didn't need a car desperately, I would
> >have waited for the Type R to come out as well.)
>
> I had a prenegotiated price on a '99 Type-R (staying with the
> Championship White over the black) but they never came out so there
> went that idea. To bad they screwed us with the Civic Si.. it's boring
> junk. :(
Actually, I heard the Type R *is* coming out for this year (August?) Can
anyone confirm this?
>
> >8. 1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS-T Spyder (Or even the coupe! Supercharged
> >AWD!)
>
> Turbocharged, not supercharged. ;) but after this year it's not even
> that.
Really? Motor Trend says is Supercharged. That's what I thought too,
that it was Turbocharged.
>
> >9. 1999 Nissan Maxima SE (my friend has a 96' SE. I think that's the
> >year. It's a very comfortable car!)
>
> Probably the most fun of the mid-class sedans though the 2000 has to
> be the ugliest car on the road this side of a Taurus. (personal
> opinion)
Like i said, comfortable, pretty quick and a nice smooth ride. Those
heated leather seats really are enjoyable!
>
> >10. Honda S2000 (from the tests I've seen, only about .4-.5 seconds
> >slower than the 99 Mustang GT in the 1/4 mile and the 0-60 and the 700ft
> >slalom. Not bad, but overpriced for a Honda. $6000 less would have been
> >reasonable.)
>
> Aye.. and when you figure in dealer gouging it will be much worse..
> Looks good on paper though I'm waiting to see it in person.
Haven't seen one in person either.
>
> >Toyota MR2 Twin Turbo (Ran into a few on the road.. pretty quick)
>
> Twin Entry Turbo, not twin turbo. Big difference. I meet so many
> people who claim to have a twin turbo MR2 it's not even funny!
Ah-ha! You answered one of my questions. I got into a discussion about
this and someone claimed it was a twin turbo, though in the papers I've
only seen them advertised as an MR2 turbo (and for only 8 grand with
about 24K miles on it!). Thanks.
-Dan-
>
> ____________________
> Red light means stop
> Green light means go
> Yellow like means drivelike mad because it's going to
> turn red and make you stop!
--
MPowell
Dan Lukiw <dlu...@injersey.infi.net> wrote in message
news:378A49D6...@injersey.infi.net...
> I'm just looking for others opinion as to what 10 *affordable* cars for
> 1999 they would buy brand new. I'm not looking to buy another car, but
> before I bought my Stang I had a whole list of cars that I was willing
> to buy before I made my final decision. Here was my list:
>
> prices, so I had to go with #2 on my list)
>
> 2. 1999 Ford Mustang GT or Cobra (went with the GT for insurance
> purposes, happy with my choice)
>
> 3. 1999 Chevy Camaro Z28 or Camaro SS (sorry Camaro guys, I prefer the
> Stang more than the Camaro for personal preference.)
> 4. 1999 Subaru 2.5 RS (Is that the one? AWD baby!)
Ah, underpowered in US form. Gimme that Japanese version with 280+ ponies.
> 5. 1999 BMW 328i (A little over priced, but that's BMW for ya!)
A great RWD family sedan - almost as quick as a SN95, and better handling.
> 6. 1999 Acura Integra GS-R (If I didn't need a car desperately, I would
> have waited for the Type R to come out as well.)
Bleh. Ugly, and FWD.
> 7. 1999 Dodge Dakota SLT (5.9 Liter, V8. I probably would have put
> monster tires on it though)
R/T all the way.
Hmmm... if Dodge would do an R/T version of the Ram...
> 8. 1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS-T Spyder (Or even the coupe! Supercharged
> AWD!)
Turbocharged, IIRC. :)
> 9. 1999 Nissan Maxima SE (my friend has a 96' SE. I think that's the
> year. It's a very comfortable car!)
Another good family sedan - two drawbacks - live-axle and FWD.
> 10. Honda S2000 (from the tests I've seen, only about .4-.5 seconds
> slower than the 99 Mustang GT in the 1/4 mile and the 0-60 and the 700ft
> slalom. Not bad, but overpriced for a Honda. $6000 less would have been
> reasonable.)
Shouldn't be any slower. Broken in, you're looking at 5.7 seconds 0-60, ~13.7-.8
in the 1/4. Now, when the Integra and 'Lude are based on this platform, I may
have to talk to the Honda dealer.
> Those were my top 10. Of course, there were other used cars that were of
> interest and became affordable. Those would have been:
> Toyota Supra (The TT I think. The one with 320HP)
Yummy - also the Nissan 300ZX TT making the same power sounds nice.
> BMW Z3 Roadster (I've seen these go for a little less than 30 grand)
Eh - BMW's cool, but the ///M Roadster is the only "great" one.
> Toyota MR2 Twin Turbo (Ran into a few on the road.. pretty quick)
Mid-engine = fun.
> Mazda RX7 (The newer one)
A fine sportscar, if somewhat trouble-prone.
> Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4 (Accept nothing less than a VR4!)
I just can't get my mojo running on this one - too heavy, and too large-looking.
> I've seen good prices on these cars, but I wasn't into getting a used
> car. The reason being is because I felt that I was getting someone elses
> problem. If the person had a problem before with the car and didn't
> mention it when he/she sold it, it would have became my problem. Bumper
> to Bumper service was the way to go anyway! Of course, the new C5 Vette
> is the car of my choice if I had the money, but I don't. I took a ride
> in one of those and must admit, it's a great car! Let me know what your
> top 10 are!
My dream car is a Porsche 911(993) Turbo-S. God's Own Vehicle. (Lucifer drives a
427 'Vette in flat black)
> -Dan-
Dad
>
>1. 2000 Corvette
>
>2. 1999 Corvette
>3. 1998 Corvette
>
>4. 1997 Corvette
>
>5. 1996 Corvette
>
>6. 1995 Corvette
>
>7. 1994 Corvette
>
>8. 1993 Corvette
>9. 1992 Corvette
>10. 1991 Corvette
>Those were my top 10. Of course, there were other used cars that were of
>interest and became affordable. Those would have been:
>
>Corvette (The TT I think. The one with 1320HP)
>BMW Z3 Roadster (I've seen these go for a little less than 30 grand but
still a cheap car)
>Toyota MR2 Twin Turbo (Ran into a few on the road.. pretty quick and a bag
of rice)
>Mazda RX7 (The newer one, or the last one they made)
>Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4 (Accept nothing less than a V2Q8R4!)
>
>I've seen good prices on these cars, but I wasn't into getting a used
>car. The reason being is because I felt that I was getting someone elses
>problem and I'm only smart eniugh to put gas in it. If the person had a
>problem before with the car and didn't
>mention it when he/she sold it, it would have became my problem. Bumper
>to Bumper service was the way to go anyway! Of course, the new C5 Vette
>is the car of my choice if I had the money, but I don't(back to the paper
route). I took a ride
>in one of those and must admit, it's a great car! Let me know what your
>top 10 are!
Rexven
wrote:
>> 4. 1999 Subaru 2.5 RS (Is that the one? AWD baby!)
>Ah, underpowered in US form. Gimme that Japanese version with 280+ ponies.
Ditto! That's what I pointed out. :) The Lancer EVO IV or V is also a
good deal but we only get the meager Mirage over here.
>My dream car is a Porsche 911(993) Turbo-S. God's Own Vehicle. (Lucifer drives a
>427 'Vette in flat black)
I thought God drove a 959??? <grin>
Corpse
<dlu...@injersey.infi.net> wrote:
[snip]
>
>2. 1999 Ford Mustang GT or Cobra (went with the GT for insurance
>purposes, happy with my choice)
Hmmm.. Did you check with the insurance company or just make an
assumption? For me, the Cobra was actually cheaper! (no idea why,
didn't want to wait around and ask...) I'm 30 and married, BTW, which
may be the reason...
>3. 1999 Chevy Camaro Z28 or Camaro SS (sorry Camaro guys, I prefer the
>Stang more than the Camaro for personal preference.)
I don't care for the looks, either.
[snip]
>Those were my top 10. Of course, there were other used cars that were of
>interest and became affordable. Those would have been:
>
>BMW Z3 Roadster (I've seen these go for a little less than 30 grand)
Looked at this car too. Still went with a 96 Cobra.
>Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4 (Accept nothing less than a VR4!)
My FIRST choice, but couldn't find a decent one w/stick. Supposedly
getting harder to get...
>
>I've seen good prices on these cars, but I wasn't into getting a used
>car. The reason being is because I felt that I was getting someone elses
>problem. If the person had a problem before with the car and didn't
>mention it when he/she sold it, it would have became my problem. Bumper
>to Bumper service was the way to go anyway!
Bought my Cobra used from a dealer. Looks ABSOLUTELY showroom new.
Paid a VERY good price, and got the 3 year warranty for $1000.
Previous owner took MUCH better care of the car than I will (meaning I
bought it to drive). A used car from a good dealer can work out fine.
I could have bought any 99 on your list, but I liked the idea of
saving a bit of change and still getting a kick-ass car...
CORPSE
Adam Drew
most interesting cars to come out in a while...the attention to detail
is amazing! It may not be blazingly fast ("only" 180 hp), but it's
still really neat.
Dan Lukiw wrote:
>
> I'm just looking for others opinion as to what 10 *affordable* cars for
> 1999 they would buy brand new. I'm not looking to buy another car, but
> before I bought my Stang I had a whole list of cars that I was willing
> to buy before I made my final decision. Here was my list:
>
> 1. 1999 Firebird Formula or Trans Am WS6 (Pontiac wouldn't budge with
> prices, so I had to go with #2 on my list)
>
> 2. 1999 Ford Mustang GT or Cobra (went with the GT for insurance
> purposes, happy with my choice)
>
> 3. 1999 Chevy Camaro Z28 or Camaro SS (sorry Camaro guys, I prefer the
> Stang more than the Camaro for personal preference.)
>
> 4. 1999 Subaru 2.5 RS (Is that the one? AWD baby!)
>
> 5. 1999 BMW 328i (A little over priced, but that's BMW for ya!)
>
> 6. 1999 Acura Integra GS-R (If I didn't need a car desperately, I would
> have waited for the Type R to come out as well.)
>
> 7. 1999 Dodge Dakota SLT (5.9 Liter, V8. I probably would have put
> monster tires on it though)
>
> 8. 1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS-T Spyder (Or even the coupe! Supercharged
> AWD!)
>
> 9. 1999 Nissan Maxima SE (my friend has a 96' SE. I think that's the
> year. It's a very comfortable car!)
>
> 10. Honda S2000 (from the tests I've seen, only about .4-.5 seconds
> slower than the 99 Mustang GT in the 1/4 mile and the 0-60 and the 700ft
> slalom. Not bad, but overpriced for a Honda. $6000 less would have been
> reasonable.)
>
> Those were my top 10. Of course, there were other used cars that were of
> interest and became affordable. Those would have been:
>
> Toyota Supra (The TT I think. The one with 320HP)
> BMW Z3 Roadster (I've seen these go for a little less than 30 grand)
> Toyota MR2 Twin Turbo (Ran into a few on the road.. pretty quick)
> Mazda RX7 (The newer one)
> Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4 (Accept nothing less than a VR4!)
>
> I've seen good prices on these cars, but I wasn't into getting a used
> car. The reason being is because I felt that I was getting someone elses
> problem. If the person had a problem before with the car and didn't
> mention it when he/she sold it, it would have became my problem. Bumper
> to Bumper service was the way to go anyway! Of course, the new C5 Vette
> is the car of my choice if I had the money, but I don't. I took a ride
> in one of those and must admit, it's a great car! Let me know what your
> top 10 are!
> -Dan-
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Check out my Homepage!
> Make sure you sign the Guestbook!
> http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Dome/4440/
> AOL IM: dlukiw16
> ICQ #26583882
> My Imagine Radio Station (Requires Real Audio):
> http://www.imagineradio.com/mymusiclisten.asp?name=dlukiw
> Email: dlu...@injersey.infi.net
> 1999 Black Mustang GT, 4.6L V8
> 1965 Burgandy Red Mustang 289 V8
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Adam Drew |
| '99 Mazda Protege LX 5-speed 0.1k and counting |
| users.technonet.com/~adrew -- ad...@technonet.com |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Joshua Lowe
<dlu...@injersey.infi.net> wrote:
>1. 1999 Firebird Formula or Trans Am WS6 (Pontiac wouldn't budge with
>prices, so I had to go with #2 on my list)
A month ago I would have said yes, but now no..
>2. 1999 Ford Mustang GT or Cobra (went with the GT for insurance
>purposes, happy with my choice)
GT. Cobra in Y2K if the QA issues are better. i don't care about the
HP numbers (provided they aren't like 230rwhp or something, but in the
255 range).
>3. 1999 Chevy Camaro Z28 or Camaro SS (sorry Camaro guys, I prefer the
>Stang more than the Camaro for personal preference.)
no..
>4. 1999 Subaru 2.5 RS (Is that the one? AWD baby!)
what, the impreza? sssssssslow.
>5. 1999 BMW 328i (A little over priced, but that's BMW for ya!)
Yes. Sweet, sweet car. I think a 318ti would be an awesome daily
driver to go along with a hopped up sports/muscle car..
>6. 1999 Acura Integra GS-R (If I didn't need a car desperately, I would
>have waited for the Type R to come out as well.)
my roommate has one. it's ok. like the 318ti better.
>7. 1999 Dodge Dakota SLT (5.9 Liter, V8. I probably would have put
>monster tires on it though)
they can go fast, but they're still big cumbersome trucks..
besides, the lighting is faster and can handle well, too.
>8. 1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS-T Spyder (Or even the coupe! Supercharged
>AWD!)
turbo awd. and no..
>9. 1999 Nissan Maxima SE (my friend has a 96' SE. I think that's the
>year. It's a very comfortable car!)
i'd rather have a vr6 VW, personally.. i just seem to like euro cars
better for some reason.
>10. Honda S2000 (from the tests I've seen, only about .4-.5 seconds
>slower than the 99 Mustang GT in the 1/4 mile and the 0-60 and the 700ft
>slalom. Not bad, but overpriced for a Honda. $6000 less would have been
>reasonable.)
they're nice, or at least appear to be nice. my roommate is waiting
on one of those or an Audi TT roadster.
>Toyota Supra (The TT I think. The one with 320HP)
Used? You'd have to get a 95..
>BMW Z3 Roadster (I've seen these go for a little less than 30 grand)
nice, buty gutless..
>Toyota MR2 Twin Turbo (Ran into a few on the road.. pretty quick)
they're single turbos. stock, they're slow. but can be made to be
relatively fast and are brutal handlers.. very well balanced cars.
>Mazda RX7 (The newer one)
nice, but expensive as hell to do anything to..
>Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4 (Accept nothing less than a VR4!)
heavy POS gimmicky pig.
MPowell
Joshua Lowe <row...@bellsouth.netSpammersAreHomos> wrote in message
> >5. 1999 BMW 328i (A little over priced, but that's BMW for ya!)
> Yes. Sweet, sweet car. I think a 318ti would be an awesome daily
> driver to go along with a hopped up sports/muscle car..
Some others are putting M3 engines in older 3-series (the late-80s model)
WarpSpeed (omit NOSPAM to reply)
it. We're sort of biased around here.
WarpSpeed
TFrog93
<dlu...@injersey.infi.net> writes:
>1. 1999 Firebird Formula or Trans Am WS6 (Pontiac wouldn't budge with
>prices, so I had to go with #2 on my list)
The new TransAm is just an awesome car. Scary. I'd have to put that at #3,
after the new Corvette hardtop and 1999 Cobra. (Why did you crosspost this to
the Corvette group, but not even include that car in your top 10?)
>2. 1999 Ford Mustang GT or Cobra (went with the GT for insurance
>purposes, happy with my choice)
Happy? Understatement?
>3. 1999 Chevy Camaro Z28 or Camaro SS (sorry Camaro guys, I prefer the
>Stang more than the Camaro for personal preference.)
The Z is just a notch less awesome than the TransAm, but I agree with you. I'd
buy one only if Pontiac sold out...
>4. 1999 Subaru 2.5 RS (Is that the one? AWD baby!)
Saw that at the Auto Show. "Zippy" comes to mind. Still, not my style, even
though it looks like a hell of a lot of fun.
>5. 1999 BMW 328i (A little over priced, but that's BMW for ya!)
Maybe ONE BMW would make my list, but this isn't the one.
>6. 1999 Acura Integra GS-R (If I didn't need a car desperately, I would
>have waited for the Type R to come out as well.)
Not interested.
>7. 1999 Dodge Dakota SLT (5.9 Liter, V8. I probably would have put
>monster tires on it though)
I'm not a pickup afficionado, but I'd have to give the nod to the Lightning. I
wouldn't buy a Dodge anything (okay, okay...one exception).
>8. 1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS-T Spyder (Or even the coupe! Supercharged
>AWD!)
Not interested.
>9. 1999 Nissan Maxima SE (my friend has a 96' SE. I think that's the
>year. It's a very comfortable car!)
I'd have no need for a FWD family sedan, and will take a major pass on this
one.
>10. Honda S2000 (from the tests I've seen, only about .4-.5 seconds
>slower than the 99 Mustang GT in the 1/4 mile and the 0-60 and the 700ft
>slalom. Not bad, but overpriced for a Honda. $6000 less would have been
>reasonable.)
Of the three big roadsters (this, the BMW, and the Miata), he S2000 sounds like
it hits the mark. If the Honda is overpriced, the BMW is ridiculous. The
Miata is out of the question, until they put an engine in there. If the Honda
has the classic roadster look and handling, and still goes like snot, it gets
the nod.
All in all, I like your list. It's solid, within parameters, and there's not a
bad apple in the bunch. But I live in the real world, where I buy ONE car at a
time. I'm not interested in FWD, nor any AWD that gets its power high up on
the RPM dial. I like the V8s, I like the torque, I like the quiet dignity that
just says "power". I like RWD. My choices are fewer all the time.
Realistically, it comes down to the ponycars for me (if we're keeping the price
below $30,000). They answer my "needs", plus they give me a rear seat if I
need one. Like I said elsewhere, my '93 ran quarter-miles all day, romped
through the back roads on the way home, then took Princess and her friends to
the movies.
If I could have TWO cars in the driveway all to myself, I'd have the Mustang
and a C5.
dwight
Phantom Menace
now. I am sure that lead engineer team are all out looking for a job.
Man did they screw that car up or what? Looks like a catfish from the
front.
On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 20:38:01 GMT, miat...@tampabay.rr.com (Rexven)
wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 16:02:30 -0400, Dan Lukiw
><dlu...@injersey.infi.net> wrote:
>
>>I'm just looking for others opinion as to what 10 *affordable* cars for
>>1999 they would buy brand new. I'm not looking to buy another car, but
>>before I bought my Stang I had a whole list of cars that I was willing
>>to buy before I made my final decision. Here was my list:
>
>What do you classify as affordable? (IE: what is your $ cut off)
>
>>4. 1999 Subaru 2.5 RS (Is that the one? AWD baby!)
>
>2.5 RS is the sporting version designed to look like the rally car.
>It's also quite fun to drive though it needs about a 25% power
>increase across the board. They are all AWD and the manuals are
>certainly worth a look. Any car that is faster off the road than on is
>something to enjoy :)
>
>>5. 1999 BMW 328i (A little over priced, but that's BMW for ya!)
>
>Or you can drop it around $4,000-6,000 and go for a 323iS which is
>only .5 seconds slower across the board, a bit lighter, a bit more
>agile, and just as much fun. The sport suspension is very nice
>indeed!
>
>>6. 1999 Acura Integra GS-R (If I didn't need a car desperately, I would
>>have waited for the Type R to come out as well.)
>
>I had a prenegotiated price on a '99 Type-R (staying with the
>Championship White over the black) but they never came out so there
>went that idea. To bad they screwed us with the Civic Si.. it's boring
>junk. :(
>
>>8. 1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS-T Spyder (Or even the coupe! Supercharged
>>AWD!)
>
>Turbocharged, not supercharged. ;) but after this year it's not even
>that.
>
>>9. 1999 Nissan Maxima SE (my friend has a 96' SE. I think that's the
>>year. It's a very comfortable car!)
>
>Probably the most fun of the mid-class sedans though the 2000 has to
>be the ugliest car on the road this side of a Taurus. (personal
>opinion)
>
>>10. Honda S2000 (from the tests I've seen, only about .4-.5 seconds
>>slower than the 99 Mustang GT in the 1/4 mile and the 0-60 and the 700ft
>>slalom. Not bad, but overpriced for a Honda. $6000 less would have been
>>reasonable.)
>
>Aye.. and when you figure in dealer gouging it will be much worse..
>Looks good on paper though I'm waiting to see it in person.
>
>>Toyota MR2 Twin Turbo (Ran into a few on the road.. pretty quick)
>
>Twin Entry Turbo, not twin turbo. Big difference. I meet so many
>people who claim to have a twin turbo MR2 it's not even funny!
>
>
>
>
Joe Schmoe
drives a
> 427 'Vette in flat black)
>
Joe Schmoe
3.something and the new one has a top speed of a little under 300.
2. Mazda RX-7. Sweet car. The rotarie puts out more power/weight than any
other engine. Handling is excellent. This car is amazing. If only it
would be sold in America.
3. Mazda RX-0. Same as above, but in a roadster version. Not for sale.
4. Lamborghini Diablo SV-R. There is no other. This is one scarry looking
car. Appropriately named.
5. Ferrari F355 Spider. Not as fast as the Maranello, but keeps the
Mid-Engine.
6. Lotus Elise. 4 cylinder that will do 0-60 in around 4. Best handling
car you can buy. Period. Not street legal in America. Costs 55 grand.
7. Porsche Boxter. Slow, but looks damn cool.
8. The new Vette. Best bang for the buck.
9. Zagato Raptor. Ha ha.
10. Kia Sephia. Better performance than the MclaRen F1, but a little more
expensive.
Dan Lukiw <dlu...@injersey.infi.net> wrote in message
news:378A49D6...@injersey.infi.net...
> I'm just looking for others opinion as to what 10 *affordable* cars for
> 1999 they would buy brand new. I'm not looking to buy another car, but
> before I bought my Stang I had a whole list of cars that I was willing
> to buy before I made my final decision. Here was my list:
>
> 1. 1999 Firebird Formula or Trans Am WS6 (Pontiac wouldn't budge with
> prices, so I had to go with #2 on my list)
>
> 2. 1999 Ford Mustang GT or Cobra (went with the GT for insurance
> purposes, happy with my choice)
>
> 3. 1999 Chevy Camaro Z28 or Camaro SS (sorry Camaro guys, I prefer the
> Stang more than the Camaro for personal preference.)
>
> 4. 1999 Subaru 2.5 RS (Is that the one? AWD baby!)
>
> 5. 1999 BMW 328i (A little over priced, but that's BMW for ya!)
>
> 6. 1999 Acura Integra GS-R (If I didn't need a car desperately, I would
> have waited for the Type R to come out as well.)
>
> 7. 1999 Dodge Dakota SLT (5.9 Liter, V8. I probably would have put
> monster tires on it though)
>
> 8. 1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS-T Spyder (Or even the coupe! Supercharged
> AWD!)
>
> 9. 1999 Nissan Maxima SE (my friend has a 96' SE. I think that's the
> year. It's a very comfortable car!)
>
> 10. Honda S2000 (from the tests I've seen, only about .4-.5 seconds
> slower than the 99 Mustang GT in the 1/4 mile and the 0-60 and the 700ft
> slalom. Not bad, but overpriced for a Honda. $6000 less would have been
> reasonable.)
>
> Those were my top 10. Of course, there were other used cars that were of
> interest and became affordable. Those would have been:
>
> Toyota Supra (The TT I think. The one with 320HP)
> BMW Z3 Roadster (I've seen these go for a little less than 30 grand)
> Toyota MR2 Twin Turbo (Ran into a few on the road.. pretty quick)
> Mazda RX7 (The newer one)
> Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4 (Accept nothing less than a VR4!)
>
Dan Lukiw
> >
> > 1. 1999 Firebird Formula or Trans Am WS6 (Pontiac wouldn't budge with
> > prices, so I had to go with #2 on my list)
> >
> > 2. 1999 Ford Mustang GT or Cobra (went with the GT for insurance
> > purposes, happy with my choice)
> >
> > 3. 1999 Chevy Camaro Z28 or Camaro SS (sorry Camaro guys, I prefer the
> > Stang more than the Camaro for personal preference.)
> All good choices, bang-for-the-buck-wise.
Yep, like you said, good bang for the buck.. the WS6 probably being
about the best bang though.
>
> > 4. 1999 Subaru 2.5 RS (Is that the one? AWD baby!)
> Ah, underpowered in US form. Gimme that Japanese version with 280+ ponies.
The WRX, right? I heard that was coming to the US, as is the Skyline
Gtr. I hope that's true, though you would be surprised what can be done
with this Impreza with a lot of mods.
>
> > 5. 1999 BMW 328i (A little over priced, but that's BMW for ya!)
> A great RWD family sedan - almost as quick as a SN95, and better handling.
I love BMW's, test drove one of the new one's once and was willing to
buy it until I saw the sticker. I figured I could get more "bang for the
buck" for less money. Maybe if I'm looking for my next car BMW will be
there, but for now..
>
> > 6. 1999 Acura Integra GS-R (If I didn't need a car desperately, I would
> > have waited for the Type R to come out as well.)
> Bleh. Ugly, and FWD.
You think it's Ugly? Well, I have to admit, I see too many of them on
the road (but then I see too many of everything on the road.)
>
> > 7. 1999 Dodge Dakota SLT (5.9 Liter, V8. I probably would have put
> > monster tires on it though)
> R/T all the way.
> Hmmm... if Dodge would do an R/T version of the Ram...
Now that would be sweet!
>
> > 8. 1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS-T Spyder (Or even the coupe! Supercharged
> > AWD!)
> Turbocharged, IIRC. :)
Yeah, someone already corrected me.. Motor Trend had it listed as
Supercharged for some reason.
>
> > 9. 1999 Nissan Maxima SE (my friend has a 96' SE. I think that's the
> > year. It's a very comfortable car!)
> Another good family sedan - two drawbacks - live-axle and FWD.
The FWD part I can deal with..
>
> > 10. Honda S2000 (from the tests I've seen, only about .4-.5 seconds
> > slower than the 99 Mustang GT in the 1/4 mile and the 0-60 and the 700ft
> > slalom. Not bad, but overpriced for a Honda. $6000 less would have been
> > reasonable.)
> Shouldn't be any slower. Broken in, you're looking at 5.7 seconds 0-60, ~13.7-.8
> in the 1/4. Now, when the Integra and 'Lude are based on this platform, I may
> have to talk to the Honda dealer.
Actually, Road & Track Sports & GT Magazine did a test. 0-60 in 6.0, 1/4
mile in 14.5 (this was clocked before the 1/4 mile was actually finished
though), top speed 150mph, speed through 700 ft slalom 61.9mph. Like I
said, just a tad bit slower than their tested Mustang GT. But then
again, I never liked Road & Track's tests and felt they can get more out
of the car and shed off a few tenths of a second.
>
> > Those were my top 10. Of course, there were other used cars that were of
> > interest and became affordable. Those would have been:
> > Toyota Supra (The TT I think. The one with 320HP)
> Yummy - also the Nissan 300ZX TT making the same power sounds nice.
I am assuming you are talking about the newer one?
>
> > BMW Z3 Roadster (I've seen these go for a little less than 30 grand)
> Eh - BMW's cool, but the ///M Roadster is the only "great" one.
//M Roadster... that's a nice car. A little over priced for me, as is
the //M3.
>
> > Toyota MR2 Twin Turbo (Ran into a few on the road.. pretty quick)
> Mid-engine = fun.
Yep!
>
> > Mazda RX7 (The newer one)
> A fine sportscar, if somewhat trouble-prone.
I hardly ever see any on the road either. It's a damn shame!
>
> > Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4 (Accept nothing less than a VR4!)
> I just can't get my mojo running on this one - too heavy, and too large-looking.
It's not too bad of a car, but for it's speed and performance (which was
tested about equal to the 99 Stang GT), I wouldn't pay 45 grand to buy a
brand new one.
>
> > I've seen good prices on these cars, but I wasn't into getting a used
> > car. The reason being is because I felt that I was getting someone elses
> > problem. If the person had a problem before with the car and didn't
> > mention it when he/she sold it, it would have became my problem. Bumper
> > to Bumper service was the way to go anyway! Of course, the new C5 Vette
> > is the car of my choice if I had the money, but I don't. I took a ride
> > in one of those and must admit, it's a great car! Let me know what your
> > top 10 are!
> My dream car is a Porsche 911(993) Turbo-S. God's Own Vehicle. (Lucifer drives a
> 427 'Vette in flat black)
>
Dan Lukiw
> >2. 1999 Ford Mustang GT or Cobra (went with the GT for insurance
> >purposes, happy with my choice)
>
> assumption? For me, the Cobra was actually cheaper! (no idea why,
> didn't want to wait around and ask...) I'm 30 and married, BTW, which
> may be the reason...
4 words for you: Single in New Jersey!
Enough said?
Yeah, I checked with every insurance company I could. I eventually got
the good quote with the one I was currently with. I almost went with one
of those personal agents because I thought he could cut me some
slack,but 5 grand a year for insurance (and then 4500 a year for the
freakng Impreza) was just way too much. Those personal agents are a rip,
ask my friend, his own mother ripped him off like that!
>
> >3. 1999 Chevy Camaro Z28 or Camaro SS (sorry Camaro guys, I prefer the
> >Stang more than the Camaro for personal preference.)
>
> I don't care for the looks, either.
I love the way the SS looks honestly, but I don't like the looks of the
Z28
>
> [snip]
>
> >Those were my top 10. Of course, there were other used cars that were of
> >interest and became affordable. Those would have been:
> >
>
> >BMW Z3 Roadster (I've seen these go for a little less than 30 grand)
>
> Looked at this car too. Still went with a 96 Cobra.
>
> >Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4 (Accept nothing less than a VR4!)
>
> My FIRST choice, but couldn't find a decent one w/stick. Supposedly
> getting harder to get...
>
> >
> >I've seen good prices on these cars, but I wasn't into getting a used
> >car. The reason being is because I felt that I was getting someone elses
> >problem. If the person had a problem before with the car and didn't
> >mention it when he/she sold it, it would have became my problem. Bumper
> >to Bumper service was the way to go anyway!
>
> Bought my Cobra used from a dealer. Looks ABSOLUTELY showroom new.
> Paid a VERY good price, and got the 3 year warranty for $1000.
> Previous owner took MUCH better care of the car than I will (meaning I
> bought it to drive). A used car from a good dealer can work out fine.
> I could have bought any 99 on your list, but I liked the idea of
> saving a bit of change and still getting a kick-ass car...
>
I hear ya. I made the mistake of leasing a few years back, so I kind of
wanted to go with a new one this time and let it be mine for good.
-Dan-
> CORPSE
Dan Lukiw
>
> In your price range, I'd buy an Audi TT. That has got to be one of the
> most interesting cars to come out in a while...the attention to detail
> is amazing! It may not be blazingly fast ("only" 180 hp), but it's
> still really neat.
Hmm.. forgot about that one. I see about 5 of them a day around here in
the area, still love the way it looks but I thought they were much more
than my price range. The TT almost looks like a Porsche wanna-be car to
me, but it's still nice.
-Dan-
>
> Adam
> ad...@technonet.com
>
> Dan Lukiw wrote:
Dan Lukiw
>
> On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 16:02:30 -0400, Dan Lukiw
>
> >1. 1999 Firebird Formula or Trans Am WS6 (Pontiac wouldn't budge with
> >prices, so I had to go with #2 on my list)
>
Really, why not? Just out of curiousity.
>
> >2. 1999 Ford Mustang GT or Cobra (went with the GT for insurance
> >purposes, happy with my choice)
>
> GT. Cobra in Y2K if the QA issues are better. i don't care about the
> HP numbers (provided they aren't like 230rwhp or something, but in the
> 255 range).
Yeah, I heard that Ford didn't do too great of a job with the Cobra this
year.. now I'm glad I got the GT.
>
> >3. 1999 Chevy Camaro Z28 or Camaro SS (sorry Camaro guys, I prefer the
> >Stang more than the Camaro for personal preference.)
>
> no..
Again, why not?
>
> >4. 1999 Subaru 2.5 RS (Is that the one? AWD baby!)
>
> what, the impreza? sssssssslow.
>
Yeah, Impreza. Of course, only for reasons of me living in NJ and that
AWD can come in handy in the snow. I can't wait to test out the GT in
the snow... NOT! Give the Impreza some mods and it's pretty good.
> >5. 1999 BMW 328i (A little over priced, but that's BMW for ya!)
>
> Yes. Sweet, sweet car. I think a 318ti would be an awesome daily
> driver to go along with a hopped up sports/muscle car..
318ti. Someone mentioned that I should look at that car, I did and
didn't personally care for it.
>
> >6. 1999 Acura Integra GS-R (If I didn't need a car desperately, I would
> >have waited for the Type R to come out as well.)
>
> my roommate has one. it's ok. like the 318ti better.
>
> >7. 1999 Dodge Dakota SLT (5.9 Liter, V8. I probably would have put
> >monster tires on it though)
>
> they can go fast, but they're still big cumbersome trucks..
>
> besides, the lighting is faster and can handle well, too.
I wasn't going for fast on this one, I was going for off road reasons.
Like I said, I'd put huge tires on it.
>
> >8. 1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS-T Spyder (Or even the coupe! Supercharged
> >AWD!)
>
> turbo awd. and no..
>
> >9. 1999 Nissan Maxima SE (my friend has a 96' SE. I think that's the
> >year. It's a very comfortable car!)
>
> i'd rather have a vr6 VW, personally.. i just seem to like euro cars
> better for some reason.
VR6..not bad to an extent, a friend of mine has one. I've run into a few
on the road, and must admit, when they get going they get going.. but
I've blew by them most of the time.
>
> >10. Honda S2000 (from the tests I've seen, only about .4-.5 seconds
> >slower than the 99 Mustang GT in the 1/4 mile and the 0-60 and the 700ft
> >slalom. Not bad, but overpriced for a Honda. $6000 less would have been
> >reasonable.)
>
> they're nice, or at least appear to be nice. my roommate is waiting
> on one of those or an Audi TT roadster.
The TT Roadster is already out there, I see about 5 a day!
>
> >Toyota Supra (The TT I think. The one with 320HP)
>
> Used? You'd have to get a 95..
yep, a 95! I thought that was the year!
>
> >BMW Z3 Roadster (I've seen these go for a little less than 30 grand)
>
> nice, buty gutless..
depends, is that the 4 cylinder you are talking about?
>
> >Toyota MR2 Twin Turbo (Ran into a few on the road.. pretty quick)
>
> they're single turbos. stock, they're slow. but can be made to be
> relatively fast and are brutal handlers.. very well balanced cars.
Yeah, I was corrected on this already.
>
> >Mazda RX7 (The newer one)
>
> nice, but expensive as hell to do anything to..
>
> >Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4 (Accept nothing less than a VR4!)
>
> heavy POS gimmicky pig.
Adam
In a few years, I'll probably trade it in for the S2000 (if I can get it at
MSRP) or the upcoming RWD S2000 based Prelude. I usually never even
consider anything that gets less than 30 mpg, but as a low emission
vehicle, the S2000 is a special case :-)
chandler
>problem. If the person had a problem before with the car and didn't
>mention it when he/she sold it, it would have became my problem.
Ever hear of extended warranty?
Ken Davis
1) '99 Mustang GT (surprise, surprise)
2) '98 Ford Cobra
3) '99 Chevy Z28 SS / Z28
4) '99 Chevy Corvette hard top
5) '94 Chevy Corvette Targa Top
6) '99 Pontiac Firebird TA
7) '93 Ford Cobra
8) '99 Pontiac Grand Prix GTP
9) '99 BMW 328i
10) '99 Audi A4
-Ken
'99 Mustang GT (chrome yellow)
14.36 @99.3 mph 60' -> 2.26
http://members.aol.com/yella99gt/home/HomeKD.html
(last updated 6/11/1999)
CJB
previous V6??? Nawwww! :)
Phantom Menace wrote:
> Agreed.. The Ford Taurus is the ugliest god forsaken car going right
> now. I am sure that lead engineer team are all out looking for a job.
> Man did they screw that car up or what? Looks like a catfish from the
> front.
>
> On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 20:38:01 GMT, miat...@tampabay.rr.com (Rexven)
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 16:02:30 -0400, Dan Lukiw
> ><dlu...@injersey.infi.net> wrote:
> >
> >>I'm just looking for others opinion as to what 10 *affordable* cars for
> >>1999 they would buy brand new. I'm not looking to buy another car, but
> >>before I bought my Stang I had a whole list of cars that I was willing
> >>to buy before I made my final decision. Here was my list:
> >
> >What do you classify as affordable? (IE: what is your $ cut off)
> >
> >>4. 1999 Subaru 2.5 RS (Is that the one? AWD baby!)
> >
> >2.5 RS is the sporting version designed to look like the rally car.
> >It's also quite fun to drive though it needs about a 25% power
> >increase across the board. They are all AWD and the manuals are
> >certainly worth a look. Any car that is faster off the road than on is
> >something to enjoy :)
> >
> >>5. 1999 BMW 328i (A little over priced, but that's BMW for ya!)
> >
> >Or you can drop it around $4,000-6,000 and go for a 323iS which is
> >only .5 seconds slower across the board, a bit lighter, a bit more
> >agile, and just as much fun. The sport suspension is very nice
> >indeed!
> >
> >>6. 1999 Acura Integra GS-R (If I didn't need a car desperately, I would
> >>have waited for the Type R to come out as well.)
> >
> >I had a prenegotiated price on a '99 Type-R (staying with the
> >Championship White over the black) but they never came out so there
> >went that idea. To bad they screwed us with the Civic Si.. it's boring
> >junk. :(
> >
> >>8. 1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS-T Spyder (Or even the coupe! Supercharged
> >>AWD!)
> >
> >Turbocharged, not supercharged. ;) but after this year it's not even
> >that.
> >
> >>9. 1999 Nissan Maxima SE (my friend has a 96' SE. I think that's the
> >>year. It's a very comfortable car!)
> >
> >Probably the most fun of the mid-class sedans though the 2000 has to
> >be the ugliest car on the road this side of a Taurus. (personal
> >opinion)
> >
> >>10. Honda S2000 (from the tests I've seen, only about .4-.5 seconds
> >>slower than the 99 Mustang GT in the 1/4 mile and the 0-60 and the 700ft
> >>slalom. Not bad, but overpriced for a Honda. $6000 less would have been
> >>reasonable.)
> >
> >Aye.. and when you figure in dealer gouging it will be much worse..
> >Looks good on paper though I'm waiting to see it in person.
> >
> >>Toyota MR2 Twin Turbo (Ran into a few on the road.. pretty quick)
> >
Joshua Lowe
<totalit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>6. Lotus Elise. 4 cylinder that will do 0-60 in around 4. Best handling
>car you can buy. Period. Not street legal in America. Costs 55 grand.
What is up with it not being legal in America, anyway? If they were
for sale here I'd buy the hell out of one..
Joshua Lowe
<dlu...@injersey.infi.net> wrote:
>$ cut-off? 35 grand. I would budge a little bit more if necessary, but
>35 grand is getting up there already. Personally, anything from 15K-30K
>is good enough for me.
If you budgeted a little more, you're into a C5 hardtop.
Joshua Lowe
<dlu...@injersey.infi.net> wrote:
>> A month ago I would have said yes, but now no..
>
>Really, why not? Just out of curiousity.
2 words. Live axle.
>Yeah, I heard that Ford didn't do too great of a job with the Cobra this
>year.. now I'm glad I got the GT.
i think it's about 2/3 real problem and 1/3 people being picky. The
vibration problems are definitely more than just pickiness..
>> >3. 1999 Chevy Camaro Z28 or Camaro SS (sorry Camaro guys, I prefer the
>> >Stang more than the Camaro for personal preference.)
>>
>> no..
>
>Again, why not?
See my answer to #1. :)
>> >4. 1999 Subaru 2.5 RS (Is that the one? AWD baby!)
>>
>> what, the impreza? sssssssslow.
>>
>
>Yeah, Impreza. Of course, only for reasons of me living in NJ and that
>AWD can come in handy in the snow. I can't wait to test out the GT in
>the snow... NOT! Give the Impreza some mods and it's pretty good.
It's naturally aspirated, isn't it? It isn't anything like the
ungoldy WRX imprezas in japan, which are very, very fast. It also
looks like mega-rice. I saw one a couple of weeks ago, silver..
>> >5. 1999 BMW 328i (A little over priced, but that's BMW for ya!)
>>
>> Yes. Sweet, sweet car. I think a 318ti would be an awesome daily
>> driver to go along with a hopped up sports/muscle car..
>
>318ti. Someone mentioned that I should look at that car, I did and
>didn't personally care for it.
I forgot: the 318ti no longer exists. It's now the 323i. I just
really like the E46 3 series. The seats look gorgeous, the interior
looks gorgeous, the whole car looks gorgeous. They're definitely not
HP machines, though. The new M3 should be awesome, but it's gonna end
up costing about $60k out the door.
>VR6..not bad to an extent, a friend of mine has one. I've run into a few
>on the road, and must admit, when they get going they get going.. but
>I've blew by them most of the time.
I watched one annihilate a Honda the other day. Wasn't even close.
Funny stuff..
>The TT Roadster is already out there, I see about 5 a day!
He's waiting on the S2000, too.
>> Used? You'd have to get a 95..
>
>yep, a 95! I thought that was the year!
which is a $25,000 used car. A 4 year old used car at that.
>> >BMW Z3 Roadster (I've seen these go for a little less than 30 grand)
>>
>> nice, buty gutless..
>
>depends, is that the 4 cylinder you are talking about?
Z3 = gutless. M Roadster = guts.
Out of all of those you named, I still like the choice you didn't name
the best: the C5. The only other car I'd like to evaluate before
committing is the new M3, which won't be out until the spring of next
year or so.
Jared Rude
>Agreed.. The Ford Taurus is the ugliest god forsaken car going right
>now. I am sure that lead engineer team are all out looking for a job.
>Man did they screw that car up or what? Looks like a catfish from the
>front.
Well, in all fairness, the industrial designers and marketing people were
probably responsible for the horrendous looks. The engineers end up having
to design what marketing and industrial design agree upon, as long as that
ID rendering is somewhat manufacturable. At least, that's the way it is
where I work. The engineers get the blame for it's disgusting styling
because they have to follow the product from start to finish. They are the
easy targets. By the time real production design has started, the marketing
and indusrial design departments are off on another project.
--
Jared Rude
1990 LX 5.0 - 13.188 @ 101.30
DIE, JAR JAR, DIE
remove "nospamforme" to reply
TFrog93
ad...@scanlineyyz.com (Adam) writes:
The Prelude is going RWD? Huh?
Does this mean I'm going to have to start liking Hondas?
:()
Richdvl5
and then re-sell them. A couple months ago Autoweek did an article on it and
the highest ever resorded top speed was 240. (up from the original 220)
d_w...@my-deja.com
dlu...@injersey.infi.net wrote:
> I'm just looking for others opinion as to what 10 *affordable* cars
for
> 1999 they would buy brand new.
I could list 20, but only 5 would have a real chance at making the cut
now:
1) last-gen Toyota Supra (preferably w/o turbo) - V-6's are terribly
common, but I'd love to have Toyota's rear-drive and inline six-
cylinder sports car. I couldn't really find anything out there (for
sale) that hasn't been ruined mechanically, cosmetically, or both.
2) current Camaro Z28 - when not loaded with too many options this
thing isn't too expensive and torque is ever-abundant; closely
considered this one for 1999 but a) feels heavy as a Caprice, b) very
powerful RWD in NorthEast is no good as only-car, and c) loses some of
the appeal of being "American" since it's built in Canada
3) Honda S2000 - looks good, but I'm not sure about the height of the
torque curve. Honda may have gone too far with the high-rev-only power
this time.
4) 2000 Maxima SE - looks, uh, interesting and that 222-bhp V-6 by all
accounts makes a great sedan; having driven the previous model, the new
one only seems more like the best sporty sedan for under $30,000
5) 5th-generation Honda Prelude
Actually, I own number 5. That's that!
Most likely car after 3-4 years with this marvelous machine? Still
might hunt down a last-gen Supra. Otherwise, Honda may get it again
with a supposed RWD Prelude. But if they use that smaller 2.0l S2000
engine, maybe forget it. The Prelude's 2.2l is just too good and
sounds better balanced, with actual torque at reasonable rpm, combined
with its still-exhilirating 5200-7500 rpm VTEC rip.
S2000 is still a must-test to see.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
David McMillan
> > assumption? For me, the Cobra was actually cheaper! (no idea why,
> > didn't want to wait around and ask...) I'm 30 and married, BTW, which
> > may be the reason...
>
> 4 words for you: Single in New Jersey!
> Enough said?
> Yeah, I checked with every insurance company I could. I eventually got
> the good quote with the one I was currently with. I almost went with one
> of those personal agents because I thought he could cut me some
> slack,but 5 grand a year for insurance (and then 4500 a year for the
> freakng Impreza) was just way too much. Those personal agents are a rip,
> ask my friend, his own mother ripped him off like that!
The insurance rating on the Cobra is much better than the GT. Your
insurance would have probably been less with the Cobra. The
reason........ people buying Cobra's on the average are older and wiser.
-- Dave
96 Z28/SS
99 Z28 1LE
d.a.v.i.d.m..a.t..s.a.l.u.g.o.r.g
The Modless Marauder
>The Prelude is going RWD? Huh?
>
>Does this mean I'm going to have to start liking Hondas?
>
>:()
Just get a black one.......your image will be fine
Sam(uel)
'95 GT
Rexven
(Joshua Lowe) wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 16:59:35 -0400, Dan Lukiw
><dlu...@injersey.infi.net> wrote:
>
>
>>$ cut-off? 35 grand. I would budge a little bit more if necessary, but
>>35 grand is getting up there already. Personally, anything from 15K-30K
>>is good enough for me.
>
>If you budgeted a little more, you're into a C5 hardtop.
One of the only cars in the world that's uglier than a Taurus or a
2000- Maxima? No thanks! It might perform well but you DO have to look
at the car when you walk out to it in the morning..
Mike Baldwin
On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Joshua Lowe wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 16:02:30 -0400, Dan Lukiw
> <dlu...@injersey.infi.net> wrote:
>
> >1. 1999 Firebird Formula or Trans Am WS6 (Pontiac wouldn't budge with
> >prices, so I had to go with #2 on my list)
>
> A month ago I would have said yes, but now no..
>
> >2. 1999 Ford Mustang GT or Cobra (went with the GT for insurance
> >purposes, happy with my choice)
>
> GT. Cobra in Y2K if the QA issues are better. i don't care about the
> HP numbers (provided they aren't like 230rwhp or something, but in the
> 255 range).
>
>
> >3. 1999 Chevy Camaro Z28 or Camaro SS (sorry Camaro guys, I prefer the
> >Stang more than the Camaro for personal preference.)
>
> no..
>
> >4. 1999 Subaru 2.5 RS (Is that the one? AWD baby!)
>
> what, the impreza? sssssssslow.
>
> >5. 1999 BMW 328i (A little over priced, but that's BMW for ya!)
>
> Yes. Sweet, sweet car. I think a 318ti would be an awesome daily
> driver to go along with a hopped up sports/muscle car..
>
>
> >6. 1999 Acura Integra GS-R (If I didn't need a car desperately, I would
> >have waited for the Type R to come out as well.)
>
> my roommate has one. it's ok. like the 318ti better.
>
>
> >7. 1999 Dodge Dakota SLT (5.9 Liter, V8. I probably would have put
> >monster tires on it though)
>
> they can go fast, but they're still big cumbersome trucks..
>
> besides, the lighting is faster and can handle well, too.
>
>
> >8. 1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS-T Spyder (Or even the coupe! Supercharged
> >AWD!)
>
> turbo awd. and no..
>
>
> >9. 1999 Nissan Maxima SE (my friend has a 96' SE. I think that's the
> >year. It's a very comfortable car!)
>
> i'd rather have a vr6 VW, personally.. i just seem to like euro cars
> better for some reason.
>
>
> >10. Honda S2000 (from the tests I've seen, only about .4-.5 seconds
> >slower than the 99 Mustang GT in the 1/4 mile and the 0-60 and the 700ft
> >slalom. Not bad, but overpriced for a Honda. $6000 less would have been
> >reasonable.)
>
> they're nice, or at least appear to be nice. my roommate is waiting
> on one of those or an Audi TT roadster.
>
>
> >Toyota Supra (The TT I think. The one with 320HP)
>
> Used? You'd have to get a 95..
>
> >BMW Z3 Roadster (I've seen these go for a little less than 30 grand)
>
> nice, buty gutless..
>
> >Toyota MR2 Twin Turbo (Ran into a few on the road.. pretty quick)
>
> they're single turbos. stock, they're slow. but can be made to be
> relatively fast and are brutal handlers.. very well balanced cars.
>
Rexven
<mbal...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote:
>Care to expound on that 3000GT comment?
>> >Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4 (Accept nothing less than a VR4!)
>> heavy POS gimmicky pig.
I would venture to guess without having to ask that he thinks the car
is overweight (it is), a piece of junk (given all the gimmicks on it
that are getting old and the history for electrical problems an older
one may well be), gimmicky as in it has a bunch of things it doesn't
need from a poorly construed electronic HVAC system that is very
expensive to replace when it breaks (and they do break) to the active
exhaust that didn't do more than change the sound, electronic
suspensions that are worthless after around 60k miles, a heavy aws
system that doesn't really help the car much (went from hydraulic to
electric in '94 if I'm not mistaken but it was still bulky and
useless, but better controlled in the uslessness), active aero pieces
that actually did work (the only car I can think of that can deploy
the active aero without affecting the Cd), and pig.. well, maybe I'll
let him explain that one.
Btw, I happen to like the VR-4's but they were far from perfect. If
they had better mechanical records and lower upkeep prices and were
still fun to drive after the first 2 months then I may well have
bought one.. but alas..
MPowell
TFrog93 <tfr...@aol.comlink> wrote in message
news:19990713220226...@ngol04.aol.com...
> In article <8E027194Eadam...@news.oit.umass.edu>,
> ad...@scanlineyyz.com (Adam) writes:
>
> >In a few years, I'll probably trade it in for the S2000 (if I can get it at
> >MSRP) or the upcoming RWD S2000 based Prelude. I usually never even
> >consider anything that gets less than 30 mpg, but as a low emission
> >vehicle, the S2000 is a special case :-)
>
>
> Does this mean I'm going to have to start liking Hondas?
Yup - rumor (from C&D or R&T) has it that the new Integra and 'Lude will be
based on the rear-drive S2k platform. That kind of explains why they haven't
"freshened" the Integra since '94-5-ish.
> :()
>
family
without a doubt the ugliest car on the road.
VICTOR
Phantom Menace wrote:
>
> Agreed.. The Ford Taurus is the ugliest god forsaken car going right
> now. I am sure that lead engineer team are all out looking for a job.
> Man did they screw that car up or what? Looks like a catfish from the
> front.
>
> On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 20:38:01 GMT, miat...@tampabay.rr.com (Rexven)
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 16:02:30 -0400, Dan Lukiw
> ><dlu...@injersey.infi.net> wrote:
> >
> >>I'm just looking for others opinion as to what 10 *affordable* cars for
> >>1999 they would buy brand new. I'm not looking to buy another car, but
> >>before I bought my Stang I had a whole list of cars that I was willing
> >>to buy before I made my final decision. Here was my list:
> >
> >What do you classify as affordable? (IE: what is your $ cut off)
> >
> >>4. 1999 Subaru 2.5 RS (Is that the one? AWD baby!)
> >
> >2.5 RS is the sporting version designed to look like the rally car.
> >It's also quite fun to drive though it needs about a 25% power
> >increase across the board. They are all AWD and the manuals are
> >certainly worth a look. Any car that is faster off the road than on is
> >something to enjoy :)
> >
> >>5. 1999 BMW 328i (A little over priced, but that's BMW for ya!)
> >
> >Or you can drop it around $4,000-6,000 and go for a 323iS which is
> >only .5 seconds slower across the board, a bit lighter, a bit more
> >agile, and just as much fun. The sport suspension is very nice
> >indeed!
> >
> >>6. 1999 Acura Integra GS-R (If I didn't need a car desperately, I would
> >>have waited for the Type R to come out as well.)
> >
> >I had a prenegotiated price on a '99 Type-R (staying with the
> >Championship White over the black) but they never came out so there
> >went that idea. To bad they screwed us with the Civic Si.. it's boring
> >junk. :(
> >
> >>8. 1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS-T Spyder (Or even the coupe! Supercharged
> >>AWD!)
> >
> >Turbocharged, not supercharged. ;) but after this year it's not even
> >that.
> >
> >>9. 1999 Nissan Maxima SE (my friend has a 96' SE. I think that's the
> >>year. It's a very comfortable car!)
> >
> >Probably the most fun of the mid-class sedans though the 2000 has to
> >be the ugliest car on the road this side of a Taurus. (personal
> >opinion)
> >
> >>10. Honda S2000 (from the tests I've seen, only about .4-.5 seconds
> >>slower than the 99 Mustang GT in the 1/4 mile and the 0-60 and the 700ft
> >>slalom. Not bad, but overpriced for a Honda. $6000 less would have been
> >>reasonable.)
> >
> >Aye.. and when you figure in dealer gouging it will be much worse..
> >Looks good on paper though I'm waiting to see it in person.
> >
> >>Toyota MR2 Twin Turbo (Ran into a few on the road.. pretty quick)
> >
> >Twin Entry Turbo, not twin turbo. Big difference. I meet so many
> >people who claim to have a twin turbo MR2 it's not even funny!
> >
> >
> >
> >
family
people on your side about that one. the 99 vette is one of the most gorgeous
cars on the road. as far as bang for your buck , it is THE best sports car you
can get.
VICTOR
Rexven wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 23:38:21 GMT, row...@bellsouth.netSpammersAreHomos
> (Joshua Lowe) wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 16:59:35 -0400, Dan Lukiw
> ><dlu...@injersey.infi.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>$ cut-off? 35 grand. I would budge a little bit more if necessary, but
> >>35 grand is getting up there already. Personally, anything from 15K-30K
> >>is good enough for me.
> >
> >If you budgeted a little more, you're into a C5 hardtop.
>
> One of the only cars in the world that's uglier than a Taurus or a
> 2000- Maxima? No thanks! It might perform well but you DO have to look
> at the car when you walk out to it in the morning..
>
family
Dan Lukiw wrote:
>
> > >
>
> I love the way the SS looks honestly, but I don't like the looks of the
> Z28
>
> >
how can you not like the z28. these cars are almost identical??
VICTOR
Rexven
>if you are refering to the corvette as an ugly car, than you wont have too many
>people on your side about that one. the 99 vette is one of the most gorgeous
>cars on the road. as far as bang for your buck , it is THE best sports car you
>can get.
Maybe not but I honestly believe that the C3 and C4 looked
considerably better, in fact every model year of Corvette from the
inception has looked great (especially considering the era they were
in) until this model. The interior is a nice step up, it's clean and
effective and almost genuinely comfortable. It would be nice if they
could get the stickshift down about 3-4" but that's normal for Z's and
Vettes.. The body, however, is hideous. They took a few parts from
their Japanese competition (who says the Japanese only copy the US?)
and blended the nose itself in an okay fashion if not a bit too
squished.. but from the side it's not bad.. until you get to the rear
3/4 or rear view. What in the hell were they thinking? Baby Got Back
was supposed to be a song, not a mantra for the vette. They need to
put this thing on a diet and give it a rear end that doesn't look like
it melted. Also, they need to start upping the quality control so
that the 4 exhaust pipes at least line up and stay level with the
bodywork. They area almost always sagging to one side or the other. I
know they put the money into the performance of the car but a few
bucks in quality control (which is improved but still not perfect)
isn't a bad idea. I am not arguing that it's not a great bang for the
buck. It is! I'm simply saying that it's one of the ugliest cars
currently made once you get past the name bias. If Honda made the
exact same thing and badged it the NS-Z you would likely be screaming
how fugly it looks 'but it's getting better since its' RWD' and such.
The new C5, especially the coupe, reminds me of the current trend of
Pontiacs.. add more plastic, make it shiny, and people will buy them..
and currently there isn't one Pontiac made that I could honestly say
is an attractive car. ESPECIALLY the WS-6.. I swear that thing looks
like it was penned by a High School student who was bored in history
class.. right down to the factory single rice boy tip. Bleah.
The C5 is not too ugly in a roadster, is ugly as a coupe, and is
downright hideous in hard-top trim. My opinion.
Joshua Lowe
Mike Baldwin <mbal...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.05.9907141631410.17491-100000@allegro...
> Care to expound on that 3000GT comment?
Sure. The 3000GT is slow. A 320hp AWD car that's wallowy, and
no faster than an LT1 powered F-body. The 3000GT is heavy. It
weighs two tons. It's a pig. The 3000GT is gimmicky. It's full
of gadgetry and useless whizbang items, like the articulating wing
and the exhaust volume control. All gimmicky selling points for gimmicky
fools with their money with whom they are soon parted from in favor
of a slow, heavy, gimmicky car.
TFrog93
writes:
>>If you budgeted a little more, you're into a C5 hardtop.
>
>One of the only cars in the world that's uglier than a Taurus or a
>2000- Maxima? No thanks! It might perform well but you DO have to look
>at the car when you walk out to it in the morning..
>
C5?!? Ugly?!?
OHHHHH! A Miata boy.
:()
Pete
<row...@bellsouth.netNOSPAM> wrote:
I know of at least one of those 'slow, gimmicky' cars running 10s in the
1/4 on street tires, that is (last I knew) driven daily.
Feel like retracting those statements?
Pete
===============================================
96 Formula M6, w/out T-tops
14.171 best ET, 99.616 best MPH
G2 intake, piped into a huge K&N, !MAF screen
===============================================
ptran
that much and I'm married so I may need a back seat in the
next year or two. I'm also tired of used cars and dealing
with rip-off mechanics and wasted time when it's in the
shop.
I used to have an '88 Honda Prelude Si but Hondas have
gotten so boring over the years that I quit buying hondas.
I had considered a Mustang and Camaro but Consumer Reports
said that they were unreliable and I'm not a mechanic.
My decision? I recently bought two '99 Maxima SEs and am
very happy with the aggressive styling, rims, fog lights,
spoiler, dashboard, handling and torque (the camry, avalon,
and accord were too boring looking and suspension was too
mushy and tires were too skinny). I prefer the 2000's
Maxima SE power but I couldn't resist the $2,500 rebate on
the '99s. Auto magazines and consumer reports rate the
Maxima as having a highly reliable engine, transmission, and
brakes.
I also considered a '99 Prelude because it was the same
price as a '99 Maxima SE but why get a 4-cylinder and lose
two doors, less torque and fog lights for the same price (my
100 pound dog loves the easy access with the rear doors)?
Besides, the magazines say that 6-cylinders are more
reliable than 4-cylinders.
I'll have to wait until I'm 45-50 to get my Vette when my
kids (when I do have them) are out of college. Enjoy the
ride!
**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****
CBRrider
A lot of people don't like the C5 corvette because it isn't an original
design. I looks like a NSX, Rx7, and fireturd all rolled into one. But
that doens't make it a bad looking car, I like the way it looks, it just
isn't original... The new ferrari? That is original. One thing about the
corvette though, the new hardtop, with the straight down glass rear window
looks hideous. Easily THE worst rear end since rosie odonnel.
Dad
>I had considered a Mustang and Camaro but Consumer Reports
>said that they were unreliable and I'm not a mechanic.
I make all my buying decisions from what Consumers Reports say, for I have
no brain and do what they tell me.
Dad
CBRrider
on the road... but I kind of got used to them. They are still ugly, but
they aren't that bad because they are pushing an envelope in a way. The
front of the 300m is now beautiful to me. But the ws6? MY GOOD LORD THAT
is an ugly car. It looks like a pig rolling down the street. I just sit
there waiting for an oink or two. Coming out of the car wash, it looks like
the kid with the big nose who always had a cold. Kind of like the girl at
highschool with the really bad nose, you know it doens't look good, but you
just can't keep from staring. No, there is NO getting used to the looks of
that car. In my book, that is easily the ugliest looking, AND UNFUCTIONAL,
car of all time. I just don't understand adding strakes and scoops for the
sake of looking cool. May have been cool in the 80s, but not now.
Ziggy
> I make all my buying decisions from what Consumers Reports say, for I have
> no brain and do what they tell me.
Yeah, damn Consumer Reports for telling the truth! Damn them for daring
to inform others, and damn those people who try to be smart consumers!
By the way, since you weren't included in their annual reliability
survey, their survey must be bogus (ok, their car reviews are bogus, but
their reliability surveys aren't)!
family
VICTOR
Rexven wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Jul 1999 22:39:45 GMT, family <a-z.f...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >if you are refering to the corvette as an ugly car, than you wont have too many
> >people on your side about that one. the 99 vette is one of the most gorgeous
> >cars on the road. as far as bang for your buck , it is THE best sports car you
> >can get.
>
> Maybe not but I honestly believe that the C3 and C4 looked
> considerably better, in fact every model year of Corvette from the
> inception has looked great (especially considering the era they were
> in) until this model. The interior is a nice step up, it's clean and
> effective and almost genuinely comfortable. It would be nice if they
> could get the stickshift down about 3-4" but that's normal for Z's and
> Vettes.. The body, however, is hideous. They took a few parts from
> their Japanese competition (who says the Japanese only copy the US?)
> and blended the nose itself in an okay fashion if not a bit too
> squished.. but from the side it's not bad.. until you get to the rear
> 3/4 or rear view. What in the hell were they thinking? Baby Got Back
> was supposed to be a song, not a mantra for the vette. They need to
> put this thing on a diet and give it a rear end that doesn't look like
> it melted. Also, they need to start upping the quality control so
> that the 4 exhaust pipes at least line up and stay level with the
> bodywork. They area almost always sagging to one side or the other. I
> know they put the money into the performance of the car but a few
> bucks in quality control (which is improved but still not perfect)
> isn't a bad idea. I am not arguing that it's not a great bang for the
> buck. It is! I'm simply saying that it's one of the ugliest cars
> currently made once you get past the name bias. If Honda made the
> exact same thing and badged it the NS-Z you would likely be screaming
> how fugly it looks 'but it's getting better since its' RWD' and such.
> The new C5, especially the coupe, reminds me of the current trend of
> Pontiacs.. add more plastic, make it shiny, and people will buy them..
> and currently there isn't one Pontiac made that I could honestly say
> is an attractive car. ESPECIALLY the WS-6.. I swear that thing looks
Joshua Lowe
wrote:
>the active aero without affecting the Cd), and pig.. well, maybe I'll
>let him explain that one.
Wallowy at best, given its girth and poor manners. The steering is
tight, though! There, I found something nice to say about it.
Joshua Lowe
(Pete) wrote:
>I know of at least one of those 'slow, gimmicky' cars running 10s in the
>1/4 on street tires, that is (last I knew) driven daily.
>
>Feel like retracting those statements?
No, because the fact someone modified it into being fast doesn't mean
they're still not born as gimmicky, heavy, slow POSes.
Rexven
>i take it youre into good ol' muscle cars. which is still cool.
Actually I'm into just about every type of car from classic and
antique to modern and concept. :) If I had a choice between a '97
Vette Roadster with a 6-speed and a '69 RS-SS Convertible 396 with 4
on the floor it would be one hell of a decision if they were both in
new condition and the same price!
Rexven
The only ones I have found to be wallowy on the road are those with
struts way past their useful life. That is, those with over 70k miles
on them. Problem is there is only ONE place to get replacements for
those electronically controlled shocks and that place is damed
expensive. That's why you never want to look at an older used Q-45A..
Same reason. I've seen them listed for $1,600 per pair of shocks PLUS
install in that car!!!
Rexven
>i would much rather have a taurus than one of those god forsaken beatles.That is
>without a doubt the ugliest car on the road.
Of course, if you take that new Beetle and squish it you have an Audi
TT.. which looks great on the inside but the outside is good only for
a *yawn*.. The A4 and A6 on the other hand, while clones of each
other, are not to bad. I'm wondering if they are going to modify the
body on the S4 when they bring it over.. ?
Rexven
(Pete) wrote:
>In article <lC8j3.19854$0b2.1...@news1.mia>, "Joshua Lowe"
><row...@bellsouth.netNOSPAM> wrote:
>> Sure. The 3000GT is slow. A 320hp AWD car that's wallowy, and
>> no faster than an LT1 powered F-body. The 3000GT is heavy. It
>> weighs two tons. It's a pig. The 3000GT is gimmicky. It's full
>> of gadgetry and useless whizbang items, like the articulating wing
>> and the exhaust volume control. All gimmicky selling points for gimmicky
>> fools with their money with whom they are soon parted from in favor
>> of a slow, heavy, gimmicky car.
>
>I know of at least one of those 'slow, gimmicky' cars running 10s in the
>1/4 on street tires, that is (last I knew) driven daily.
>
>Feel like retracting those statements?
That's one. what about the rest? How long will that clutch and tranny
hold up under such abuse? Not long if it's stock. That is
representative of one modified car, not the group in general.
Rexven
The hood and rear wing are different enough to make a difference..
even to me! I like 'em both but prefer the previous style headlights
over the Ford Flounder look.
At that the '99 Mustang 35th looks good in black (the painted hoods
ala mid'80's are okay in some colors and not in others). I just wish
those extra sized scoops did something more than create drag. As it is
the Cobra for a change looks WORSE than the regular car. It even has a
hood that looks like they put them on the wrong car. How is it the
regular Mustang looks much more functional and mean than the Cobra
when you take into account the hood? Btw, neither are functional for
more than trapping water and eating wash mitts. The only redeeming
factor on the Cobra is that they had the audacity to steal RUF's wheel
design and put it in there. Too bad it looks better on the Porsche.
I do figure that a lot of regular Mustang drivers will swap to the
cobra's driving lamp/intake set versus the normal driving lamp. That
is a much better deisgn and can easily be upgraded to more powerful
(IE: ones that do something) aftermarket units.
Mike T Ereon
Rexven wrote in message <378d12b5.10659360@news-server>...
>
>Maybe not but I honestly believe that the C3 and C4 looked
>considerably better, in fact every model year of Corvette from the
>inception has looked great (especially considering the era they were
>in) until this model. The interior is a nice step up, it's clean and
>effective and almost genuinely comfortable. It would be nice if they
>could get the stickshift down about 3-4" but that's normal for Z's and
>Vettes.. The body, however, is hideous. They took a few parts from
>their Japanese competition (who says the Japanese only copy the US?)
>and blended the nose itself in an okay fashion if not a bit too
>squished..
Name one car the C5 looks like and I'll give you a million dollars.
>but from the side it's not bad.. until you get to the rear
>3/4 or rear view. What in the hell were they thinking?
Its called "coefficiend of drag". You know, making a car drive steadily at
170mph+ needs the rear end to stay planted.
>Baby Got Back
>was supposed to be a song, not a mantra for the vette.
Yawn.
>They need to
>put this thing on a diet and give it a rear end that doesn't look like
>it melted.
Why on earth would anyone say thing without knowing ANYTHING about these
cars? A diet? The C5 weighs 3300 with driver and a 50-50 weight
distribution. Plus, do you know about its structural rigidity? Its about 5
times more stronger than the C4 plus its lighter. Again, back to the rear
end. If I recall the C4 rear end looks almost the same, why are you acting
so surprised?
>Also, they need to start upping the quality control so
>that the 4 exhaust pipes at least line up and stay level with the
>bodywork.
So now the C5 needs help in quality control because one out of 100 has
sagging exhaust tips? How *exactly* do you know if someone installed
mufflers on them and left the stock tips? What if they were going to the
exahust shop to weld in the mufflers?
>They area almost always sagging to one side or the other. I
>know they put the money into the performance of the car but a few
>bucks in quality control (which is improved but still not perfect)
>isn't a bad idea. I am not arguing that it's not a great bang for the
>buck. It is! I'm simply saying that it's one of the ugliest cars
>currently made once you get past the name bias.
Ugliest? The Vette has ALWAYS been beautiful cars. The C5 not only is
beautiful, but its shape helps the car. A high decklid helps lower drag, a
long low hoodline helps aerodynamics. If the C5 was only capable of 140mph
and 15 second et's then I probalby could see your bench racer rants, but the
C5 Vette is easily capale of what 180mph. 180mph. Need I say that again?
Name 3 other cars below $50K that can go that fast.
> If Honda made the
>exact same thing and badged it the NS-Z you would likely be screaming
>how fugly it looks 'but it's getting better since its' RWD' and such.
Oh, so this whole post is in spite?
>The new C5, especially the coupe, reminds me of the current trend of
>Pontiacs.. add more plastic, make it shiny, and people will buy them..
<Sigh>
>and currently there isn't one Pontiac made that I could honestly say
>is an attractive car. ESPECIALLY the WS-6..
Grand Am GT, GTP, any Firebirds.
>I swear that thing looks
>like it was penned by a High School student who was bored in history
>class.. right down to the factory single rice boy tip. Bleah.
<Extra sigh>. No, you are wrong, again. The whole ENTIRE exhast system is 3
inches, not the exhaust tip.
>
>The C5 is not too ugly in a roadster, is ugly as a coupe, and is
>downright hideous in hard-top trim. My opinion.
Yeah, the Integra is ok in red, ugly in black and downright fugly in white.
GPM
Rexven
<FREE...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>Rexven wrote in message <378d12b5.10659360@news-server>...
>>
>>Maybe not but I honestly believe that the C3 and C4 looked
>>considerably better, in fact every model year of Corvette from the
>>inception has looked great (especially considering the era they were
>>in) until this model. The interior is a nice step up, it's clean and
>>effective and almost genuinely comfortable. It would be nice if they
>>could get the stickshift down about 3-4" but that's normal for Z's and
>>Vettes.. The body, however, is hideous. They took a few parts from
>>their Japanese competition (who says the Japanese only copy the US?)
>>and blended the nose itself in an okay fashion if not a bit too
>
>>squished..
>
>Name one car the C5 looks like and I'll give you a million dollars.
From the front: '93-current (in Japan) RX-7. Acura NSX. From the front
3/4 view definitely the Acura NSX. From the side when outfitted with
the optional rub strip going from low at the front to high in the rear
(most common way I see it mounted here) McLaren F1. From the rear a
melted Fiero.. (okay, the last one is pushing it). So, that's a
minimum of two cars. Thats' $2,000,000. I'll take cash please.
>>but from the side it's not bad.. until you get to the rear
>>3/4 or rear view. What in the hell were they thinking?
>
>Its called "coefficiend of drag". You know, making a car drive steadily at
>170mph+ needs the rear end to stay planted.
A big ass is not required to make a car stick to the road.
>>They need to
>>put this thing on a diet and give it a rear end that doesn't look like
>>it melted.
>
>Why on earth would anyone say thing without knowing ANYTHING about these
>cars? A diet? The C5 weighs 3300 with driver and a 50-50 weight
>distribution. Plus, do you know about its structural rigidity? Its about 5
>times more stronger than the C4 plus its lighter. Again, back to the rear
>end. If I recall the C4 rear end looks almost the same, why are you acting
>so surprised?
I was talking about appearance. In appearances the car definitely
needs a diet. It's got more of an ass end on it than Rush Limbaugh.
yes it's stronger, stiffer, yadda yadda yadda but at least the C4's
rear end was tastefully sculpted. The only thing they have in common
is the 4 quad tail lamps. The C5 just looks hideous. Given GM's
current idea's on 'new styling' I'm not surprised.. Have you looked at
the Firebirds and what they are slowly doing to the Camaro lately?
Much less the new Malibu's and just about any Pontiac. Bleah.
>>Also, they need to start upping the quality control so
>>that the 4 exhaust pipes at least line up and stay level with the
>>bodywork.
>
>So now the C5 needs help in quality control because one out of 100 has
>sagging exhaust tips? How *exactly* do you know if someone installed
>mufflers on them and left the stock tips? What if they were going to the
>exahust shop to weld in the mufflers?
1 out of a hundred DOESN'T have them sagging. The other 99 certainly
do.
>>They area almost always sagging to one side or the other. I
>>know they put the money into the performance of the car but a few
>>bucks in quality control (which is improved but still not perfect)
>>isn't a bad idea. I am not arguing that it's not a great bang for the
>>buck. It is! I'm simply saying that it's one of the ugliest cars
>>currently made once you get past the name bias.
>
>Ugliest? The Vette has ALWAYS been beautiful cars. The C5 not only is
>beautiful, but its shape helps the car. A high decklid helps lower drag, a
>long low hoodline helps aerodynamics. If the C5 was only capable of 140mph
>and 15 second et's then I probalby could see your bench racer rants, but the
>C5 Vette is easily capale of what 180mph. 180mph. Need I say that again?
>Name 3 other cars below $50K that can go that fast.
From the time the vette was conceived until '96 the vette has always
been a very beautiful car (though the '84-89's were a bit rough, they
still looked good). The C5 is just.. well, "Let's take the morphing
program and see hwat would happen if we melded a Taurus into a sports
car".. or something that bad. Btw, where is your 180mph figure
coming from? I haven't seen one break 174 without mods yet. 6mph at
that end is quite a jump.
>> If Honda made the
>>exact same thing and badged it the NS-Z you would likely be screaming
>>how fugly it looks 'but it's getting better since its' RWD' and such.
>Oh, so this whole post is in spite?
Hardly. These are my opinions. If you don't like them, sorry to hear
it. I know they don't represent the majority but I still find that the
car looks hideous.
>>and currently there isn't one Pontiac made that I could honestly say
>>is an attractive car. ESPECIALLY the WS-6..
>Grand Am GT, GTP, any Firebirds.
Add more plastic is their mantra. The firebirds are hardly beautiful
cars. I mean who's idea is it to make the headlights look like they
can't even close that last 3/8"? How about that worthless set of
scoops on the nose? Even worse, take the WS-6 and add another set on
top of the previous set! I swear it looks like a pair of pigs porking
each other. The GTP with the Ford Flounder wing treatment and extra
body cladding doesn't cut it either, especially when you look inside.
If you happen to get inside the looks become secondary to the
extremely cheap feeling materials. Bleah. The Vette at least has a
very nice interior both in feel and appearance. Th'ats the exception
to the rule.
>>I swear that thing looks
>>like it was penned by a High School student who was bored in history
>>class.. right down to the factory single rice boy tip. Bleah.
><Extra sigh>. No, you are wrong, again. The whole ENTIRE exhast system is 3
>inches, not the exhaust tip.
So what? It still looks like a Rice boy's exhaust.
>>The C5 is not too ugly in a roadster, is ugly as a coupe, and is
>>downright hideous in hard-top trim. My opinion.
>Yeah, the Integra is ok in red, ugly in black and downright fugly in white.
Hey, I'm not a major fan of the Integra either. Bleah.
family
Rexven wrote:
>
> The hood and rear wing are different enough to make a difference..
> even to me! I like 'em both but prefer the previous style headlights
> over the Ford Flounder look.
i agree about the headlights. the 99 headlights are ugly.
>
> At that the '99 Mustang 35th looks good in black
the only 99 mustang that even looks somewhat nice is the dark green.
VICTOR
Joshua Lowe
<FREE...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Name one car the C5 looks like and I'll give you a million dollars.
Half RX7, half NSX. I love the C5s looks, but it's very clear that
there was some borrowing done.
>Why on earth would anyone say thing without knowing ANYTHING about these
>cars? A diet? The C5 weighs 3300 with driver and a 50-50 weight
The C5 hardtop weighs 3173. Most Vette owners do not weigh 127lbs.
The C5 coupe weighs 3250lbs. NO Vette owners weigh 50lbs, including
amputees.
>So now the C5 needs help in quality control because one out of 100 has
>sagging exhaust tips? How *exactly* do you know if someone installed
I'd say more like 1 out of 10. Doesn't matter to me, though.
Aftermarket exhaust is agenda item #1.
>mufflers on them and left the stock tips? What if they were going to the
>exahust shop to weld in the mufflers?
What if Lee Harvey Oswald had sneezed when pulling the trigger the
third time?
>Ugliest? The Vette has ALWAYS been beautiful cars. The C5 not only is
Why is it that try to argue over subjective things like how something
looks? It's so pointless..
Dave Trenkner
the one on the SS. Please inform yourself before posting utter crap next
time...and good day!
--
Dave
86 IROC-Z
Stay low, Stay safe, Drive fast
CBRrider <s...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:0Cbj3.2999$04.1...@news.oh.voyager.net...
>I agree totally. I always thought the new chryslers were the ugliest cars
>on the road... but I kind of got used to them. They are still ugly, but
>they aren't that bad because they are pushing an envelope in a way. The
>front of the 300m is now beautiful to me. But the ws6? MY GOOD LORD THAT
>is an ugly car. It looks like a pig rolling down the street. I just sit
>there waiting for an oink or two. Coming out of the car wash, it looks
like
>the kid with the big nose who always had a cold. Kind of like the girl at
>highschool with the really bad nose, you know it doens't look good, but you
>just can't keep from staring. No, there is NO getting used to the looks of
>that car. In my book, that is easily the ugliest looking, AND UNFUCTIONAL,
>car of all time. I just don't understand adding strakes and scoops for the
>sake of looking cool. May have been cool in the 80s, but not now.
>
>>> The new C5, especially the coupe, reminds me of the current trend of
>>> Pontiacs.. add more plastic, make it shiny, and people will buy them..
>>> and currently there isn't one Pontiac made that I could honestly say
>>> is an attractive car. ESPECIALLY the WS-6.. I swear that thing looks
>
>
>
Mike T Ereon
Rexven wrote in message <378e5c3f.2516005@news-server>...
>On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:09:37 -0000, "Mike T Ereon"
><FREE...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Rexven wrote in message <378d12b5.10659360@news-server>...
>>>
>>Name one car the C5 looks like and I'll give you a million dollars.
>
>From the front: '93-current (in Japan) RX-7.
Eh, a little bit. I will admit, the side mirrors look the same.
>Acura NSX. From the front
>3/4 view definitely the Acura NSX.
Hells no.
>From the side when outfitted with
>the optional rub strip going from low at the front to high in the rear
>(most common way I see it mounted here) McLaren F1.
Nah, the McLaren look is distinct. It looks like its ready to prance on its
next victim, the Vette looks like its laid back.
> From the rear a
>melted Fiero.. (okay, the last one is pushing it).
Never seen one.
>So, that's a
>minimum of two cars. Thats' $2,000,000. I'll take cash please.
Not so fast. I see no resemblence with the NSX, a little bit with the 7
(plus mirrors), none with the Laren and the melted rear end of a Fiero
doesn't count cause I haven't seen one. I owe you approximately $5000.
How about a nice 95 Civic with a hi-po Neuspeed windshield banner?
>
>>>but from the side it's not bad.. until you get to the rear
>>>3/4 or rear view. What in the hell were they thinking?
>>
>>Its called "coefficiend of drag". You know, making a car drive steadily
at
>>170mph+ needs the rear end to stay planted.
>
>A big ass is not required to make a car stick to the road.
Your right. It was either a big butt or a huge Supra spoiler (which is
actually useless). Your pick.
>
>>>They need to
>>>put this thing on a diet and give it a rear end that doesn't look like
>>>it melted.
>>
>>Why on earth would anyone say thing without knowing ANYTHING about these
>>cars? A diet? The C5 weighs 3300 with driver and a 50-50 weight
>>distribution. Plus, do you know about its structural rigidity? Its about
5
>>times more stronger than the C4 plus its lighter. Again, back to the
rear
>>end. If I recall the C4 rear end looks almost the same, why are you
acting
>>so surprised?
>
>I was talking about appearance. In appearances the car definitely
>needs a diet. It's got more of an ass end on it than Rush Limbaugh.
>yes it's stronger, stiffer, yadda yadda yadda but at least the C4's
>rear end was tastefully sculpted.
The late C4 rears were nice, but from 84-88, they were horrible.
>The only thing they have in common
>is the 4 quad tail lamps. The C5 just looks hideous. Given GM's
>current idea's on 'new styling' I'm not surprised.. Have you looked at
>the Firebirds and what they are slowly doing to the Camaro lately?
Yes, and they look even beautiful than before.
>Much less the new Malibu's and just about any Pontiac. Bleah.
I kinda like the top of the line Malibu.
>From the time the vette was conceived until '96 the vette has always
>been a very beautiful car (though the '84-89's were a bit rough, they
>still looked good). The C5 is just.. well, "Let's take the morphing
>program and see hwat would happen if we melded a Taurus into a sports
>car".. or something that bad.
No need to bring up NASCAR. lol
>Btw, where is your 180mph figure
>coming from? I haven't seen one break 174 without mods yet. 6mph at
>that end is quite a jump.
Several mags and One Lap. BTW, did you know that there are "free" mods the
the LS-1's? What "looks" like a stocker might be modded.
>
>
>>> If Honda made the
>>>exact same thing and badged it the NS-Z you would likely be screaming
>>>how fugly it looks 'but it's getting better since its' RWD' and such.
>>Oh, so this whole post is in spite?
>
>Hardly. These are my opinions. If you don't like them, sorry to hear
>it. I know they don't represent the majority but I still find that the
>car looks hideous.
Hey, if you don't like it, thats fine. But the thing that pissed me off is
that you say it like the C5 is a POS. All of the things you hate about it
has a purpose.
>
>>>and currently there isn't one Pontiac made that I could honestly say
>>>is an attractive car. ESPECIALLY the WS-6..
>>Grand Am GT, GTP, any Firebirds.
>
>Add more plastic is their mantra.
You DO know that you can take off the cladding on the Grand Am, right?
> The firebirds are hardly beautiful
>cars. The Vette at least has a
>very nice interior both in feel and appearance. Th'ats the exception
>to the rule.
But how much more does the Vette cost?
>
>>>I swear that thing looks
>>>like it was penned by a High School student who was bored in history
>>>class.. right down to the factory single rice boy tip. Bleah.
>><Extra sigh>. No, you are wrong, again. The whole ENTIRE exhast system is
3
>>inches, not the exhaust tip.
>
>So what? It still looks like a Rice boy's exhaust.
There you go again with form before function. <grin>
>
>>>The C5 is not too ugly in a roadster, is ugly as a coupe, and is
>>>downright hideous in hard-top trim. My opinion.
>>Yeah, the Integra is ok in red, ugly in black and downright fugly in
white.
>
>Hey, I'm not a major fan of the Integra either. Bleah.
Really? I could of swarn you said you were gonna get a Type R a while back
on the Honda NG. Don't make me surf Dejanews now. Just kidding.
Actually, the Integra isn't that bad. I think of it as a Civic with a body
kit.
>
>
>
>____________________
>Red light means stop
>Green light means go
>Yellow like means drivelike mad because it's going to
> turn red and make you stop!
I came up on a weird traffic light once. Red and Green came on. Weird. I
ended up doing a burnout.
GrandPrixMike
asl;kdjgfa;s lkjf; asdlkjf;asdlkjf;asdlkjrpweouj;sdlakjvma;sdlkjf;sdlakjfa;
asdlkjf;ldkjfpoweiurj;lasdkfj;alsdkjf
afa;sldkjf;alksjdf asdf
adsf
asdf'sdafl;kasdjf;lkj34p089ru[plkdjf;asdliutrji';sdlkmvz/xc,.mnv0oweiujtr';a
kjfsd;lfksdj;lkfj;daslkfjepwoiurpoqweiutpoidhjf;axcmnv.z,xcmnbv.,zxcmnv.zx,c
mvn.,zxcmvn
asd;lkfj;lasdkjf;lsdkjf;lasdkjfpoweiurpoweiur;lsdkjf;poweiru;alsdkjfpoweiur;
lasdkjfpoweiur;lasdkjfpoweiujr;lsdkajfpoweijrf;lsdkjf;o
lasdkf
asd;flkjasd;litrua';lsdkjmf;lkasdj;rflkdjfdkjfkdfkdjfkddddddddddddddddddd;az
LSDKjfa
Rexven
<FREE...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>>Name one car the C5 looks like and I'll give you a million dollars.
>>From the front: '93-current (in Japan) RX-7.
>Eh, a little bit. I will admit, the side mirrors look the same.
>>Acura NSX. From the front
>>3/4 view definitely the Acura NSX.
>Hells no.
Everything from the headlights to the fender lines and the way they
attach is NSX. How can you not see it? Even the overall sillohette
from the downcast nose to the flat midsection that stays a bit level
all the way to the tail (notice that the NSX doesn't require a fat
rear end but does retain level lines) and a sharp cut off. With the
Corvette in coupe form the sillohettes are extremely similar.
>>From the side when outfitted with
>>the optional rub strip going from low at the front to high in the rear
>>(most common way I see it mounted here) McLaren F1.
>
>Nah, the McLaren look is distinct. It looks like its ready to prance on its
>next victim, the Vette looks like its laid back.
It's not that they look the same, it's that GM took the exact line and
used it at the exact angle on the Vette. That's cloning to me.
>> From the rear a
>>melted Fiero.. (okay, the last one is pushing it).
>Never seen one.
Look for an '84-85. :) If you can't find one imagine someone backing
the C5 up to a giant heater and leaving it there until the rear got
very soft.. then backed into a cold wall.
>>So, that's a
>>minimum of two cars. Thats' $2,000,000. I'll take cash please.
>Not so fast. I see no resemblence with the NSX, a little bit with the 7
>(plus mirrors), none with the Laren and the melted rear end of a Fiero
>doesn't count cause I haven't seen one. I owe you approximately $5000.
>How about a nice 95 Civic with a hi-po Neuspeed windshield banner?
Drop the banner and we'll talk. I can always use the car for the track
;)
>>From the time the vette was conceived until '96 the vette has always
>>been a very beautiful car (though the '84-89's were a bit rough, they
>>still looked good). The C5 is just.. well, "Let's take the morphing
>>program and see hwat would happen if we melded a Taurus into a sports
>>car".. or something that bad.
>
>No need to bring up NASCAR. lol
Hey, if they start to sell RWD sedans with V8's and manual trannies
like the europeans and some of the japanese and they do so for decent
prices I'll bet you their sales jump ten-fold! Even Honda's new lines
are turning towards RWD with the upcoming Civic and the Integra
platforms nevermind the new S2000!
>>Btw, where is your 180mph figure
>>coming from? I haven't seen one break 174 without mods yet. 6mph at
>>that end is quite a jump.
>Several mags and One Lap. BTW, did you know that there are "free" mods the
>the LS-1's? What "looks" like a stocker might be modded.
Hmm.. modified to 180 easily! but right out of the box?? Hmm..
Possible on a good day with a 6 speed but I don't think it would quite
pull it with an auto.. ?
>>Hardly. These are my opinions. If you don't like them, sorry to hear
>>it. I know they don't represent the majority but I still find that the
>>car looks hideous.
>Hey, if you don't like it, thats fine. But the thing that pissed me off is
>that you say it like the C5 is a POS. All of the things you hate about it
>has a purpose.
I didn't mean to make it come off as the C5 being a piece of junk.
This thread started about it's looks and appearance. The car is still
far from perfect, still has some squeaks and rattles (not nearly as
many as the C4 but they are still there), and is much improved in
structure, motor, power, interior (still need a lesson in switchgear
from BMW or Mercedes but they are getting there), etc. It's appearance
is just pretty.. well, bleah at least to me and I figure I'm part of
their target audience. If they could meld all of the interiror and
other improvements with a modified version of the C4 body then by all
means I think the car woudl be that much better. However, having said
that GM has historically done drastic changes on the vette at each
life cycle rather than simply evolve them the way that Porsche or
Mercedes do. They are not alone as most automakers do the same thing.
As such it wouldnt' make much sense for them to evolve the C4 any more
than they had as it had already outlived it's life cycle but I did
find the '91+ updates to be very tasteful and elegant.
>>>>and currently there isn't one Pontiac made that I could honestly say
>>>>is an attractive car. ESPECIALLY the WS-6..
>>>Grand Am GT, GTP, any Firebirds.
>>Add more plastic is their mantra.
>You DO know that you can take off the cladding on the Grand Am, right?
It still won't help it.. hehe
>>>>The C5 is not too ugly in a roadster, is ugly as a coupe, and is
>>>>downright hideous in hard-top trim. My opinion.
>>>Yeah, the Integra is ok in red, ugly in black and downright fugly in
>white.
>>
>>Hey, I'm not a major fan of the Integra either. Bleah.
>Really? I could of swarn you said you were gonna get a Type R a while back
>on the Honda NG. Don't make me surf Dejanews now. Just kidding.
>Actually, the Integra isn't that bad. I think of it as a Civic with a body
>kit.
Dn't bother surfing. If they had decided to bring the Type-R over as a
'99 I would indeed have bought one. I don't count it among the
Integra (even though it is) and I still don't care for it's looks. The
primary reason to buy that car is for running tight autocrosses and
events like Track Speed as well as hauling more around than my current
car. I didn't buy my current car for looks either and it's just plain
gutless! I have TOYS that have more horsepower than my sports car!
Heck, my SUV outruns my sports car to 60 by nearly 2 full seconds! Is
that not pretty sad? hehe
Mike T Ereon
Vette94 wrote in message ...
>
>Mike T Ereon <FREE...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
>news:7ml493$6iku$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com...
>> Name one car the C5 looks like and I'll give you a million dollars.
>
>whatever catchy letters the Japs are using for it. The front view of the C5
>looks like a Madza RX7. The rear view looks like a Corvette!
>
>That's 3 cars! You owe me 3 million dollars!
Where do you get 3 mill from?
> My lawyers and I will settle
>for the cost of a new 2000 Vette. I love the looks of the C5! I WANT one!
See Mike, he wants one. lol
>
>Tom
>
GrandPrixMike
>
>
>
Vette94
Mike T Ereon <FREE...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:7ml493$6iku$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com...
> Name one car the C5 looks like and I'll give you a million dollars.
From the side view the C5 looks like an Accura (sp) NSX? Or NZX, or NSZ or
whatever catchy letters the Japs are using for it. The front view of the C5
looks like a Madza RX7. The rear view looks like a Corvette!
That's 3 cars! You owe me 3 million dollars! My lawyers and I will settle
for the cost of a new 2000 Vette. I love the looks of the C5! I WANT one!
Tom
ge...@speed.net
>
> I'm just looking for others opinion as to what 10 *affordable* cars for
> 1999 they would buy brand new.
Well unfortunately they don't make it and since I'm not William Gates
nor the CEO of GM I couldn't afford to make it a reality. But as they
say dreaming is still free & tax exempt.
A modest wish:
A '70 GS Stage II body/skin with a modern HO fuel injected 455 (gotta
luv that big block whiplash torque), modern bullet-proof 6spd tranny and
rearend, a robust & tight handling suspension to go with all that power,
abs, a "get out jail free" card in the glovebox, a "GreenPeace
Exemption" medallion on the gas cap - you know the works!! Bring it up
to the 90's technology with that gorgeous body (minus the gratuitous
chrome). Remember, this car back in it's day in stock form was clocked
0-60 in 5.5 sec & the 1/4 mile at 13.38 sec with a 3spd auto. Not bad
for a 30 yearold car. I'd ditto that wish for a '70 426 Charger;
another beauty which was actually advance for it's time beyond the hemi
concept (ex. it's low slung/wide stance - remind you of some of today's
styling?).
Don't laugh it's possible (if you got the bucks/connections). If you
recall a couple of years ago a top GM executive did the same thing with
a '57 Chevy (stuffing it with a C4 350) after he ordered a team of
engineers to refabricate the body, etc out of some archived blue-prints
for that model.
Just a thought.
('93 Si Owner) "Livin' In The Past Lane"
rscamer...@frontiernet.net
(Joshua Lowe) wrote:
>What is up with it not being legal in America, anyway? If they were
>for sale here I'd buy the hell out of one..
They have no chance of passing the federal safety/crash standards.
That would be my guess...Ron
--
68 camaro 327
68 camaro RS(project)
Joshua Lowe
<davetr...@fwi.com> wrote:
>You are a MORON CBRider...the hood scoops on the WS6 are functional! As is
>the one on the SS. Please inform yourself before posting utter crap next
>time...and good day!
Yes, they're functional. But the WS6 is still ugly.
CBRrider
strakes, streaks, and scoops that mark up the body. Like the ones on the
side, ect.
Joshua Lowe wrote in message <3790bdf6....@news.mia.bellsouth.net>...
Joe Schmoe
> >6. Lotus Elise. 4 cylinder that will do 0-60 in around 4. Best
handling
> >car you can buy. Period. Not street legal in America. Costs 55 grand.
>
> What is up with it not being legal in America, anyway? If they were
> for sale here I'd buy the hell out of one..
>
though (net rummors only, though!!!). At this point it doesn't pass crash
regulations. Why the hell does this country insist on limiting its people's
freedom and controling them with beurocratic BS and propaganda?
Joe Schmoe
(I think) 280 and sells for a cool mil.
Richdvl5 <rich...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990713221224...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
> Just to tell you they don't make the McClaren F1 anymore. They refurbish
them
> and then re-sell them. A couple months ago Autoweek did an article on it
and
> the highest ever resorded top speed was 240. (up from the original 220)
Joe Schmoe
competition), but the Cobra... I don't know. They Audi a4? Definetely
not!!!
Ken Davis <yell...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:19990713181426...@ng-cb1.aol.com...
> My 10 "best bang for the buck".
>
> 1) '99 Mustang GT (surprise, surprise)
> 2) '98 Ford Cobra
> 3) '99 Chevy Z28 SS / Z28
> 4) '99 Chevy Corvette hard top
> 5) '94 Chevy Corvette Targa Top
> 6) '99 Pontiac Firebird TA
> 7) '93 Ford Cobra
> 8) '99 Pontiac Grand Prix GTP
> 9) '99 BMW 328i
> 10) '99 Audi A4
>
> -Ken
> '99 Mustang GT (chrome yellow)
> 14.36 @99.3 mph 60' -> 2.26
> http://members.aol.com/yella99gt/home/HomeKD.html
> (last updated 6/11/1999)
Joe Schmoe
> torque curve. Honda may have gone too far with the high-rev-only power
> this time.
>
There's no such thing! Finally I don't have to buy an F355 to get the same
Revibillity!!!!!
Joe Schmoe
Dad <kno...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:7mjft2$9fv$1...@cletus.bright.net...
> >gotten so boring over the years that I quit buying hondas.
> >I had considered a Mustang and Camaro but Consumer Reports
> >said that they were unreliable and I'm not a mechanic.
>
>
> I make all my buying decisions from what Consumers Reports say, for I have
> no brain and do what they tell me.
>
You're a jerk. But then again, you're probably only 16 or so. No ice-cream
for you tonight!
Rexven
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 23:35:57 GMT, row...@bellsouth.netSpammersAreHomos
>(Joshua Lowe) wrote:
>
>>What is up with it not being legal in America, anyway? If they were
>>for sale here I'd buy the hell out of one..
>
>They have no chance of passing the federal safety/crash standards.
>That would be my guess...Ron
Actually they would pass with flying colors. The car is virtually a
rolling roll-cage, similiar to a tube-framed car. In fact, it might as
well be a tube-framed car! There are a few key reasons it isn't in
the US yet.
1) First and foremost they can't make nearly enough to satisfy demand
in Europe much less add another market to it. Not sure if this is as
true any longer but there is supposedly still a nice long waiting list
on the car.
2) The car uses a Rover engine that is not available in America and is
not designed in the least to meet american emmissions standards.They
are not going to use that engine when they bring it in. I forget who
they plan to go with but it will be a bit more powerful if just a bit
heavier (about the same performance).
3) They need to put in 5mph bumpers front and rear which the car
doesn't currently have.. (please god don't let them screw up the
appearance!)
4) they need to find out how to put 8 cupholders in a 2-seater to
satisfy the American market. (okay, maybe not but Americans seem to
love minivans that have at least 32 cupholders but only hold 8
people... and have no bathroom built in. I will NEVER figure that
out!)
There are a few more subtle engineering details but those appear to be
the most commonly reported (via magazine editorials on 'why isn't this
car here!?) reasons.
Rexven
Be honest.. which would you rather have?
Laymaster
Joe Schmoe <totalit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:TAek3.2626$xz4.3...@news.uswest.net...
> >
> > >6. Lotus Elise. 4 cylinder that will do 0-60 in around 4. Best
> handling
> > >car you can buy. Period. Not street legal in America. Costs 55
grand.
> >
> > for sale here I'd buy the hell out of one..
> >
> though (net rummors only, though!!!). At this point it doesn't pass crash
> regulations. Why the hell does this country insist on limiting its
people's
> freedom and controling them with beurocratic BS and propaganda?
>
>
Well it's less of a mess for the authorities to clean up...do you think they
want to be out all day scrapign bodies off the road with spatulas?
-Erik
CBRrider
camaros up on cinder blocks.
Joe Schmoe wrote in message ...
Dane B.
Then he wrote this about a 1-line post I made...
Rexven wrote:
Whoa.. we have another one! Here is yet another 1-line response with a
16-line signature!! Bandwidth at it's finest! :) Don't worry, you'll
manage to make it to the 56 line record in no time!
Previous post...
<cut>
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 11:47:33 GMT
Rexven wrote:
> Be honest.. which would you rather have?
<cut>
Can you say "Hypocrite?" Check all your previous posts. I won't make a
habit of wasting peoples time reading senseless posts as this one, but
Rexven... think before you open your mouth. Once you have your 14th
birthday, you'll understand. And, oh yeah... Have a nice day :-)
Dane
1999 Mustang GT, Black/5 Speed
Vortech S-Trim Supercharger
Steeda #30 Injectors
Steeda Pro-M 80mm MAF, K&N Filter
Steeda Computer Chip
Steeda Tri-Ax Shifter
Bassani X-pipe, Cats
Flowmaster 2 Chambers
Eibach Pro Springs
Tokico 5-way Struts/Shocks
Steeda Sub-Frame Connectors
AutoMeter Gauges
************************************
Visit http://www.cdeyes.com/mustang
************************************
Mike T Ereon
Rexven wrote in message <3791c009.1147610@news-server>...
>On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 01:46:27 -0500, "Joe Schmoe"
><totalit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> 3) Honda S2000 - looks good, but I'm not sure about the height of the
>>> torque curve. Honda may have gone too far with the high-rev-only power
>>> this time.
>>>
>>There's no such thing! Finally I don't have to buy an F355 to get the same
>>Revibillity!!!!!
>
The S2000 because it has more hp per liter than any Ferrari!!!!!!! Thats
what matters, right?
Seriously, I'd gladly take any Ferrari, wether it be an old 512, 308, Dino,
ect over and Honda.
GrandPrixMike
Mike T Ereon
CBRrider wrote in message <_1mk3.1265$yX1....@news.oh.voyager.net>...
>who needs consumer reports? Just go by the trailor park and count the
>camaros up on cinder blocks.
>
Gee, thats the thousandth time I heard that today. Can you guys please
start to get original?
GrandPrixMike
Rexven
I thought that was the Animal Controls job.. <grin>
____________________
Life is what happens while you are making other plans.
Rexven
<FREE...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>>> 3) Honda S2000 - looks good, but I'm not sure about the height of the
>>>> torque curve. Honda may have gone too far with the high-rev-only power
>>>> this time.
>>>There's no such thing! Finally I don't have to buy an F355 to get the same
>>>Revibillity!!!!!
>>
>>Be honest.. which would you rather have?
>
>The S2000 because it has more hp per liter than any Ferrari!!!!!!! Thats
>what matters, right?
<ROFLMAO!!!> Yeah, that's their normal argument.. :) Hmm. 3.6 liters
now. I might have to actually drive the F360 when it comes out (or did
they officially drop the F for just 360 Modena?) I did fall in total
lust with the '95 F355 Spider I spent an afternoon with mY god that
thing is so much nicer than many of the past exotics I've driven.. and
in some ways it felt considerably faster (and sounded better) than the
Testarossa! It's that sweet. :)
>Seriously, I'd gladly take any Ferrari, wether it be an old 512, 308, Dino,
>ect over and Honda.
Aye.. A nice 512BBi in good shape would be wonderful.. to bad I can't
fit. Even better would be an '88-89 328 GTS but alas finding one at a
good price is hard and the services on that car are nearly 4x the 348
and newer cars.
That leaves the Marenello.... <sigh> How much was this weekends
lotto? $31,000,000?
Lloyd R. Parker
: >
: > >6. Lotus Elise. 4 cylinder that will do 0-60 in around 4. Best
: handling
: > >car you can buy. Period. Not street legal in America. Costs 55 grand.
: >
: > What is up with it not being legal in America, anyway? If they were
: > for sale here I'd buy the hell out of one..
: >
: No doubt. I've heard rumors of it crossing the pond legally next year
: though (net rummors only, though!!!). At this point it doesn't pass crash
: regulations. Why the hell does this country insist on limiting its people's
: freedom and controling them with beurocratic BS and propaganda?
:
Yeah! I demand to drive on the left side of the road, to go 100 mph in a
school zone in a Chevette, and to park in handicapped spaces and fire
lanes!
family
in a crash, then thats our own problem. its not like it would hurt anyone else,
we would be the ones to die.
its the same as how they make drugs illegal. personally i dont do drugs, but if
i want to, it should be my choice because its my body and it doesnt hurt anyone else.
VICTOR
Lee Cao
Rexven wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 01:46:27 -0500, "Joe Schmoe"
> <totalit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> 3) Honda S2000 - looks good, but I'm not sure about the height of the
> >> torque curve. Honda may have gone too far with the high-rev-only power
> >> this time.
> >>
> >There's no such thing! Finally I don't have to buy an F355 to get the same
> >Revibillity!!!!!
>
> Be honest.. which would you rather have?
I think the question is this: Given that a $130 Celeron 466 is as
fast as a sexy new $300 Pentium III 450, which would you rather have?
Of course I would rather have the Pentium III 450... but...
(BTW, the "as fast as" part doesn't mean that I am implying that
the S2000 is as fast as a F355, just the revability part).
> ____________________
> Red light means stop
> Green light means go
> Yellow like means drivelike mad because it's going to
> turn red and make you stop!
--
Lee Cao - www.leecao.com
NewHorizonz Web Development
Dan Oglesby
>
> who needs consumer reports? Just go by the trailor park and count the
> camaros up on cinder blocks.
>
I've seen all kinds of cars on cinder block in front of various homes.
Big deal...
Anyone who takes care of their car won't have reliability problems. And
yes, Confusing Reports is a total waste of time, and money. I don't
need to read a crappy magazine to make an informed purchase, I actually
do the research on my own! *GASP*
Danno
Lee Cao
Dan Oglesby wrote:
>
> CBRrider wrote:
> >
> > who needs consumer reports? Just go by the trailor park and count the
> > camaros up on cinder blocks.
> >
>
> I've seen all kinds of cars on cinder block in front of various homes.
> Big deal...
>
> Anyone who takes care of their car won't have reliability problems.
Any controlled studies to support the above rediculous claim?
> And
> yes, Confusing Reports is a total waste of time, and money. I don't
> need to read a crappy magazine to make an informed purchase, I actually
> do the research on my own! *GASP*
So how exactly do you do research? Do you go around asking people
about their cars? What's your sample size for user feedback?
>
> Danno
Dan Oglesby
>
> Dan Oglesby wrote:
> >
> > CBRrider wrote:
> > >
> > > who needs consumer reports? Just go by the trailor park and count the
> > > camaros up on cinder blocks.
> > >
> >
> > I've seen all kinds of cars on cinder block in front of various homes.
> > Big deal...
> >
> > Anyone who takes care of their car won't have reliability problems.
>
> Any controlled studies to support the above rediculous claim?
>
Well... Everyone I know who takes care of their cars doesn't have any
serious or reoccurring problems. This includes family members and
friends, and pretty much covers all GM product lines, most of Fords,
most of Chrysler's, with a few imports such as Honda, VW and Mazda. I'd
say the total count of vehicles is around 40 - 50.
> > And
> > yes, Confusing Reports is a total waste of time, and money. I don't
> > need to read a crappy magazine to make an informed purchase, I actually
> > do the research on my own! *GASP*
>
> So how exactly do you do research? Do you go around asking people
> about their cars? What's your sample size for user feedback?
>
Yes, I ask people how they like their car, how they drive it, and how
they take care of it. I ask mechanics about their opinions on which
cars they liked best, which cars were the easiest/cheapest to work on,
and what kinds of problems to expect from type X car if I buy it. It's
really not that difficult to get people who work at dealerships and
small garages to talk about these things.
Danno
Cognitive Dragon
Dan Oglesby <da...@vet.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:3794E19D...@vet.purdue.edu...
> Well... Everyone I know who takes care of their cars doesn't have any
> serious or reoccurring problems. This includes family members and
> friends, and pretty much covers all GM product lines, most of Fords,
> most of Chrysler's, with a few imports such as Honda, VW and Mazda. I'd
> say the total count of vehicles is around 40 - 50.
I have no idea what the rate of "serious" problems is for all cars, but I
suspect it would not be unusual to have a sample size such as this without
chronic problems. Whether you want to admit it or not, CRs surveys are the
best way to assess reliability so far. You won't be able to convince anyone
with a basic knowledge of statistics otherwise.
> > > And
> > > yes, Confusing Reports is a total waste of time, and money. I don't
> > > need to read a crappy magazine to make an informed purchase, I
actually
> > > do the research on my own! *GASP*
> >
> > So how exactly do you do research? Do you go around asking people
> > about their cars? What's your sample size for user feedback?
> >
>
> Yes, I ask people how they like their car, how they drive it, and how
> they take care of it. I ask mechanics about their opinions on which
> cars they liked best, which cars were the easiest/cheapest to work on,
> and what kinds of problems to expect from type X car if I buy it. It's
> really not that difficult to get people who work at dealerships and
> small garages to talk about these things.
If this has been working for you, then best of luck. If you see this as a
minor scientific coup, think again. There's no real substitute for sheer
numbers.
Jason
Dad
>> >> >gotten so boring over the years that I quit buying hondas.
>> >> >I had considered a Mustang and Camaro but Consumer Reports
>> >> >said that they were unreliable and I'm not a mechanic.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I make all my buying decisions from what Consumers Reports say, for I
>> have
>> >> no brain and do what they tell me.
>> >You're a jerk. But then again, you're probably only 16 or so. No
>> ice-cream
>> >for you tonight!
Thank you, would love to be 16 again, actually I was born in 1939 and
remember gas rationing and the like. Ah, those were the years, when people
made their own minds up (no lawyers required) about what was good and bad.
Back when people sold their guns to buy food instead of killing someone,
with one that was stolen, to buy dope.
Yes, we have progressed to where we need someone to do for us and tell us
what we should do, because fewer of us are taught right from wrong.
As for the icecream, I'll pass, haven't had good icecream since I left the
farm (dairy) but if I were to have some I'll sure check with Consumer
Reports first. Thanks for your uninformed advice, live a little and then
talk to me.
Dad
98C5
mrvette
statistics....
the type of people who buy a Jap import or European imort tend to be the ones
who drive on flat tires....
they never know when thngs are wrong, and never hear the rattles, or notice
much of any malfuncions....they are not car people....
they don't notice rust, thin metal, poor paint, cheap plastic....
and their driving habits are real slow, and easy....look at all the Camry's and
Accords holding up traffic, lil ole lady behind the wheel who has nothing else
to do but fill out their questionaires....
the ones who are car people, tend to NOT buy thost types of cars, so also tend
to complain louder....
sorta skews the stat' all over theplace.....
GENE
--
Happiness is not just around the corner.....
It IS the corner.......
_____________
//~~~~~~~~~~~\\
// ___________ \\
MAKO VETTES /~---~~ /_____\ ~~---~\ CONSUME OLD
/| /_____|/__|__\|_____\ |\ DINOSAURS AT
( \ [__][__] ^ [__][__] / ) A HI RATE OF
| (+============+============+) | SPEED
|\ \\ [__] | [__] // /|
| \~=========================~/ |
|_____| |_____|
Christopher Troianello
Joshua Lowe wrote:
> Sure. The 3000GT is slow. A 320hp AWD car that's wallowy, and
> no faster than an LT1 powered F-body.
Damn. I never thought the performance of an LT1 F-body to be slow. I
understand that the numbers generated are not the absolute pinnacle of
automotive performance but never have I _ever_ heard anyone claim that low
five second 0-60 times were "slow." You must be a truly pampered and
dedicated performance enthusiast to afford such an opinion. Impressive.
> The 3000GT is heavy. It
> weighs two tons. It's a pig.
And I say that the car is nicely weighted. The weight, coupled with the AWD,
got me through a few ultra nasty Saratoga Springs (upstate NY) winters in
safety and style. It was a true year-round car that also put in work as a
performance auto capable of serious backroad fun. In the winter I drove it
like it was a lowered Jeep. In the summer I drive it like Corvette. Name
another car - Typhoons and Syclones do not count - that can do this.
> The 3000GT is gimmicky. It's full
> of gadgetry and useless whizbang items, like the articulating wing
> and the exhaust volume control.
Agreed. I also dislike the fake side scoops that do nothing at all. But you
will have to forgive me if I do not cease to drive my car solely on the above
reasons. But then again, my standard of performance is obviously, admittedly,
lower than yours. Not to mention that the 3000GT is just that - a GT, a Grand
Tourer, and not what I would consider a "sports car." It is just a fast
(whoops! sorry, moderately not-so-slow when compared to 99.9% of the cars on
the road) coupe that I find very comfortable and safe. And, at 6'3" with a 54
shoulder, that is very very hard to come by.
> All gimmicky selling points for gimmicky
> fools with their money with whom they are soon parted from in favor
> of a slow, heavy, gimmicky car.
I am not a gimmicky fool. But then again, I bought the car for all the right
reasons. It is unfortunate that you haven't had more experience with people
who act suchly. But then again, with your performance standard, I suppose I
wouldn't tolerate people driving those slow, low-five-second cars either. I
applaud your dedication.
Chris
Christopher Troianello
98 Honda Accord Coupe Ex V6
91 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4
Christopher Troianello
Rexven wrote:
>That's one. what about the rest? How long will that clutch and tranny hold up
under such abuse? Not long if >it's stock. That is representative of one
modified car, not the group in general.
The clutch and tranny do not stand up to any abuse, even if the engine is
stock. I iced my first tranny by 15,000 miles, the second by 40,000, with a
clutch replacement every time. However, that was when I would incessantly slip
it at circa 5000/6000 RPM to make sure that I stayed ahead of the American
muscle lining up beside me. And tires were a nightmare too, as the AWD would eat
through a new set of SP8000s every three to four months. The 3000GT VR4 is an
upkeep nightmare - it would have easily broken my bank had I not been on the
parental dole at the time - if one consistantly pushes its performance envelope.
Chris
Christopher Troianello
98 Honda Accord Coupe EX V6
91 Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4
Dan Oglesby
>
> Dan Oglesby <da...@vet.purdue.edu> wrote in message
> news:3794E19D...@vet.purdue.edu...
>
> > Well... Everyone I know who takes care of their cars doesn't have any
> > serious or reoccurring problems. This includes family members and
> > friends, and pretty much covers all GM product lines, most of Fords,
> > most of Chrysler's, with a few imports such as Honda, VW and Mazda. I'd
> > say the total count of vehicles is around 40 - 50.
>
> I have no idea what the rate of "serious" problems is for all cars, but I
> suspect it would not be unusual to have a sample size such as this without
> chronic problems. Whether you want to admit it or not, CRs surveys are the
> best way to assess reliability so far. You won't be able to convince anyone
> with a basic knowledge of statistics otherwise.
Hey, everyone I know could be lucky, or they all could be doing
something right. Most people I know keep their cars in good shape, so
I'm not surprised that they don't have many problems. Just because they
know what they're doing, and a lot of other people don't doesn't make
them a 'fluke' statistically.
The sheer numbers involved with the statistics used in CR pretty much
makes the results worthless.
>
> > > > And
> > > > yes, Confusing Reports is a total waste of time, and money. I don't
> > > > need to read a crappy magazine to make an informed purchase, I
> actually
> > > > do the research on my own! *GASP*
> > >
> > > So how exactly do you do research? Do you go around asking people
> > > about their cars? What's your sample size for user feedback?
> > >
> >
> > Yes, I ask people how they like their car, how they drive it, and how
> > they take care of it. I ask mechanics about their opinions on which
> > cars they liked best, which cars were the easiest/cheapest to work on,
> > and what kinds of problems to expect from type X car if I buy it. It's
> > really not that difficult to get people who work at dealerships and
> > small garages to talk about these things.
>
> If this has been working for you, then best of luck. If you see this as a
> minor scientific coup, think again. There's no real substitute for sheer
> numbers.
>
Well, it works for me an a few of my friends VERY well. It's definately
not what most people do, because most are too lazy to actually put time
and a little work in making an informed purchase. They just spend money
and take the lemming approach by reading biased articles in CR.
Sheer numbers are exactly that. A big numerical value, nothing more.
It doesn't tell you if the car looks better in one color or another, and
it certianly won't help you buy a car. All those numbers represent is
the opinions of people who probably aren't qualified to really recommend
anything.
Danno
Dan Oglesby
>
> Joe Schmoe wrote:
> >
> > Dad <kno...@bright.net> wrote in message
> > news:7mjft2$9fv$1...@cletus.bright.net...
> > > >I had considered a Mustang and Camaro but Consumer Reports
> > > >said that they were unreliable and I'm not a mechanic.
> > >
> > >
> > > I make all my buying decisions from what Consumers Reports say, for I have
> > > no brain and do what they tell me.
> > >
> >
> > You're a jerk. But then again, you're probably only 16 or so. No ice-cream
> > for you tonight!
>
> PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DADDY!?!?!?!
>
> damn ice cream truck stopped coming to my house.. so u know what i
> did?.. i now chase the truck in my jetta.. some times i actually catch
> it too!!!!,
> chris
> --
> to reply remove "NOSPAM" from the address
> '90 Jetta GL (dented black)
> 2 mins 34.90 secs@35mph
> Planned mods....
> roll of of cliff
> match in the gas tank
Now THOSE are some serious mods! ;-)
Danno
JoHn DoH
>
> >> >> >gotten so boring over the years that I quit buying hondas.
> >> >> >I had considered a Mustang and Camaro but Consumer Reports
> >> >> >said that they were unreliable and I'm not a mechanic.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I make all my buying decisions from what Consumers Reports say, for I
> >> have
> >> >> no brain and do what they tell me.
>
> >> >You're a jerk. But then again, you're probably only 16 or so. No
> >> ice-cream
> >> >for you tonight!
Wow I am offended by that, I will be 16 next month and have done much
research on my first car purchace and never once looked at a consumers
reports because I will buy what I want not what some reporter wants. I
look at the facts such as HP and the shear numbers of mustangs out on
the road today. As well as Camaros or corvettes, what ever people
drive. I do not see too many taurases kept for over 10 years or accords
or what have you. People keep cars because the love their cars. People
get new cars becuase they liked their cars...
--
JoHn DoH KeLm
joh...@home.com
Linux - A real OS
http://johndoh.cjb.net
chris
>
> Dad <kno...@bright.net> wrote in message
> news:7mjft2$9fv$1...@cletus.bright.net...
> > >I had considered a Mustang and Camaro but Consumer Reports
> > >said that they were unreliable and I'm not a mechanic.
> >
> >
> > I make all my buying decisions from what Consumers Reports say, for I have
> > no brain and do what they tell me.
> >
>
> You're a jerk. But then again, you're probably only 16 or so. No ice-cream
> for you tonight!
hey... im 16... so are u saying that i ... can get an ice cream!?!?!?!?