Have you heard about Ford Motor Company's 100th Anniversary Celebration?
nmoberg
wrote:
>A group of us here at Ford are working together to plan activities
>celebrating Ford’s 100th Anniversary, taking place June12-16, 2003. It’s
>going to be held on the grounds of the Henry Ford II World Center in
>Dearborn, Mi.
>
>We want to spread the word to everybody!
>
>We have a lot of great activities in the works. We will have displays of
>classic and collectible Ford Motor Company vehicles. There will be live
>entertainment; exhibits, and many of Ford’s racecar drivers at this event.
>
>Many Ford enthusiasts have already told us they’d like to attend and
>celebrate with all of us from Ford. Some folks have also told us they
>would
>like to display their own Ford vehicles at the Road is Ours Ford 100th
>Anniversary Celebration.
>
>Of course, we want to accommodate everyone who has an interest in attending
>this historic event. We figure the best way to do this is to ask folks to
>register at our web site. That way we can keep you up to date on our plans
>for Ford’s 100th Anniversary.
>
>Please spread the word to friends and family you think might be interested.
>
>We plan on having a great celebration and hope to see you there !
>
>Go to, http://fordcentennialreg.com to register now.
>
>100th Anniversary Team
>
>Ford Motor Company
Why don't you have a display of all the worthwhile performance cars
you have sold in the last 4 to 5 years? That would take about 2 spots!
Bob P
--
"nmoberg" <nmo...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrffugikpanccjmi...@4ax.com...
That's kind of uncalled for.
BobP
nmoberg
>> >
>> >Go to, http://fordcentennialreg.com to register now.
>> >
>> >100th Anniversary Team
>> >
>> >Ford Motor Company
>>
>>
>>
>> Why don't you have a display of all the worthwhile performance cars
>> you have sold in the last 4 to 5 years? That would take about 2 spots!
>>
>>
>
>That's kind of uncalled for.
>
>BobP
>
How so? Are you happy with Ford's performance offerings?
Edgecrusher
<Snickers>
As I have been told a time or two before: If you can't say anything
nice, don't say anything at all.
With that, here's what I think about US domestic performance offerings
by Ford:
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
WindsorFox {SS}
Edgecrusher wrote:
> <Snickers>
>
> As I have been told a time or two before: If you can't say anything
> nice, don't say anything at all.
>
> With that, here's what I think about US domestic performance offerings
> by Ford:
>
> THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
>
So you're an Fbody boy, right??
Mark Jones
news:Pine.SOL.4.33.02053...@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
> Now, if Ford *REALLY* wanted to do a retrospective of its memorable
> contributions to the North American motoring world, there could be a gala
> display of cars representing each of the major safety-related recalls
I was so upset about the recall of my leased Ranger for new tires,
that I bought it when the lease ran out. Give it a rest.
This truck has performed great and they extended the tire
recall to it, even though no real problem had been seen.
Ford went out of their way to see that millions of tires were
replaced, even though it meant the break-up of a partnership
going back to the founding of Ford.
Mark Jones
nmoberg
wrote:
>Ford and Performance don't go together. Didn't you know that ?
Do you think, maybe, that has something to do with their problems?
Edgecrusher
Nope, but that would be my preference.
FWIW, I just bought an Ford F-150 last week, so I'm not totally biased
against Ford. They have just failed miserably with their domestic
performance car offerings. They wouldn't want to actually sell a car in
the US that was fast or had AWD, no that would just be silly. :/
<Stop, and smell the sarcasm.>
Bottom line is that GM and Daimler-Chrysler both offered production cars
over the last 5-10 years that flat kicked the snot out of the best
Mustang you could buy - at inflated prices. At least the latest Cobra-R
is a more formidable step up to the plate. Too bad they waited so long
to pull their heads out of their asses on it though.
What I would really like to see from Ford is an AWD Turbo Focus. But
maybe they are too afraid of Subaru and Mitsubishi to ever dare such a
thing. Frankly I'm surprised the F-body is leaving the showroom floors
first. If it weren't for Ford owner loyalty, just running the numbers,
the Mustang hasn't been top dog in ages.
Brent P
>> So you're an Fbody boy, right??
>
> Nope, but that would be my preference.
> Bottom line is that GM and Daimler-Chrysler both offered production cars
> over the last 5-10 years that flat kicked the snot out of the best
Fbody->
1994:
Why people don't buy one:
Unconfortable, bad interior, poor build quality.
GM's Answer:
More power.
1995:
Why people don't buy one:
Unconfortable, bad interior, poor build quality.
GM's Answer:
More power.
1996:
Why people don't buy one:
Unconfortable, bad interior, poor build quality.
GM's Answer:
More power.
1997:
Why people don't buy one:
Unconfortable, bad interior, poor build quality.
GM's Answer:
More power.
1998:
Why people don't buy one:
Unconfortable, bad interior, poor build quality.
GM's Answer:
More power.
1999:
Why people don't buy one:
Unconfortable, bad interior, poor build quality.
GM's Answer:
More power.
2000:
Why people don't buy one:
Unconfortable, bad interior, poor build quality.
GM's Answer:
More power.
2001:
Why people don't buy one:
Unconfortable, bad interior, poor build quality.
GM's Answer:
Canceled due to lack of sales.
:) :)
Mike...@mailcity.com
mike
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> X-no-archive: Yes
>
> 5> 100th Anniversary Team Ford Motor Company
>
> 4> Why don't you have a display of all the worthwhile performance cars
> 4> you have sold in the last 4 to 5 years? That would take about 2 spots!
>
> 3> That's kind of uncalled for.
>
> 2> How so? Are you happy with Ford's performance offerings?
>
> > As I have been told a time or two before: If you can't say anything
> > nice, don't say anything at all. With that, here's what I think about
> > US domestic performance offerings by Ford:
> >
> > THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
>
> On that subject, I just want to add:
>
> . And that's all I have to say about that.
>
> Now, if Ford *REALLY* wanted to do a retrospective of its memorable
> contributions to the North American motoring world, there could be a gala
> display of cars representing each of the major safety-related recalls,
> problems-that-got-explained-away-and-hushed-up-without-becoming-recalls,
> mistakes, screwups, instances of schlock engineering, things that seemed
> like *such* Better Ideas at the time, and the like. There could be live
> interactive entertainment...wet-foot firewalking comes to mind. Why, it
> could be almost just like an automotive rodeo! There could be competitions
> for lassoing a Ford that has slipped out of Park and into Reverse, timed
> heat races to see who can fix the jumps-out-of-Park problem by affixing
> the "Always Use Parking Brake" decal to the dash the fastest...there could
> be a fan blade toss that would be almost as fun as horseshoes and a whole
> lot more injurious...there could be a Tread Separation Derby, and
> barbecued Pinto-beens...
>
> ...heck, the company could even get all magnanimous and raffle off a
> Canyonero.
>
> --DS
Edgecrusher
Heh heh Brent, you probably aren't far off the mark on that one. They
catch is that I'm the kind of guy who drives around a 300+ HP 2500lb car
with no AC, PS, stereo, or sound insulation as a daily driver - and I
like it! I'd expect more out of a new car than that of course, but is
Ford really doing much better?
Regardless, GM still has a flagship which does not seem to garner near
as much criticism in the Corvette. Dodge of course has their Viper.
What does Ford have to offer in the same league? Zilch! Sure a GT-40
redux may be on the horizon, but pricing on that will likely be far
north of reasonable for what it will be able to do compared to a Z06 or
Viper.
Garth Almgren
>
> Brent P wrote:
>
>>
>>Fbody->
>>1994:
>>Why people don't buy one:
>> Unconfortable, bad interior, poor build quality.
>>GM's Answer:
>> More power.
>
> Heh heh Brent, you probably aren't far off the mark on that one.
> <snip>
> Regardless, GM still has a flagship which does not seem to garner near
> as much criticism in the Corvette. Dodge of course has their Viper.
> What does Ford have to offer in the same league? Zilch! Sure a GT-40
> redux may be on the horizon, but pricing on that will likely be far
> north of reasonable for what it will be able to do compared to a Z06 or
> Viper.
How about the upcoming '03 Cobra? Almost 400 horsepower and ft-lbs of
torque and low 12 second 1/4 miles with a simple pulley change is
nothing to sneeze at... ;)
--
~/Garth
Bill S.
nmoberg
All mounted on a Fox platform. What a waste...
URABUS
> wrote:
>
> >A group of us here at Ford are working together to plan activities
> >going to be held on the grounds of the Henry Ford II World Center in
> >Dearborn, Mi.
> >
> >We want to spread the word to everybody!
> >
> >We have a lot of great activities in the works. We will have displays of
> >classic and collectible Ford Motor Company vehicles. There will be live
> >
> >Many Ford enthusiasts have already told us they’d like to attend and
> >celebrate with all of us from Ford. Some folks have also told us they
> >would
> >like to display their own Ford vehicles at the Road is Ours Ford 100th
> >Anniversary Celebration.
> >
> >Of course, we want to accommodate everyone who has an interest in attending
> >this historic event. We figure the best way to do this is to ask folks to
> >register at our web site. That way we can keep you up to date on our plans
> >
> >Please spread the word to friends and family you think might be interested.
> >
> >We plan on having a great celebration and hope to see you there !
> >
> >Go to, http://fordcentennialreg.com to register now.
> >
> >100th Anniversary Team
> >
> >Ford Motor Company
>
>
>
> Why don't you have a display of all the worthwhile performance cars
> you have sold in the last 4 to 5 years? That would take about 2 spots!
Now if they brought over the Focus RS, I'd pay attention.
But they won't. Why? It'll kick the snot out of the Mustang,
performance wise and price wise, and be better at Gas Milage too. ;)
--Urabus
C. E. White
I thought you were a Chrysler product fan?
Ed
Brent P
> Heh heh Brent, you probably aren't far off the mark on that one. They
> catch is that I'm the kind of guy who drives around a 300+ HP 2500lb car
> with no AC, PS, stereo, or sound insulation as a daily driver - and I
> like it! I'd expect more out of a new car than that of course, but is
> Ford really doing much better?
Yes, there is a market for that. Problem is, in 6-7 years GM had sold
one to everyone in the USA that wanted one and could afford one. Any
half-assed marketeer should have known that more power would buy the
car just enough time to be redesigned.
And Ford has done better, the mustang is a far better car to use
day in, day out. That's why despite having less power it has sold
much better. You can bash it for that all you want, but that's what
makes the difference in surviving in this market.
> Regardless, GM still has a flagship which does not seem to garner near
> as much criticism in the Corvette. Dodge of course has their Viper.
> What does Ford have to offer in the same league? Zilch! Sure a GT-40
> redux may be on the horizon, but pricing on that will likely be far
> north of reasonable for what it will be able to do compared to a Z06 or
> Viper.
Yes, I have long bashed ford for their build 300, charge sky high prices
on their top performers. About the only thing that would get me to buy
an expensive car atm would be that GT40 in the vette's 40-55k price range.
Looking at the car, I could see alot of simple things that could be made
optional to get the price way down. (loose the hand-made aluminium
windshield washer tank for instance) Although I'd have to look it over
again to remember.
Brent P
> All mounted on a Fox platform. What a waste...
That's what the aftermarket is for I suppose....
But remember, we could have ended up with the probe as the mustang. This
was the alternative. SN95, despite all it's remaining issues from the
Fox platform is better than making a FWD with a mustang badge.
Christian Huebner
> Yes, there is a market for that. Problem is, in 6-7 years GM had sold
> one to everyone in the USA that wanted one and could afford one. Any
> half-assed marketeer should have known that more power would buy the
> car just enough time to be redesigned.
Half assed marketeer is the keyword here. Too bad GM can't afford
decent ones :-(
> And Ford has done better, the mustang is a far better car to use
> day in, day out.
How so? I have driven both extensively and I prefer the F-Body
by far. Build quality is a tie, the LS1 is a much better all-around
engine than the Modular V8, the brakes on the Ford are considerably
worse and the seating position in the Ford is not very comfortable
either.
> That's why despite having less power it has sold much better.
It sold better because it appeals more to women. 2/3 of the Stangs
I see every day are driven by women, so Ford has opened up a
profitable market there.
> You can bash it for that all you want, but that's what
> makes the difference in surviving in this market.
The difference for the F-Body would have been decent marketing,
better seats (which would become the Stang too) and a few other
minor changes.
I see Mustang commercials and advertising regularly, when was
the last time you saw an F-Body commercial?
I can already hear the wheels grinding in nmoberg's head and
see steam starting to rise from his ears :-)
Chris
Brent P
> Brent P wrote:
>> And Ford has done better, the mustang is a far better car to use
>> day in, day out.
> How so? I have driven both extensively and I prefer the F-Body
> by far. Build quality is a tie, the LS1 is a much better all-around
> engine than the Modular V8, the brakes on the Ford are considerably
> worse and the seating position in the Ford is not very comfortable
> either.
As far as build quality is concerned every comment I have ever seen
states that the F-bodies are rattle traps of poor fit. I recently had
a friend in my '97 GT. He commented on how quiet and rattle free the
car is even with all the miles I have on it.
When you comment on the brakes, I am getting a feeling you haven't
driven a mustang in quite some time. Current ones have brakes that
are rather good. The last year of brakes that I would consider not so
good, but likely no worse than the F-body was 97 or 98 with the single
piston front calipers. Your description is more suitable to a 93 or
prior car.
As far as driving posistion I cannot even see out of the F-body without
scrunching to see out the window. I'll leave it at that.
>> That's why despite having less power it has sold much better.
> It sold better because it appeals more to women. 2/3 of the Stangs
> I see every day are driven by women, so Ford has opened up a
> profitable market there.
And it sold to them because it's a better all around car for daily
use. You write that as the car appealing to women is something to
be ashamed of. I don't think it is, so long as I can still order it
the way I want it.
If I wanted to go to the drag-strip and kick all sorts of ass right
out of the box for cheap, yes I'd go buy an F-body too.
>> You can bash it for that all you want, but that's what
>> makes the difference in surviving in this market.
> The difference for the F-Body would have been decent marketing,
> better seats (which would become the Stang too) and a few other
> minor changes.
The F-body needed a considerable re-do of it's everyday functionality
so that people would be more willing to buy it. Most camaro owners fall
into two catagories, those that don't care about its everyday functionality
issues, and those who are willing to put up with them or just don't do
anything that the car can't be used for.
GM could have done a decent re-do of the design and sold a ton of them.
They didn't fix those issues that were costing them sales and so the car
has been canceled.
> I see Mustang commercials and advertising regularly, when was
> the last time you saw an F-Body commercial?
Shortly before they sold the last of them. But in any case, it sounds
like excuses, as if someone looking in that market never heard of a
camaro.
Christian Huebner
> In article <3CFBB63...@attbi.com>, Christian Huebner wrote:
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>
>
>>>And Ford has done better, the mustang is a far better car to use
>>>day in, day out.
>>
>>How so? I have driven both extensively and I prefer the F-Body
>>by far. Build quality is a tie, the LS1 is a much better all-around
>>engine than the Modular V8, the brakes on the Ford are considerably
>>worse and the seating position in the Ford is not very comfortable
>>either.
>
> As far as build quality is concerned every comment I have ever seen
> states that the F-bodies are rattle traps of poor fit.
So are all the Stangs that I have driven. (8 different ones to date)
> I recently had
> a friend in my '97 GT. He commented on how quiet and rattle free the
> car is even with all the miles I have on it.
I regularly ride with a friend with a '99 with 30000 miles on it.
It rattles badly all over. Mine only has one rattle in the right
side of the canvas top, which is a warranty issue. Maybe the cars
without subframe connectors are worse ...
> When you comment on the brakes, I am getting a feeling you haven't
> driven a mustang in quite some time.
The newest one I have driven was a 2000 GT. My Camaro SS brakes
significantly better.
> Current ones have brakes that
> are rather good. The last year of brakes that I would consider not so
> good, but likely no worse than the F-body was 97 or 98 with the single
> piston front calipers. Your description is more suitable to a 93 or
> prior car.
My description referst to two '97s, two '98s, two '99s, and 2 '00s.
Seems to me you have not driven a V8 F-Body in a while though.
> As far as driving posistion I cannot even see out of the F-body without
> scrunching to see out the window. I'll leave it at that.
And I cannot sit in the Stang without getting leg cramps.
>>It sold better because it appeals more to women. 2/3 of the Stangs
>>I see every day are driven by women, so Ford has opened up a
>>profitable market there.
>
> And it sold to them because it's a better all around car for daily
> use.
No, it sold to them because it is 'cute'. For most women's tastes
the LS1 simply pulls too brutally hard and of course it doesnt
help that the seating position is lower. I on the other hand prefer
a lower seating position as I am tall.
The Mustang is closer to 'average' in every respect. People
like average. If they wanted something special and exciting
Toyota would go broke and the Elise would sell in record
numbers.
> You write that as the car appealing to women is something to
> be ashamed of.
No, I don't. I just happen to have different preferences.
> I don't think it is, so long as I can still order it
> the way I want it.
Is there a stock '02 Stang with a 351 Windsor and a T56?
Didn't think so. The modular V8 is not up to my standards.
> If I wanted to go to the drag-strip and kick all sorts of ass right
> out of the box for cheap, yes I'd go buy an F-body too.
You can do much more with an F-Body than that. But then,
to find that out you would have to try...
>>The difference for the F-Body would have been decent marketing,
>>better seats (which would become the Stang too) and a few other
>>minor changes.
>
> The F-body needed a considerable re-do of it's everyday functionality
> so that people would be more willing to buy it.
Both the Camaro and the Mustang need some changes. The Stang
needs a decent powerplant and transmission and better seats
and brakes, the Camaro needs better seats and a roof redesigned
for better visibility.
> Most camaro owners fall
> into two catagories, those that don't care about its everyday functionality
> issues, and those who are willing to put up with them or just don't do
> anything that the car can't be used for.
I have put up with both cars a lot in everyday traffic and I find the
Camaro much easier to put up with. What exactly are the issues you
are talking about? Up until now you didnt say anything specific, just
a few nebulous comments.
> GM could have done a decent re-do of the design and sold a ton of them.
> They didn't fix those issues that were costing them sales and so the car
> has been canceled.
Well, maybe it will come back to haunt you :-) GM is working on
a new Camaro and if we (not you, of course) are lucky it will be
back in '05.
>>I see Mustang commercials and advertising regularly, when was
>>the last time you saw an F-Body commercial?
>
> Shortly before they sold the last of them. But in any case, it sounds
> like excuses, as if someone looking in that market never heard of a
> camaro.
So you claim advertising doesnt have an effect on sales? You should
go tell that to Philip Morris, Procter&Gamble, McDonalds and such.
They could save billions every year ...
Chris
Brent P
>>>How so? I have driven both extensively and I prefer the F-Body
>>>by far. Build quality is a tie, the LS1 is a much better all-around
>>>engine than the Modular V8, the brakes on the Ford are considerably
>>>worse and the seating position in the Ford is not very comfortable
>>>either.
>> As far as build quality is concerned every comment I have ever seen
>> states that the F-bodies are rattle traps of poor fit.
> So are all the Stangs that I have driven. (8 different ones to date)
I think the rubber door seal was slightly out of place on my mustang.
I also regularly read the mustang group and complaints regarding such
things are few. And believe me, it's the place to see complaints.
Considering your overly pro-Fbody stance and posts if you are who
I think you are, I'll honestly I don't really believe you.
>> I recently had
>> a friend in my '97 GT. He commented on how quiet and rattle free the
>> car is even with all the miles I have on it.
> I regularly ride with a friend with a '99 with 30000 miles on it.
> It rattles badly all over. Mine only has one rattle in the right
> side of the canvas top, which is a warranty issue. Maybe the cars
> without subframe connectors are worse ...
I don't have sub-frames in mine. It's got 82K on the clock almost
all of it on IL's crappy roads.
>> When you comment on the brakes, I am getting a feeling you haven't
>> driven a mustang in quite some time.
> The newest one I have driven was a 2000 GT. My Camaro SS brakes
> significantly better.
Your opinon, what can I say? Other than the road tests I've seen
show that the mustang stops well. According to road and track road
test summary the camaro SS is at 134ft 60-0 and 222ft 80-0. The mustang
Cobra R 123ft and 212ft (which is a braking system like the one I put on
my GT) They don't have a GT or Cobra listed. Car and driver has the
Mustang GT at 184ft 70-0, the camaro Z28 at 188ft, the cobra at 179ft,
and no SS listed. Considering this data I would guess your SS should
be on par with the cobra, which is where it should be.
>> Current ones have brakes that
>> are rather good. The last year of brakes that I would consider not so
>> good, but likely no worse than the F-body was 97 or 98 with the single
>> piston front calipers. Your description is more suitable to a 93 or
>> prior car.
> My description referst to two '97s, two '98s, two '99s, and 2 '00s.
> Seems to me you have not driven a V8 F-Body in a while though.
I only described mustangs. I made no personal experience comments on
the F-bodies. Nice try however. I can't see where I am going in an
F-body, so I try not to drive them.
>>>It sold better because it appeals more to women. 2/3 of the Stangs
>>>I see every day are driven by women, so Ford has opened up a
>>>profitable market there.
>> And it sold to them because it's a better all around car for daily
>> use.
> No, it sold to them because it is 'cute'. For most women's tastes
> the LS1 simply pulls too brutally hard and of course it doesnt
> help that the seating position is lower. I on the other hand prefer
> a lower seating position as I am tall.
I see, you are trying to get me to flame you. And I'm 6'4" tall,
that's hardly short, which is why I can't see out of the F-body.
The mustang's higher windshield allows me to see out.
And what's with the pulls brutally hard comment? As if you have
to floor each time you accelerate.... oh that's right in a camaro
that's the only way you get use 3rd,4th,and 5th gear without modifications.
But it's an 'easy modification' but it's a 'man's' car and men can do
the mod and women can't. Bunch of crap. It appears you want to portray
the camaro as the car of manly men and the mustang the car of sissies
and weak women. You need to learn to check that kind of thing at the door.
> The Mustang is closer to 'average' in every respect. People
> like average. If they wanted something special and exciting
> Toyota would go broke and the Elise would sell in record
> numbers.
You are making excuses for the camaro and attempting to insult the
mustang at the same time. I have no interest in flame war with you
on this. It seems you take offense when anyone has a different opinon
of the F-body than you do.
The fact is GM turned the camaro is a car that appeals to a very small
market. Trouble is GM sold that market out in the last 7 years or so
but they didn't work to get the car to evolve. Each year's improvement
was simply to add more power. At some point it just simply fails to sell
cars.
>> You write that as the car appealing to women is something to
>> be ashamed of.
> No, I don't. I just happen to have different preferences.
Your choice of language says otherwise.
>> I don't think it is, so long as I can still order it
>> the way I want it.
> Is there a stock '02 Stang with a 351 Windsor and a T56?
> Didn't think so. The modular V8 is not up to my standards.
Good for you. Buy a camaro then. Oppps they aren't made anymore.
The fact remains that a car aimed at a tiny niche buyer cannot survive
at a low price.
>> If I wanted to go to the drag-strip and kick all sorts of ass right
>> out of the box for cheap, yes I'd go buy an F-body too.
> You can do much more with an F-Body than that. But then,
> to find that out you would have to try...
*yawn* I grow tired of your pro-body rantings.
>>>The difference for the F-Body would have been decent marketing,
>>>better seats (which would become the Stang too) and a few other
>>>minor changes.
>> The F-body needed a considerable re-do of it's everyday functionality
>> so that people would be more willing to buy it.
> Both the Camaro and the Mustang need some changes. The Stang
> needs a decent powerplant and transmission and better seats
> and brakes, the Camaro needs better seats and a roof redesigned
> for better visibility.
You seem to think decent powerplant = push rods. And if the mustang
needs better brakes, so does the F-body, as they are turning similiar
numbers in that regard. Or maybe your comment is something more nebulous?
>> Most camaro owners fall
>> into two catagories, those that don't care about its everyday functionality
>> issues, and those who are willing to put up with them or just don't do
>> anything that the car can't be used for.
> I have put up with both cars a lot in everyday traffic and I find the
> Camaro much easier to put up with. What exactly are the issues you
> are talking about? Up until now you didnt say anything specific, just
> a few nebulous comments.
Because I am trying to go beyond my one single data point of experience
and try to give an overall view gathered from the experiences of other
people as well. It appears what you want is a flame war of personal
experiences. you want that, go troll rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
or something.
>> GM could have done a decent re-do of the design and sold a ton of them.
>> They didn't fix those issues that were costing them sales and so the car
>> has been canceled.
> Well, maybe it will come back to haunt you :-) GM is working on
> a new Camaro and if we (not you, of course) are lucky it will be
> back in '05.
There's also a new mustang in the works. So what?
>>>I see Mustang commercials and advertising regularly, when was
>>>the last time you saw an F-Body commercial?
>> Shortly before they sold the last of them. But in any case, it sounds
>> like excuses, as if someone looking in that market never heard of a
>> camaro.
> So you claim advertising doesnt have an effect on sales? You should
> go tell that to Philip Morris, Procter&Gamble, McDonalds and such.
> They could save billions every year ...
I didn't say that. I said you are making excuses for the car
you love. You've got quite a history of not being able to deal with
anything but praise of the f-body.
dizzy
wrote:
>Why people don't buy one:
> Unconfortable, bad interior, poor build quality.
>GM's Answer:
> More power.
Of course, because it was extremely cheap to just open up the
breathing a bit. Hardly any more devopment than one motorhead could
do in his garage.
Christian Huebner
> In article <3CFBBFFE...@attbi.com>, Christian Huebner wrote:
>
>>>As far as build quality is concerned every comment I have ever seen
>>>states that the F-bodies are rattle traps of poor fit.
>>
>>So are all the Stangs that I have driven. (8 different ones to date)
>
> I think the rubber door seal was slightly out of place on my mustang.
> I also regularly read the mustang group and complaints regarding such
> things are few. And believe me, it's the place to see complaints.
> Considering your overly pro-Fbody stance and posts if you are who
> I think you are, I'll honestly I don't really believe you.
My overly pro F-Body stance? I am the first to admit the F-Body
has its share of faults. I just state (truthfully) that it has
a lot of good points too.
I have no idea who you think I am and frankly I don't care. As
things are apparently you don't have enough experience with
F-Bodys to have a well-founded opinion on them. I, OTOH, have
plenty of experience with the Mustang.
>>I regularly ride with a friend with a '99 with 30000 miles on it.
>>It rattles badly all over. Mine only has one rattle in the right
>>side of the canvas top, which is a warranty issue. Maybe the cars
>>without subframe connectors are worse ...
>
> I don't have sub-frames in mine. It's got 82K on the clock almost
> all of it on IL's crappy roads.
So explain why the 30k mile '99 GT of my coworker rattles worse
than a pissed-off rattlesnake.
>>The newest one I have driven was a 2000 GT. My Camaro SS brakes
>>significantly better.
>
> Your opinon, what can I say?
Ask an accelerometer.
> Other than the road tests I've seen
> show that the mustang stops well. According to road and track road
> test summary the camaro SS is at 134ft 60-0 and 222ft 80-0. The mustang
> Cobra R 123ft and 212ft (which is a braking system like the one I put on
> my GT)
'Like the one'? Does that mean yours has 4-wheel disk brakes too?
We are talking stock-stock here and not some aftermarket setup.
Or if you want to talk aftermarket try to beat the Brembo system
for the SS.
>>My description referst to two '97s, two '98s, two '99s, and 2 '00s.
>>Seems to me you have not driven a V8 F-Body in a while though.
>
> I only described mustangs. I made no personal experience comments on
> the F-bodies. Nice try however. I can't see where I am going in an
> F-body, so I try not to drive them.
So if you don't have applicable experience, why do you talk about
the F-Body?
>>>And it sold to them because it's a better all around car for daily
>>>use.
>>
>>No, it sold to them because it is 'cute'. For most women's tastes
>>the LS1 simply pulls too brutally hard and of course it doesnt
>>help that the seating position is lower. I on the other hand prefer
>>a lower seating position as I am tall.
>
> I see, you are trying to get me to flame you.
I don't give a damn about whether you flame me or not.
> And I'm 6'4" tall,
> that's hardly short, which is why I can't see out of the F-body.
> The mustang's higher windshield allows me to see out.
The driver's seat in the Camaro is vertically adjustable. I have
a friend who is 5'8, drives a Camaro and can see just fine. You
might want to consult the owners manual. I, OTOH, am 6'7 and
the seating position in the Mustang doesnt leave me enough
legroom.
> And what's with the pulls brutally hard comment? As if you have
> to floor each time you accelerate...
Certainly not. The Camaro has enough torque so this is not
necessary. Still, for mediocre drivers the power may be too
much.
> oh that's right in a camaro
> that's the only way you get use 3rd,4th,and 5th gear without modifications.
This sentence does not make any sense. Please rephrase.
> But it's an 'easy modification' but it's a 'man's' car and men can do
> the mod and women can't. Bunch of crap. It appears you want to portray
> the camaro as the car of manly men and the mustang the car of sissies
> and weak women. You need to learn to check that kind of thing at the door.
No, the Mustang is geared towards the mass market, which means it is
not allowed to bee too fast or its suspension too stiff and so forth.
It is made strictly for maximizing the sold numbers which in today's
market is only possible if the car is 'mellow'. The Camaro is not,
which makes it appealing to me but of course hurts sales.
>>The Mustang is closer to 'average' in every respect. People
>>like average. If they wanted something special and exciting
>>Toyota would go broke and the Elise would sell in record
>>numbers.
>
> You are making excuses for the camaro and attempting to insult the
> mustang at the same time. I have no interest in flame war with you
> on this. It seems you take offense when anyone has a different opinon
> of the F-body than you do.
You seem to have too much Ford pride for your own good. Try to
feel less attacked by my comments on a car, of all things. Are
you really as much in love with your car as nmoberg is?
You are the one who starts ranting the second you perceive your
beloved Mustang to be under attack.
> The fact is GM turned the camaro is a car that appeals to a very small
> market.
Yes, it does appeal to a small market. All exciting cars do, as
exciting is something that doesn't sell any more.
> Trouble is GM sold that market out in the last 7 years or so
> but they didn't work to get the car to evolve. Each year's improvement
> was simply to add more power. At some point it just simply fails to sell
> cars.
Maybe.
>>>You write that as the car appealing to women is something to
>>>be ashamed of.
>>
>>No, I don't. I just happen to have different preferences.
>
> Your choice of language says otherwise.
You should try not to identify yourself with your car that
much. If you read what I have written without your pride
getting into the way you will find out that I did not say
anything to the tune that you should be ashamed of your car
being appealing to women.
>>>I don't think it is, so long as I can still order it
>>>the way I want it.
>>
>>Is there a stock '02 Stang with a 351 Windsor and a T56?
>>Didn't think so. The modular V8 is not up to my standards.
>
> Good for you. Buy a camaro then.
I have one, thanks.
> Oppps they aren't made anymore. The fact remains that a car
> aimed at a tiny niche buyer cannot survive at a low price.
Apparently GM is going to sell 20000 Pontiac GTOs in '04.
I'd call that a small niche and it's less than what the
F-Body sold.
>>>If I wanted to go to the drag-strip and kick all sorts of ass right
>>>out of the box for cheap, yes I'd go buy an F-body too.
>>
>>You can do much more with an F-Body than that. But then,
>>to find that out you would have to try...
>
> *yawn* I grow tired of your pro-body rantings.
Fact is that a Camaro SS will outrun a Mustang Cobra on both
racetrack and quartermile. The Z28 will outrun the GT on both
track and quartermile.
The only way you can interpret these facts as pro-F-Body
rantings is if your pride is hurt.
>>Both the Camaro and the Mustang need some changes. The Stang
>>needs a decent powerplant and transmission and better seats
>>and brakes, the Camaro needs better seats and a roof redesigned
>>for better visibility.
>
> You seem to think decent powerplant = push rods.
The Camaro delivers _much_ better performance together with better
gas mileage and lower TCO. If Ford finally gets the 'modular' problem
licked I may reconsider, but until then I can safely say the LS1 is
the better powerplant all around.
> And if the mustang
> needs better brakes, so does the F-body, as they are turning similiar
> numbers in that regard. Or maybe your comment is something more nebulous?
Not quite as nebulous as your claimed disadvantages of the F-Bodies
as daily drivers.
> Because I am trying to go beyond my one single data point of experience
> and try to give an overall view gathered from the experiences of other
> people as well. It appears what you want is a flame war of personal
> experiences. you want that, go troll rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
> or something.
No, I just want a straightforward answer to a very simple question:
In what way is the Mustang better as a daily driver than the Camaro?
You are the one who wants a flamewar, probably because you don't have
an answer to this question. And why in the world should _I_ go troll
someone? You are the one who wants a flamewar.
>>So you claim advertising doesnt have an effect on sales? You should
>>go tell that to Philip Morris, Procter&Gamble, McDonalds and such.
>>They could save billions every year ...
>
> I didn't say that. I said you are making excuses for the car
> you love. You've got quite a history of not being able to deal with
> anything but praise of the f-body.
It's the other way round, you love the Mustang so much that you
will go to any length to defend things that don't need defense.
Both cars have their shortcomings and both have their virtues. I
perceive the virtues of the Camaro to be greater than the ones of
the Mustang and you do it the other way round. Unfortunately you
seem to take my statement of opinion too personal (or you would
not try to threaten me with a flamewar in every other paragraph).
I don't have anything to flame about. I told that to nmoberg,
to spider and dizzy and to whoever else flamed me. Unfortunately
some people still lash out in their hurt pride ...
Now answer my question or EOT.
Chris
Spider
[HUGE snip]
>
> I don't have anything to flame about.
Unless someone speaks negatively about your beloved F-Body cars....
> I told that to nmoberg,
> to spider and dizzy and to whoever else flamed me.
Now, why are you dragging me into this discussion? Could it be...
> Unfortunately
> some people still lash out in their hurt pride ...
...hurt pride? LOL! Still the undisputed King of Irony.
Hey, Chris, leave me out of your silly F-Body flamewars.
Spider
Brent P
>> I don't have sub-frames in mine. It's got 82K on the clock almost
>> all of it on IL's crappy roads.
> So explain why the 30k mile '99 GT of my coworker rattles worse
> than a pissed-off rattlesnake.
How the fuck should I know? I don't even know the car exists. My
dad's '99 GT with 40-50k on it is quieter than my car.
>>>The newest one I have driven was a 2000 GT. My Camaro SS brakes
>>>significantly better.
>> Your opinon, what can I say?
> Ask an accelerometer.
>> Other than the road tests I've seen
>> show that the mustang stops well. According to road and track road
>> test summary the camaro SS is at 134ft 60-0 and 222ft 80-0. The mustang
>> Cobra R 123ft and 212ft (which is a braking system like the one I put on
>> my GT)
> 'Like the one'? Does that mean yours has 4-wheel disk brakes too?
No, I bought the brembos for my car.
> We are talking stock-stock here and not some aftermarket setup.
> Or if you want to talk aftermarket try to beat the Brembo system
> for the SS.
Strawman. Diversion. and snippage. I clearly showed tests of
a stock out of the box cars and you focus in on a personal side
comment. You can't play honestly, we won't play at all the thread is
done. You want a mustang - fbody flame war, I'm not going to play
go troll r.a.m.f.m
Christian Huebner
> In article <3CFC6F8D...@attbi.com>, Christian Huebner wrote:
>
>>So explain why the 30k mile '99 GT of my coworker rattles worse
>>than a pissed-off rattlesnake.
>
> How the fuck should I know?
I have no idea how you should know. But if the Stang was
as good as you claim it wouldn't.
> I don't even know the car exists. My
> dad's '99 GT with 40-50k on it is quieter than my car.
Good for him.
>>>Other than the road tests I've seen
>>>show that the mustang stops well. According to road and track road
>>>test summary the camaro SS is at 134ft 60-0 and 222ft 80-0. The mustang
>>>Cobra R 123ft and 212ft (which is a braking system like the one I put on
>>>my GT)
>>
>>'Like the one'? Does that mean yours has 4-wheel disk brakes too?
>
> No, I bought the brembos for my car.
Ah. Then why don't you say 'the same ...' instead of 'like the one ...'?
> Strawman. Diversion. and snippage. I clearly showed tests of
> a stock out of the box cars and you focus in on a personal side
> comment. You can't play honestly, we won't play at all the thread is
> done. You want a mustang - fbody flame war, I'm not going to play
> go troll r.a.m.f.m
I didn't start a flame war. If you want to it's your business.
You still didn't answer my question, though. What are the reasons
for your claim that the Mustang is better as an everyday car than the
Camaro?
Chris
Brent P
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <3CFC6F8D...@attbi.com>, Christian Huebner wrote:
>>
>>>So explain why the 30k mile '99 GT of my coworker rattles worse
>>>than a pissed-off rattlesnake.
>>
>> How the fuck should I know?
> I have no idea how you should know. But if the Stang was
> as good as you claim it wouldn't.
Still looking for a flame war. Go troll r.a.m.f.m
> You still didn't answer my question, though. What are the reasons
> for your claim that the Mustang is better as an everyday car than the
> Camaro?
I already told you. You then said all of it was untrue. Take your
flame war elsewhere.
Christian Huebner
> Christian Huebner <trap...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3CFC6F8D...@attbi.com>...
>
> [HUGE snip]
>
>
>>I don't have anything to flame about.
>
> Unless someone speaks negatively about your beloved F-Body cars....
There is a flamewar going on? Where?
> Hey, Chris, leave me out of your silly F-Body flamewars.
Managed to set you off without even trying :-) I suggest lessons
in self control.
Chris
Christian Huebner
> In article <3CFD78D5...@attbi.com>, Christian Huebner wrote:
>
>>I have no idea how you should know. But if the Stang was
>>as good as you claim it wouldn't.
>
> Still looking for a flame war. Go troll r.a.m.f.m
Where does your fascination with flame wars come from? One just
has to disagree with your opinion and you see a flame war coming
up right away.
I'll phrase it in a way even you will understand: I am not interested
in a flamewar and so far do not participate in one. If you want one,
go find Judy Diarya and fight with her. I state my opinion and you
may read my postings or refrain from doing so. You can put your
opinion against mine and I will weigh your opinion and compare it
to mine and write an answer. This is called 'discussion'. If you want
someone who loves Ford and won't contradict you in any way go to
a Mustang discussion group.
I have been civil if not quite friendly and I am far from flaming
you. You, on the other hand, have due to a lack of arguments started
to become decidedly uncivil ('troll', 'flamewar', ...) and I don't
think on that base a discussion makes sense.
>>You still didn't answer my question, though. What are the reasons
>>for your claim that the Mustang is better as an everyday car than the
>>Camaro?
>
> I already told you. You then said all of it was untrue. Take your
> flame war elsewhere.
You havent listed any real points. Least of all points with relevance
for a daily driver. And for your information: A flame is something
entirely different from disagreeing with you. I suggest you look up
the definition of flame. You can do so using www.google.com . For
examples go to groups.google.com and look for postings from nmoberg.
Chris
Spider
> Spider wrote:
> > Christian Huebner <trap...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3CFC6F8D...@attbi.com>...
> >
> > [HUGE snip]
> >
> >
> >>I don't have anything to flame about.
> >
> > Unless someone speaks negatively about your beloved F-Body cars....
>
> There is a flamewar going on? Where?
No matter what *your* definition of a flamewar is, or whichever
definition you are using to suit your current argument, most folks
know what a flamewar is when they see one.
Just because you pretend to be civil does not mean the discussion is
civil. Thus, the term "flamewar."
> > Hey, Chris, leave me out of your silly F-Body flamewars.
>
> Managed to set you off without even trying :-) I suggest lessons
> in self control.
You are the one who brought me into this. If you don't want a
response, don't invoke my handle. Self-control, indeed. The irony,
LOL!
But if you are trying (or not trying) to "set me off," then I guess
"troll" would be a fine label to hang on you, and puts you squarely in
the same boat as C.T. and Judy. Like I said, leave me out of it - I
don't have anything to do with this, and don't care to discuss it.
But I'll just jump right in and really get a flamewar going if that's
what you're itching for. Just keep on replying, and then we'll go
back and pick apart the commentary previous to this.
Pick your path.
Spider
Christian Huebner
> Christian Huebner <trap...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3CFD7B73...@attbi.com>...
>
>>>Unless someone speaks negatively about your beloved F-Body cars....
>>
>>There is a flamewar going on? Where?
>
> No matter what *your* definition of a flamewar is, or whichever
> definition you are using to suit your current argument, most folks
> know what a flamewar is when they see one.
And your point is?
> Just because you pretend to be civil does not mean the discussion is
> civil. Thus, the term "flamewar."
I _am_ civil. If you are offended by a different opinion, even
if it is expressed in a civil way and deem it 'flaming' it's
your problem.
>>>Hey, Chris, leave me out of your silly F-Body flamewars.
>>
>>Managed to set you off without even trying :-) I suggest lessons
>>in self control.
>
> You are the one who brought me into this. If you don't want a
> response, don't invoke my handle. Self-control, indeed. The irony,
> LOL!
Irony seems one of your favorite words.
> But if you are trying (or not trying) to "set me off," then I guess
> "troll" would be a fine label to hang on you,
If I am trying or not trying to set you off I am a troll? ROTFL.
In other words, you want to see me as a troll and will regardless
of what I do.
Chris
nmoberg
Well Chrissie you seem to walk miles out of your way to get your
feelings hurt..
First of all I owned a 96 Camaro SS for over a year. So, unlike you, I
actually owned the performance version of the car.
I also spent a lot of track time with this and several other cars, so
unlike you, I can comment on what the car is good and not good at.
(Still afraid of the big boys picking on you?)
And finally I "borrowed" a 2000 Z28 convertible for most of an
afternoon, and unlike you, I gave it right back after being very
unimpressed with it.
Camaros should have been allowed to die years before they did, and
here is why..
Camaros were built long before GM really understood, or didn't care
much, about chassis dynamics . The car is both very flexy and space
inefficient. It also has way too much weight on it's front tires..
What does that mean? It means it makes a terrible convertible, and a
poor T Top, and even the solid roof coupe I had with, sub frame
connectors, still has a lot of chassis flex. That means if you want
the car to ride decent you all but have to give up any thoughts of a
true performance car. It also means that if you want a good handling
car you have to give up all thoughts of a decent riding car and put a
suspension in it that is stiff as hell.. My Camaro SS was quite good
on the track and was a great "bang for the buck" car but was an
absolute piece of crap on any road trip. 3 hours in the car was real
punishment.
When we decided to get rid of it the local Chevy dealer jumped through
hoops as he had 2 convertibles that he just couldn't sell. But an
afternoon with that car (convertible) amazed me in how loose a chassis
could actually be. It creaked and groaned on every entrance and exit
ramp and I actually thought the dash was going to fall out when I took
some railroad tracks at a brisk pace! An astonishingly bad chassis for
the year 2000.
So GM, with the Camaro, is asking you to make a choice that you
shouldn't have to make anymore.
Final thought ... if GM was going to make any real effort to bring
this car into the 20th century they wouldn't have bashed a big,
uncomfortable, hump under the passenger's feet for the catalytic
converter.. An absolute clear admission, by GM, that they had given up
on this car and were just waiting for the inevitable.
Spider
> Spider wrote:
> > Christian Huebner <trap...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3CFD7B73...@attbi.com>...
> >
> >>>Unless someone speaks negatively about your beloved F-Body cars....
> >>
> >>There is a flamewar going on? Where?
> >
> > No matter what *your* definition of a flamewar is, or whichever
> > definition you are using to suit your current argument, most folks
> > know what a flamewar is when they see one.
>
> And your point is?
You claim to be intelligent, with a good grasp of English, so you
should have no problem figuring out what the point is.
> > Just because you pretend to be civil does not mean the discussion is
> > civil. Thus, the term "flamewar."
>
> I _am_ civil.
Depends on how narrowly one defines "civil." Implying that someone is
not very bright would be considered "uncivil" by the majority of
adults. I understand that your definition is "anything short of
outright hostility," but that is just more pedantic prattle. Most
reasoning individuals also know "civil" when they see it.
> If you are offended by a different opinion, even
> if it is expressed in a civil way and deem it 'flaming' it's
> your problem.
A pretty strawman. Not going to bite on that one. :)
> >>>Hey, Chris, leave me out of your silly F-Body flamewars.
> >>
> >>Managed to set you off without even trying :-) I suggest lessons
> >>in self control.
> >
> > You are the one who brought me into this. If you don't want a
> > response, don't invoke my handle. Self-control, indeed. The irony,
> > LOL!
>
> Irony seems one of your favorite words.
Look up it's meaning, and see how the word directly applies to this
situation. If you are having difficulty understanding, I will gladly
explain it to you. And yes, I enjoy irony - not the word, the
situation.
> > But if you are trying (or not trying) to "set me off," then I guess
> > "troll" would be a fine label to hang on you,
>
> If I am trying or not trying to set you off I am a troll? ROTFL.
You are the one bringing me in - leave me out of your petty quabbles
and attempted victimhood. Show a little restraint, if you are able.
Spider
dizzy
<trap...@attbi.com> wrote:
>I don't have anything to flame about. I told that to nmoberg,
>to spider and dizzy and to whoever else flamed me. Unfortunately
>some people still lash out in their hurt pride ...
So how's that panhard rod working for ya, Chrissy? *snicker*
Christian Huebner
[A long and rambling account on how good he is and
how bad I am]
Spider, it is pointless to reason with you. Have
a nice day.
Chris
Christian Huebner
I will be available for discussion when (if) you regain your
civility. Until then, have a nice decade.
Chris
nmoberg
Typical Christian... run away little boy and be happy with your 3G
flexy mobile.... no discussion needed. I think we all see what happens
when you are proven wrong.
Spider
> Spider wrote:
>
> [A long and rambling account on how good he is and
> how bad I am]
Good thing these messages are threaded such that anyone who bothers to
read my reply to you will notice:
1.) It wasn't long,
2.) It was a direct reply to your commentary (*not* rambling),
3.) Mentions nothing about "good" nor "bad", and
4.) Was very high on the "C.H. Civility Scale."
> Spider, it is pointless to reason with you.
I'd guess that *trying* would be a good, fist step. LOL!
> Have
> a nice day.
Well, now that's a very nice thing to say. I hope that you, too, have
a very pleasant and productive day!
Spider
Christian Huebner
> On Thu, 06 Jun 2002 05:27:30 GMT, Christian Huebner
> <trap...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>
>>nmoberg wrote:
>>
>>I will be available for discussion when (if) you regain your
>>civility. Until then, have a nice decade.
>>
> flexy mobile.... no discussion needed. I think we all see what happens
> when you are proven wrong.
If you call me Chrissy in the first sentence of a posting
you can not expect a detailed reply. Sorry.
Chris
Christian Huebner
> Well, now that's a very nice thing to say. I hope that you, too, have
> a very pleasant and productive day!
We'll leave it at that.
Chris
nmoberg
<trap...@attbi.com> wrote:
Of course.....
Search for the Holy Grail......
Run Away Run Away!
Spider
LOL! You already "left it" with your last post! I'll tell you one
last time, since you are really quitting this thread (using whatever
excuse you can find,) do not invoke my handle if you don't want me to:
1.) Discuss the issues at hand,
2.) Respond to your unprovoked attacks, or
3.) Flame you for bringing me into a thread that I had no intention
of entering in the first place.
This seems to me like a fair warning, and that any intelligent person
can deduce what will happen the next time you use me as a derogatory
example. Now it is up to you to again follow your own advice and
exercise some self-control.
Good luck,
Spider
Christian Huebner
Working well, thank you :-) And how is your whiny and
thirsty turbo engine doing?
Chris
nmoberg
<trap...@attbi.com> wrote:
Better than your Rattle Trap flexy flyer 3G mobile.
Christian Huebner
Must be a strange Corvette you own if it has a whiny
little turbo. Are you sure it doesn't say 'Mustang 2.3 turbo'
on the back? Of course that would explain why you blow
every time someone talks about F-cars...
Chris
nmoberg
<trap...@attbi.com> wrote:
Actually I did have, years ago, a 1979 Capri 2.3 turbo.
And come to think of it, it did have a tighter body structure than
your 3G flexy flyer rattle trap Camaro.
"Camaro Convertible... for those that want the very worst in
structural and cabin engineering... leaving a dealer, in your area,
soon!" 3Gs only need apply.
Christian Huebner
> On Sun, 09 Jun 2002 07:43:27 GMT, Christian Huebner
> <trap...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>>Must be a strange Corvette you own if it has a whiny
>>little turbo. Are you sure it doesn't say 'Mustang 2.3 turbo'
>>on the back? Of course that would explain why you blow
>>every time someone talks about F-cars...
>>
> And come to think of it, it did have a tighter body structure than
> your 3G flexy flyer rattle trap Camaro.
>
> "Camaro Convertible... for those that want the very worst in
> structural and cabin engineering... leaving a dealer, in your area,
> soon!" 3Gs only need apply.
Camaro Convertible, most driving fun for the money.
Maybe you get off on rigidity numbers in which case you need
to buy a Ferrari 360 Modena. I just want to have fun driving
and still enough money left to pursue other hobbies. So if
chassis rigidity is your top priority, why don't you own a
Ferrari? Can't afford it? Well, I can afford the Corvette
but I have other hobbies and the 20k I saved over a Vette
can buy me either a Ducati 996R or a used Cessna 152.
I find it sad that you own a cool car and instead of having
fun with it and enjoying it you feel you need to rag on other
people just because they have different preferences. I suggest
you find something fun to do and lighten up a bit.
Chris
nmoberg
<trap...@att.net> wrote:
>nmoberg wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Jun 2002 07:43:27 GMT, Christian Huebner
>> <trap...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Must be a strange Corvette you own if it has a whiny
>>>little turbo. Are you sure it doesn't say 'Mustang 2.3 turbo'
>>>on the back? Of course that would explain why you blow
>>>every time someone talks about F-cars...
>>>
>> Actually I did have, years ago, a 1979 Capri 2.3 turbo.
>> And come to think of it, it did have a tighter body structure than
>> your 3G flexy flyer rattle trap Camaro.
>>
>> "Camaro Convertible... for those that want the very worst in
>> structural and cabin engineering... leaving a dealer, in your area,
>> soon!" 3Gs only need apply.
>
>Camaro Convertible, most driving fun for the money.
You mean wallowing creaking bouncy bouncy I don't have a clue what a
car of this century is like I'll kid myself sort of fun.
>Maybe you get off on rigidity numbers in which case you need
>to buy a Ferrari 360 Modena. I just want to have fun driving
>and still enough money left to pursue other hobbies. So if
>chassis rigidity is your top priority, why don't you own a
>Ferrari? Can't afford it? Well, I can afford the Corvette
>but I have other hobbies and the 20k I saved over a Vette
>can buy me either a Ducati 996R or a used Cessna 152.
Actually you told us all the reason you didn't buy a Corvette was
because it didn't have as much cargo carrying capacity. But it's not
the first time you changed in midstream.
>I find it sad that you own a cool car and instead of having
>fun with it and enjoying it you feel you need to rag on other
>people just because they have different preferences. I suggest
>you find something fun to do and lighten up a bit.
>
>Chris
Just need to rag on you because you are such immature little boy that
seems to invite abuse.
Christian Huebner
>>I find it sad that you own a cool car and instead of having
>>fun with it and enjoying it you feel you need to rag on other
>>people just because they have different preferences. I suggest
>>you find something fun to do and lighten up a bit.
>>
> Just need to rag on you because you are such immature little boy that
> seems to invite abuse.
No, you rag on me because _you_ are an immature little
boy. Ragging on others is what immature little boys do.
Doesn't really surprise me that Corvette drivers have
such a bad reputation.
Your behavior doesn't warrant a detailed answer and I can
even foretell what you are going to rant as an answer to
this:
Something with 'Chrissy' and 'holy grail' and whatever.
Poor nmoberg. Must hurt to be seen as a petty and vengeful
old man...
Chris
nmoberg
Congratulate me! I just won a $10.00 bet from one of your other
admirers.. I said you wouldn't address the fact that your first claim
for not buying a Corvette was there wasn't enough room for your camera
bag, now you have flip flopped and claimed it was an economic
decision.
One can always win money when it comes to betting on your integrity.
Sort of like when you told us all about the great engineering changes
GM made to the Camaro, for the Camaro, and couldn't come up with a
single meaningful one.
At least you have given up trying to tell everybody what a wonderful
car the Camaro is.
And for the record please show us all where I have ever held the
Corvette up as a great car. I have ny opinions but I'm not an insecure
little boy who is afraid of the big boys in the gym and on the race
track.
Finally, I take it you didn't understand the Holy Grail reference at
all.. Figures..
Christian Huebner
> Congratulate me! I just won a $10.00 bet from one of your other
> admirers..
Congrats.
Now EOT.
Chris
nmoberg
Promises promises....
Well at least people, that didn't know, now know you flip flop
frequently...
>"I will be available for discussion when (if) you regain your
>civility. Until then, have a nice decade."
>Chris
So which is it? Did you not buy a Corvette because your camera bag
wouldn't fit or because you didn't have enough money to play with your
other toy?. Or will it be a new reason next week?
dizzy
<trap...@attbi.com> wrote:
>dizzy wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Jun 2002 07:43:11 GMT, Christian Huebner
>> <trap...@attbi.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I don't have anything to flame about. I told that to nmoberg,
>>>to spider and dizzy and to whoever else flamed me. Unfortunately
>>>some people still lash out in their hurt pride ...
>>
>> So how's that panhard rod working for ya, Chrissy? *snicker*
>
>Working well, thank you :-) And how is your whiny and
>thirsty turbo engine doing?
Great! I was mixing it up with a Viper (another car with independent
suspension) the other day. Did pretty well too, although she did pull
me somewhat...
Christian Huebner
> So which is it? Did you not buy a Corvette because your camera bag
> wouldn't fit or because you didn't have enough money to play with your
> other toy?. Or will it be a new reason next week?
I just went back into google and counted 8 postings where
I said that price was one of the deciding factors for me
to buy the Camaro. I suggest you invent a new lie, nmoberg.
Chris
Christian Huebner
Good for you. And your point is?
Chris
nmoberg
Actually you said the deciding factor was where you could fit your
camera bag. Then we got into a big discussion on the fact that the
Corvette has more trunk room than a Camaro.. Then you told us you
strap your camera bag in the backseat.. Nice try...
nmoberg
Speaking of Google... here is what you actually said... Read it and
weep little boy>> or should I call you a liar?
Date: 2001-12-22 10:43:58 PST
From: Christian Huebner (trap...@att.net)
Sorry, nmoberg, I tried and as I really like the Vette I tried hard
to make it work. Unfortunately luggage for two plus cooler (you
probably wouldn't know but thats a very important item in a
Convertible) plus the large photo bag do not fit the 'Vert 'Vette.
Christian Huebner
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 06:15:36 GMT, Christian Huebner
> <trap...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>>I just went back into google and counted 8 postings where
>>I said that price was one of the deciding factors for me
>>to buy the Camaro. I suggest you invent a new lie, nmoberg.
>>
> camera bag. Then we got into a big discussion on the fact that the
> Corvette has more trunk room than a Camaro.. Then you told us you
> strap your camera bag in the backseat.. Nice try...
Actually I said both. What a pity you can't accept a fact
that doesn't fit into your petty crusade.
Chris
Christian Huebner
> Speaking of Google... here is what you actually said... Read it and
> weep little boy>> or should I call you a liar?
>
> Date: 2001-12-22 10:43:58 PST
> From: Christian Huebner (trap...@att.net)
> Sorry, nmoberg, I tried and as I really like the Vette I tried hard
> to make it work. Unfortunately luggage for two plus cooler (you
> probably wouldn't know but thats a very important item in a
> Convertible) plus the large photo bag do not fit the 'Vert 'Vette.
Poor nmoberg, trying so hard to defend his lifelong dream
against an attack that doesn't exist. I really like the
Vette and I never claimed the Camaro was better than it.
The only thing I said is that the Vette has some disadvantages
_for_me_ that made me buy a Camaro. One is luggage space,
another one is the price which in the end I was not willing
to pay. If you cannot accept this fact it's your problem.
And before you call someone little boy, old man, you should
acquire proper behaviour for your age.
Chris
nmoberg
You said what is above and no amount of belly crawling is going to
change it..
Grow up little boy... You may even, some day, gain the courage to
drive on a race track or work out in a real gym.. But right now you
are just another little punk that makes it up as you go along.
Christian Huebner
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:14:52 GMT, Christian Huebner
> <trap...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>>And before you call someone little boy, old man, you should
>>acquire proper behaviour for your age.
>>
> change it..
Non sequitur. By the way, the paragraph you quoted in no way
contradicts my statements in this thread. Find something new
to bitch about. And learn to behave. At your age proper
behaviour can be expected.
> Grow up little boy... You may even, some day, gain the courage to
> drive on a race track or work out in a real gym.. But right now you
> are just another little punk that makes it up as you go along.
I have worked out in real gyms. Unfortunately that's boring so
I prefer hiking, snowboarding and swimming. And I prefer spending
my money for flying and riding and snowmobiling than keeping an
expensive racecar around. If I want to race, which I occasionally
do, I go karting.
You are the one who is afraid. Afraid of not being taken seriously
because people only see you as an old man with an expensive car.
Afraid of not being shown respect by the youngins. Afraid of having
made the wrong choice in spending a lot of money for an expensive
car and not having enough left to pursue other worthwhile hobbies.
Afraid of having missed a lot of things in life.
I used to despise you but now I just have pity for you. At your
age you still haven't noticed that there is more to life than
showing off an expensive car and spewing hatred at everyone who
isn't impressed with it enough. It's not an easy thing to say
to an oldtimer but you really need to grow up and find out that
life is for having fun, not trying to impress other people.
Chris
nmoberg
<trap...@attbi.com> wrote:
A perfect projection of all your fears projected on to somebody that
has called out everyone of your little lies and half truths... What
are you hiding Chrissy? What is it you don't want everyone to know?
Why the desperation?
Christian Huebner
> A perfect projection of all your fears projected on to somebody that
> has called out everyone of your little lies and half truths... What
> are you hiding Chrissy? What is it you don't want everyone to know?
> Why the desperation?
Which desperation?
I pity you, you hate me, let's leave it at that, okay?
Chris
nmoberg
I actually hate no one... More like feel very sorry for you.
Christian Huebner
>>I pity you, you hate me, let's leave it at that, okay?
>>
> I actually hate no one... More like feel very sorry for you.
Then feel sorry for me if you wish so, and I will reciprocate.
Chris
Marc
>Camaro Convertible, most driving fun for the money.
With absolutes like that, who can argue? I've driven Camaros. I
found the most driving fun for the money to be the Miata, and that is
what I bought.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
Edgecrusher
mistress' allot. No way I'd buy one of those tin cans. But that has
more to do with driving with my knees against my chest than anything.
nmoberg
wrote:
>You must be of smaller stature, or for recreational purposes say 'yes
>mistress' allot. No way I'd buy one of those tin cans. But that has
>more to do with driving with my knees against my chest than anything.
>
They are small inside. I'm 6" 3" and didn't find them to be something
I felt comfortable on the track with. Just not enough legroom and I
was always up against the wheel and sides.
Marc
>
>Marc wrote:
>>
>> Christian Huebner <trap...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Camaro Convertible, most driving fun for the money.
>>
>> With absolutes like that, who can argue? I've driven Camaros. I
>> found the most driving fun for the money to be the Miata, and that is
>> what I bought.
>>
>You must be of smaller stature, or for recreational purposes say 'yes
>mistress' allot. No way I'd buy one of those tin cans. But that has
>more to do with driving with my knees against my chest than anything.
I'm six foot tall and was living alone when I bought the Miata as my
only car. When you move the seat back, you have more leg room than
most 4-door "big" cars. Certainly more than the
Camry/626/Maxima/5-series foreign cars. I also couldn't fit int he
Ford Taurus because of insufficient leg room.
I've had a 6'6" 300+ lb friend in my Miata. Aside from the painful
ingreass/egress, it fit him just fine. Most people that complain
about the size (especially the legroom) have never actually driven
one.
Have you driven a Miata? If not, then I'd have to call you a liar,
for that is the impression you were trying to make with your
first-person descriptions of it you were relaying.
Marc
That is my biggest complaint. With the sporty setup of the Miata,
you'd think they'd put in seats with some lateral support. Unless I
had a friend help me tighten up my seatbelt, I'd get a bruise on my
knee at races. I've heard that racers of Miatas actually use a knee
pad to protect their bracing-knee. One of the best reasons to put in
a roll cage for Solo II is not for the protection, or even the
stiffness. It is so that it is legal to use a harness...
Brent P
> I'm six foot tall and was living alone when I bought the Miata as my
> only car. When you move the seat back, you have more leg room than
> most 4-door "big" cars. Certainly more than the
> Camry/626/Maxima/5-series foreign cars. I also couldn't fit int he
> Ford Taurus because of insufficient leg room.
I'm 6'4" I have enough leg room to work the clutch etc in the 626,
but I am pinned in with the miata. Also my head is above the windshield
in the miata which is the more serious problem.
Christian Huebner
> Christian Huebner <trap...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Camaro Convertible, most driving fun for the money.
>
>
> With absolutes like that, who can argue? I've driven Camaros. I
> found the most driving fun for the money to be the Miata, and that is
> what I bought.
The Miata is fun but much to small for me to be comfortable
in. So _for_me_ (and I never claimed to speak for anyone else)
the Camaro was the most driving fun for $30k.
Chris
Christian Huebner
> Edgecrusher <xys...@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>>You must be of smaller stature, or for recreational purposes say 'yes
>>mistress' allot. No way I'd buy one of those tin cans. But that has
>>more to do with driving with my knees against my chest than anything.
>
> I'm six foot tall and was living alone when I bought the Miata as my
> only car.
See, I am 7 inches taller than you, so for me different rules apply.
> I've had a 6'6" 300+ lb friend in my Miata. Aside from the painful
> ingreass/egress, it fit him just fine. Most people that complain
> about the size (especially the legroom) have never actually driven
> one.
I have no idea whether edgecrusher has driven one, but I have, for about
30 miles. Enough to find out that it is fun to drive, but too small for me.
Chris
Edgecrusher
Marc wrote:
>
> Edgecrusher <xys...@qwest.net> wrote:
> >You must be of smaller stature, or for recreational purposes say 'yes
> >mistress' allot. No way I'd buy one of those tin cans. But that has
> >more to do with driving with my knees against my chest than anything.
>
> I'm six foot tall and was living alone when I bought the Miata as my
> only car. When you move the seat back, you have more leg room than
> most 4-door "big" cars. Certainly more than the
> Camry/626/Maxima/5-series foreign cars. I also couldn't fit int he
> Ford Taurus because of insufficient leg room.
>
> I've had a 6'6" 300+ lb friend in my Miata. Aside from the painful
> ingreass/egress, it fit him just fine. Most people that complain
> about the size (especially the legroom) have never actually driven
> one.
>
> Have you driven a Miata? If not, then I'd have to call you a liar,
> for that is the impression you were trying to make with your
> first-person descriptions of it you were relaying.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
No, but I have ridden in the passenger seat and found it uncomfortably
small for my 6'2". My knees were within 1/4" of the dash and riding in
that position for any length of time would have been very fatiguing for
me - as this left no lower seat support against my hamstrings.
I believe my legs to be slightly longer than average for my height, but
there wasn't much head room left either. Wearing a helmet (as I did for
a Solo II in said car) required dropping the top to keep from resting
the side of it against the frame rail for the top. I can't imagine that
steering would be unencumbered for me either.
In a word, it was cramped.
I can see how somebody just 2" shorter with shorter arms and legs would
not have any trouble with it, but for me, it just is not bearable.
So yeah, I guess that does make you 'of smaller stature'. ;)
Marc
under the seats. With the sporty feel of the car, they should have
just gone ahead and dropped the seat as close to the floor board as
possible. That would have given about 3 more inches of headroom and
let people of your size see under the top of the windshield.
You should see the contortions you have to make when you are first in
line with high-mounted stop lights and the top is up...
Matthew Russotto
Marc <whin...@yifan.net> wrote:
>The placement of the windshield is a problem. There is too much space
>under the seats. With the sporty feel of the car, they should have
>just gone ahead and dropped the seat as close to the floor board as
>possible. That would have given about 3 more inches of headroom and
>let people of your size see under the top of the windshield.
Unfortunately, then people shorter than me wouldn't be able to see over
the dash.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
=====
Every time you buy a CD, a programmer is kicked in the teeth.
Every time you buy or rent a DVD, a programmer is kicked where it counts.
Every time they kick a programmer, 1000 users are kicked too, and harder.
A proposed US law called the CBDTPA would ban the PC as we know it.
This is not a joke, not an exaggeration. This is real.
http://www.cryptome.org/broadbandits.htm
Marc
>In article <e0q2hu0k4n40htatd...@4ax.com>,
>Marc <whin...@yifan.net> wrote:
>
>>The placement of the windshield is a problem. There is too much space
>>under the seats. With the sporty feel of the car, they should have
>>just gone ahead and dropped the seat as close to the floor board as
>>possible. That would have given about 3 more inches of headroom and
>>let people of your size see under the top of the windshield.
>
>Unfortunately, then people shorter than me wouldn't be able to see over
>the dash.
Booster seat?