 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / March 2007Mustang Sales, Specialty Models
I guess it's both bad and good news... http://tinyurl.com/ypofdq > I guess it's both bad and good news... > > http://tinyurl.com/ypofdq Yeah, I think it is good and bad news. It will keep pressure on Ford to keep improving the car. I wonder if the sky high prices of the GT500 is putting some people off? I know that it is the case with me. IMO, Ford needs a reasonably priced intermediate model between the GT and GT500. Plus, with the threat of a new Challenger and Camaro coming to market soon, maybe some buyers are waiting to have more than one choice. The Charger may have taken away some buyers. >> I guess it's both bad and good news... >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > soon, maybe some buyers are waiting to have more than one choice. The > Charger may have taken away some buyers. they screw up the new mustangs with the digital throttle, and resultant Bog, shift problems, and also the drone from the muffler. > >> I guess it's both bad and good news... > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > they screw up the new mustangs with the digital throttle, and resultant Bog, > shift problems, and also the drone from the muffler. Ok... I now you shouldn't HAVE to spend extra money on a brand new car... BUT... a $400 aftermarket tuner, like an SCT X-Cal2 from one of the better shops, will VASTLY IMPROVE throttle lag and shift problems... And for a few more dollars i'm thinking putting a couple of resonators in would help your drone problem.... Like I said, perhaps you shouldn't have to pay to "fix" these things but they certainly aren't insurmountable... >> >> I guess it's both bad and good news... >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > perhaps you shouldn't have to pay to "fix" these things but they > certainly aren't insurmountable... what/where you put a resonator in, never heard of one.? >>>> I guess it's both bad and good news... >>>> http://tinyurl.com/ypofdq [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > perhaps you shouldn't have to pay to "fix" these things but they > certainly aren't insurmountable... Plus, the 3-valve motors in the Mustang respond very well to tweaking the program. I seen people report 20-30 rwhp more from just a custom tune. Not a bad return for a $300-$400 cost. >> I guess it's both bad and good news... >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >soon, maybe some buyers are waiting to have more than one choice. The >Charger may have taken away some buyers. At the current predicated release dates it will be time for me to get my next new ride. At this time if the Challenger even comes close to being what it is supposed to be I'll be in line with cash in my hand & a pink slip in my wallet. I doubt that there is anything that Ford could do at this time to change my mind. Now the Challenger could miss the mark, but some how I doubt it. Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms should be aisles in a convenience store; not a Government agency! >>> I guess it's both bad and good news... >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > could do at this time to change my mind. Now the Challenger could > miss the mark, but some how I doubt it. Well you know it will probably have at least a 400 hp N/A V-8 which is a very good start. If it looks anywhere close to the one I saw at the DC Auto Show last year it will be a home run for D-C. Plus, I can see the marketing now... Challenger with a Hemi. Then, if they are smart, a Hemi Cuda will appear. > Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms should be aisles in a > convenience store; not a Government agency! > marketing now... Challenger with a Hemi. Then, if they are smart, a > Hemi Cuda will appear. How does one have a Plymouth Barracuda without a Plymouth? >> marketing now... Challenger with a Hemi. Then, if they are smart, a >> Hemi Cuda will appear. > > How does one have a Plymouth Barracuda without a Plymouth? Well you could start selling a DODGE Hemi Cuda. They were always the same thing anyway... >>> marketing now... Challenger with a Hemi. Then, if they are smart, a >>> Hemi Cuda will appear. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Well you could start selling a DODGE Hemi Cuda. They were always the same > thing anyway... That would be a challenger. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Barracuda >>>> marketing now... Challenger with a Hemi. Then, if they are smart, a >>>> Hemi Cuda will appear. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Barracuda My point was it is a Chrysler, who really cares... :-) >> marketing now... Challenger with a Hemi. Then, if they are smart, a >> Hemi Cuda will appear. > >How does one have a Plymouth Barracuda without a Plymouth? Ever heard of a Plymouth Neon? I'll never forget seeing one parked right next to a Dodge Neon and doing a double take... -- lab~rat >:-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere? >>> marketing now... Challenger with a Hemi. Then, if they are smart, a >>> Hemi Cuda will appear. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ever heard of a Plymouth Neon? I'll never forget seeing one parked > right next to a Dodge Neon and doing a double take... The point was there is no Plymouth any more. >>>> marketing now... Challenger with a Hemi. Then, if they are smart, a >>>> Hemi Cuda will appear. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >The point was there is no Plymouth any more. My point is they badged the Plymouth Neon a Dodge Neon after Plymouth's demise... -- lab~rat >:-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere? > My point is they badged the Plymouth Neon a Dodge Neon after > Plymouth's demise... No, Neons were sold by both divisons long before that. >> marketing now... Challenger with a Hemi. Then, if they are smart, a >> Hemi Cuda will appear. > > How does one have a Plymouth Barracuda without a Plymouth? If I were D-C I would rebrand it a Dodge in a second. There's too much marketing power behind the name to ignore, IMO. Much more than the name Challenger. Would you really care if it were a Dodge or a Plymouth Hemi Cuda with 450+ hp? I sure wouldn't. >>> marketing now... Challenger with a Hemi. Then, if they are smart, a >>> Hemi Cuda will appear. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Challenger. Would you really care if it were a Dodge or a Plymouth Hemi > Cuda with 450+ hp? I sure wouldn't. Marketing power will fall off with only part of the name. I don't think 'Ford Cougar' would work in grabing the power of the name. If they wouldn't care if was called a plymouth they wouldn't care if was called a Cuda either. It could be the Dodge Coelacanth.... http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/InNews/prehistoric2006.html > In article <W8qdnY6S9slX_G3YnZ2dnUVZ_tfinZ2d@giganews.com>, Michael > Johnson wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > was called a Cuda either. It could be the Dodge Coelacanth.... > http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/InNews/prehistoric2006.html "'Cuda" means everything; Plymouth is simply not a factor. >> If they wouldn't care if was called a plymouth they wouldn't care if >> was called a Cuda either. It could be the Dodge Coelacanth.... >> http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/InNews/prehistoric2006.html > "'Cuda" means everything; Plymouth is simply not a factor. Probably close to what the marketeers thought about GTO over at GM. >>> If they wouldn't care if was called a plymouth they wouldn't care if >>> was called a Cuda either. It could be the Dodge Coelacanth.... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Probably close to what the marketeers thought about GTO over at GM. It wasn't the name that killed the GTO it was the car they put it on. If D-C markets a Hemi Cuda worthy of the name it will sell regardless of whether it is a Dodge or Plymouth. Like Joe said, I don't remember hearing Plymouth Hemi Cuda much just Hemi Cuda. >>>> If they wouldn't care if was called a plymouth they wouldn't care if >>>> was called a Cuda either. It could be the Dodge Coelacanth.... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> Probably close to what the marketeers thought about GTO over at GM. > It wasn't the name that killed the GTO it was the car they put it on. It was the expectations people had of the name, the car was true to the early version of the GTO. > If D-C markets a Hemi Cuda worthy of the name it will sell regardless of > whether it is a Dodge or Plymouth. Like Joe said, I don't remember > hearing Plymouth Hemi Cuda much just Hemi Cuda. If it's worthy of the later car (as opposed to the early baracudas that only had thrifty inline 6s), the name won't matter. >>>>> If they wouldn't care if was called a plymouth they wouldn't care if >>>>> was called a Cuda either. It could be the Dodge Coelacanth.... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It was the expectations people had of the name, the car was true to the > early version of the GTO. Ya, if you are OK with a butt ugly GTO that looks more like a Toyota Camry than anything anyone can imagine as a GTO... I guess you could think that, Ya, OK.... :-( >> If D-C markets a Hemi Cuda worthy of the name it will sell regardless of >> whether it is a Dodge or Plymouth. Like Joe said, I don't remember >> hearing Plymouth Hemi Cuda much just Hemi Cuda. > > If it's worthy of the later car (as opposed to the early baracudas that > only had thrifty inline 6s), the name won't matter. Zactly... >> It was the expectations people had of the name, the car was true to the >> early version of the GTO. > Ya, if you are OK with a butt ugly GTO that looks more like a Toyota Camry > than anything anyone can imagine as a GTO... > I guess you could think that, Ya, OK.... :-( Ever see an early GTO? Looks like a typical boring sedan of the time period. >>> It was the expectations people had of the name, the car was true to the >>> early version of the GTO. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Ever see an early GTO? Looks like a typical boring sedan of the time > period. Yes, but not a Japanese car of the time. >>> It was the expectations people had of the name, the car was true to the >>> early version of the GTO. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ever see an early GTO? Looks like a typical boring sedan of the time period. You're the first person I have ever heard refer to the early GTO's as boring sedans. IMO, they are classics and icons in the history of muscles cars. I drove a 1966 GTO for awhile and thought (still do) it was one of the best looking cars ever produced. A true classic in every sense of the word. The original GTOs was based off a mass produced chassis from domestic plants that found its way into numerous GM subsidiaries. The last GTO was a Holden import from Australia that had no tie to any other model in GM's domestic lineup. Plus the early GTO was a relatively lightweight vehicle not a porky, over the hill import. >>>> It was the expectations people had of the name, the car was true to the >>>> early version of the GTO. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You're the first person I have ever heard refer to the early GTO's as > boring sedans. Read what I wrote again. See the words LOOKS LIKE ? > IMO, they are classics and icons in the history of > muscles cars. I drove a 1966 GTO for awhile and thought (still do) it > was one of the best looking cars ever produced. A true classic in every > sense of the word. 1964 GTO: http://www.yenko.net/reunion/SCR79999999.JPG 1964 tempest http://www.sdpoci.com/yelo64.gif Both plain ordinary styled formal squared off roof sedans of the period. >>>>> It was the expectations people had of the name, the car was true to the >>>>> early version of the GTO. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Read what I wrote again. See the words LOOKS LIKE ? OK, you're also the first person I have ever heard state the early GTOs LOOK LIKE a boring sedan. Is that better? You're splitting hairs again. >> IMO, they are classics and icons in the history of >> muscles cars. I drove a 1966 GTO for awhile and thought (still do) it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Both plain ordinary styled formal squared off roof sedans of the period. For the period they were stylish. They are still stylish, IMHO. They sold well so they many of the population of the day didn't agree with your statement. Like I said, they are a true classic. >> Read what I wrote again. See the words LOOKS LIKE ? > OK, you're also the first person I have ever heard state the early GTOs > LOOK LIKE a boring sedan. Is that better? You're splitting hairs again. I've seen them in person, they look like generic early-mid 60s sedans, maybe some fancier wheels if they are stock. >>> IMO, they are classics and icons in the history of >>> muscles cars. I drove a 1966 GTO for awhile and thought (still do) it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> Both plain ordinary styled formal squared off roof sedans of the period. > For the period they were stylish. They are still stylish, IMHO. Then so was a plain base tempest. > They > sold well so they many of the population of the day didn't agree with > your statement. Like I said, they are a true classic. 6 cylinder falcons sold better. >>> Read what I wrote again. See the words LOOKS LIKE ? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I've seen them in person, they look like generic early-mid 60s sedans, > maybe some fancier wheels if they are stock. One man's opinion, I guess. >>>> IMO, they are classics and icons in the history of >>>> muscles cars. I drove a 1966 GTO for awhile and thought (still do) it [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Then so was a plain base tempest. Yes they were. My brother owned one. A convertible. It was a sweet ride with a 326 V-8. >> They >> sold well so they many of the population of the day didn't agree with >> your statement. Like I said, they are a true classic. > > 6 cylinder falcons sold better. .... and your point is? > >>> Read what I wrote again. See the words LOOKS LIKE ? > >> OK, you're also the first person I have ever heard state the early GTOs > >> LOOK LIKE a boring sedan. Is that better? You're splitting hairs again. > > I've seen them in person, they look like generic early-mid 60s sedans, > > maybe some fancier wheels if they are stock. > One man's opinion, I guess. Mike, Brent's point it that the early Tempest had a very strong resemblence to the rest of the Pontiac line. (Just like the new GTO does.) And in the old Pontiac line-up they were quite boring looking compared to the up-market and more stylish Catalina and Grand Prix. Only its compact size, no-frills looks, the advance of time, and the biggest factor of all the high-performance image does the body thrill us now with its "classic look". > >>>> IMO, they are classics and icons in the history of > >>>> muscles cars. I drove a 1966 GTO for awhile and thought (still do) it [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > >>> Both plain ordinary styled formal squared off roof sedans of the period. > >> For the period they were stylish. They are still stylish, IMHO. > > Then so was a plain base tempest. > Yes they were. My brother owned one. A convertible. It was a sweet > ride with a 326 V-8. But were they any more stylish [back then] compared to a Chevelle, Chevy II, Fairlane, Galaxie, etc.? My answer is no. In that crowd, they were boring looking... just a plain-Jane, blend-in-with-the-pack sedan, even in GTO trim. So how is the new GTO any different? It looks very much like any other late-model Pontiac with the only difference being its high- performance image. Lastly, compare the looks of a new GTO to a '70 GTO. Now compare an '04 Mustang GT to '65 Mustang GT? I think the evolutionary resemblence of the early version to the latter version of both cars is quite similar, don't you? Patrick >>>>> Read what I wrote again. See the words LOOKS LIKE ? > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > biggest factor of all the high-performance image does the body thrill > us now with its "classic look". Whether the car is boring is a matter of opinion. I don't believe Pontiac designed the Tempest to be boring. The GTO was targeted to be an affordable muscle car. It delivered this in spades and hit the marketing bullseye. In its day the GTO was stylish and appealed to a large number of people just like the Tempest did. If the body thrills us now then why wouldn't it thrill someone in the 1960s? Cars don't get better looking with age. Brent seems to think the last GTO was in line with the first GTO. I disagree. The first GTO was taken from a base model vehicle that sold in large volume. This allowed Pontiac to keep it affordable and profitable. The Holden GTO was far from this. If Pontiac had followed the same formula then the last GTO would have been based off a Grand Prix or maybe even a G6. That wasn't in the cards because of these cars having FWD. At least they had enough sense to keep the GTO RWD. Since GM decided to import a left hand drive car in low volumes and convert it to right hand drive it was no longer affordable. They also didn't bother to determine if their target market would respond well to a GTO based on an import. Why did GM kill off the GTO after two years? It didn't sell because most people didn't care for the styling and/or price. I bet GM took a bath on the last few GTO that were sold. Bringing one to the showroom was a complicated and expensive process. Does this sound like the formula used for the original car? It doesn't to me. >>>>>> IMO, they are classics and icons in the history of >>>>>> muscles cars. I drove a 1966 GTO for awhile and thought (still do) it [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > they were boring looking... just a plain-Jane, blend-in-with-the-pack > sedan, even in GTO trim. Style is a matter of taste. They sold well so style had to be a part of the car's appeal to the public. The cars you mentioned were no better than a Tempest or GTO, IMO. They all had about the same style quotient. > So how is the new GTO any different? It looks very much like any > other late-model Pontiac with the only difference being its high- > performance image. Did a Chevelle SS look that much different than a garden variety Chevelle? Maybe a few badges, wider tires etc. Sounds like the formula for a GTO to me. It also seems that the muscles cars of the 1960s were based on higher volume base models like the Nova, Chevelle, etc. The last GTO was far from this formula. > Lastly, compare the looks of a new GTO to a '70 GTO. Now compare an > '04 Mustang GT to '65 Mustang GT? I think the evolutionary > resemblence of the early version to the latter version of both cars is > quite similar, don't you? Are you saying they look alike or not? I'm not sure what your point is. The last GTO has no resemblance to any earlier model and it shouldn't. It's an import. Like I said, Brent seems to think the last GTO was in line with the first. I disagree. > Brent seems to think the last GTO was in line with the first GTO. I > disagree. A shared theme of being based on a regular sedan without any significant styling differences. > The first GTO was taken from a base model vehicle that sold > in large volume. This allowed Pontiac to keep it affordable and > profitable. The Holden GTO was far from this. If Pontiac had followed > the same formula then the last GTO would have been based off a Grand > Prix or maybe even a G6. That wasn't in the cards because of these cars > having FWD. At least they had enough sense to keep the GTO RWD. Having killed their domestic RWD lines, they used a bread and butter RWD line from overseas. > Since GM decided to import a left hand drive car in low volumes and > convert it to right hand drive it was no longer affordable. They also [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Does this sound like the formula used for the original car? It doesn't > to me. You're drawing up details that don't matter to make it different. In the end of the day it's a family sedan with a special package, and really the only RWD one GM had world wide to choose from. Maybe if GM hadn't killed off RWD cars in the 80s and then those that survived in the 90s they could have had a more effective GTO, but that's neither here nor there when it comes to basing the GTO on an ordinary family sedan. > In article <IuCdnUC6ldIFQm3YnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@giganews.com>, Michael > Johnson wrote: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > here nor there when it comes to basing the GTO on an ordinary family > sedan. Michael is right on the money IMO. The point I'd like to make here is that the latest GTO shares nothing with the rest of GM's American offerings, as opposed to the earlier GTO which was derived from the Tempest. Different things entirely. > Michael is right on the money IMO. The point I'd like to make here is > that the latest GTO shares nothing with the rest of GM's American > offerings, as opposed to the earlier GTO which was derived from the > Tempest. Different things entirely. It's still based off a regular sedan... just one not sold in US, but one that is more like a traditional US sedan than anything that divison has put out since the mid 80s. >> Michael is right on the money IMO. The point I'd like to make here is >> that the latest GTO shares nothing with the rest of GM's American [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that is more like a traditional US sedan than anything that divison has > put out since the mid 80s. Not the same thing. One, the original GTO has a distinctly American Heritage, the other this most recent abortion, stems from the commonwealth, and shares as much in common with the distinctly American Heritage of the original GTO as the Lexus does... >>> Michael is right on the money IMO. The point I'd like to make here is >>> that the latest GTO shares nothing with the rest of GM's American >>> offerings, as opposed to the earlier GTO which was derived from the >>> Tempest. Different things entirely. >> It's still based off a regular sedan... just one not sold in US, but one >> that is more like a traditional US sedan than anything that divison has >> put out since the mid 80s. > Not the same thing. > One, the original GTO has a distinctly American Heritage, the other this > most recent abortion, stems from the commonwealth, and shares as much in > common with the distinctly American Heritage of the original GTO as the > Lexus does... The same could be said for most of GM's present passenger car line up, considering it's FWD. >> Brent seems to think the last GTO was in line with the first GTO. I >> disagree. > > A shared theme of being based on a regular sedan without any significant > styling differences. It isn't based on a regular sedan. It is based on an Australian import that isn't even left hand drive. Also, the GTO is base on one of Holden's luxury models and not a base sedan. >> The first GTO was taken from a base model vehicle that sold >> in large volume. This allowed Pontiac to keep it affordable and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Having killed their domestic RWD lines, they used a bread and butter RWD > line from overseas. .... and this is like the original GTO? >> Since GM decided to import a left hand drive car in low volumes and >> convert it to right hand drive it was no longer affordable. They also [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You're drawing up details that don't matter to make it different. I'm drawing up details that dispute your claims. The last GTO is far from the first GTO in concept. > In the end of the day it's a family sedan with a special package, and > really the only RWD one GM had world wide to choose from. Maybe if GM > hadn't killed off RWD cars in the 80s and then those that survived in the > 90s they could have had a more effective GTO, but that's neither here nor > there when it comes to basing the GTO on an ordinary family sedan. I guess we can both agree that the last GTO was ill conceived and executed. The first one was brilliantly conceived and executed. What was different between them that made this possible? >>> Brent seems to think the last GTO was in line with the first GTO. I >>> disagree. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that isn't even left hand drive. Also, the GTO is base on one of > Holden's luxury models and not a base sedan. There is no lower RWD passenger sedan in world wide GM production. What exactly should they have used? This hang up on it's original driver's side configuration is nonsense. Platforms have had cars with either side available for decades. >> You're drawing up details that don't matter to make it different. > I'm drawing up details that dispute your claims. The last GTO is far > from the first GTO in concept. All you are pointing out is that it's not 1964 anymore and 20 years post GM adbandoning RWD for anything under a caddy in the US. >>>> Brent seems to think the last GTO was in line with the first GTO. I >>>> disagree. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > There is no lower RWD passenger sedan in world wide GM production. What > exactly should they have used? Maybe they should have never went ahead with the GTO. Considering how short lived it was and its low sales volume, that was probably the right choice. > This hang up on it's original driver's side configuration is nonsense. > Platforms have had cars with either side available for decades. You're confusing cars designed from the ground up to be both left and right hand drive with the GTO. Its parent car was never designed to be converted and this made the process much more complicated. This in turn made the car's profit margin very slim and forced a higher sales price than the public would pay. >>> You're drawing up details that don't matter to make it different. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > All you are pointing out is that it's not 1964 anymore and 20 years post > GM adbandoning RWD for anything under a caddy in the US. All I am pointing out is the inconsistencies in your statements. >> This hang up on it's original driver's side configuration is nonsense. >> Platforms have had cars with either side available for decades. > You're confusing cars designed from the ground up to be both left and > right hand drive with the GTO. Its parent car was never designed to be > converted and this made the process much more complicated. This in turn > made the car's profit margin very slim and forced a higher sales price > than the public would pay. That doesn't change the theme. It's the spot GM put themselves into when they killed off almost all their RWD cars. They also needed to move the driver's side over to sell cars on that platform in the middle east when they stopped building the RWD caprice in the USA and no longer had it to sell there. >>>> You're drawing up details that don't matter to make it different. >>> I'm drawing up details that dispute your claims. The last GTO is far >>> from the first GTO in concept. >> All you are pointing out is that it's not 1964 anymore and 20 years post >> GM adbandoning RWD for anything under a caddy in the US. > All I am pointing out is the inconsistencies in your statements. There is none, except that manufactured in your head. Cars aren't the same as they were forty years ago and aren't going to be. Just themes survive. You don't need me in this discussion anymore because you are now arguing both sides yourself. Quite a trick. >>> This hang up on it's original driver's side configuration is nonsense. >>> Platforms have had cars with either side available for decades. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > same as they were forty years ago and aren't going to be. Just themes > survive. > You don't need me in this discussion anymore because you are now arguing > both sides yourself. Quite a trick. Your purposeful ignorance knows no bounds obviously. >> You don't need me in this discussion anymore because you are now arguing >> both sides yourself. Quite a trick. > > Your purposeful ignorance knows no bounds obviously. .... and so we have reached the end of this wonderfully fulfilling diatribe. >You're the first person I have ever heard refer to the early GTO's as >boring sedans. IMO, they are classics and icons in the history of >muscles cars. I drove a 1966 GTO for awhile and thought (still do) it >was one of the best looking cars ever produced. A true classic in every >sense of the word. I've got to agree with you there, but the '64 was a bit boring. The 65-67 Goats were, IMO, the best looking cars that Detroit ever produced. > >You're the first person I have ever heard refer to the early GTO's as > >boring sedans. IMO, they are classics and icons in the history of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I've got to agree with you there, but the '64 was a bit boring. The 65-67 > Goats were, IMO, the best looking cars that Detroit ever produced. It's good to know I'm not the only person who feels that way. When I think "GTO" an image of a '66 is instantly conjured up in my mind. A truly beautiful design, IMO. For the "rebirth" of the GTO to have had any chance at all, it should have taken more styling cues from the 65-67's,... the "jelly bean" with a GTO emblem was ill-conceived, at best.  SignatureJohn C. '03 Cobra Convt. >>> You're the first person I have ever heard refer to the early GTO's as >>> boring sedans. IMO, they are classics and icons in the history of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "GTO" an image of a '66 is instantly conjured up in my mind. A truly > beautiful design, IMO. I loved that car. It had wonderful little styling touches all through the car inside and out. Things like a real wood veneer dash face, the chromed steel grating on the console, the grill intake mesh, louvered tail lights (a feature only found on the 1966 model) and the small nostril hood scoop to name a few. It had a 389 with a Carter four barrel and a two speed auto. That combination wasn't the fastest but it was fun. It would shift to second at 70 mph and the rear would do a quick slide to the side when it shifted from a little tire spin. The car was very quick from 20-25 mph and up. Ahhh, the memories. > For the "rebirth" of the GTO to have had any chance at all, it should have > taken more styling cues from the 65-67's,... the "jelly bean" with a GTO > emblem was ill-conceived, at best. >I loved that car. It had wonderful little styling touches all through >the car inside and out. Things like a real wood veneer dash face, the >chromed steel grating on the console, the grill intake mesh, louvered >tail lights (a feature only found on the 1966 model) and the small >nostril hood scoop to name a few. It had a 389 with a Carter four >barrel and a two speed auto. Or 3 2bbl which they called Tri-power. A pity they dropped that option in '67. While it didn't make a whole lot of difference power-wise, it sure looked impressive. >> I loved that car. It had wonderful little styling touches all through >> the car inside and out. Things like a real wood veneer dash face, the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > '67. While it didn't make a whole lot of difference power-wise, it sure > looked impressive. I tried to find a Tri-Power setup but couldn't get a complete. They do look cool but, you're right, they didn't add much power. >>>>> If they wouldn't care if was called a plymouth they wouldn't care if >>>>> was called a Cuda either. It could be the Dodge Coelacanth.... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It was the expectations people had of the name, the car was true to the > early version of the GTO. Not hardly. It is a converted left hand drive import. Read up on the early GTOs. There is little in common with the last one. >> If D-C markets a Hemi Cuda worthy of the name it will sell regardless of >> whether it is a Dodge or Plymouth. Like Joe said, I don't remember >> hearing Plymouth Hemi Cuda much just Hemi Cuda. > > If it's worthy of the later car (as opposed to the early baracudas that > only had thrifty inline 6s), the name won't matter. Are you saying the early Cudas were not note worthy? My cousin hard one and it wasn't a boring car. Well you do think the early GTOs were boring so this opinion isn't much of a stretch for you. I'm glad you agree that the name won't matter. Plymouth Hemi Cuda verses Chrysler Hemi Cuda? Doesn't matter to me. >> It was the expectations people had of the name, the car was true to the >> early version of the GTO. > Not hardly. It is a converted left hand drive import. Read up on the > early GTOs. There is little in common with the last one. Both slightly gussied up family sedans with more punch. >>> If D-C markets a Hemi Cuda worthy of the name it will sell regardless of >>> whether it is a Dodge or Plymouth. Like Joe said, I don't remember >>> hearing Plymouth Hemi Cuda much just Hemi Cuda. >> If it's worthy of the later car (as opposed to the early baracudas that >> only had thrifty inline 6s), the name won't matter. > Are you saying the early Cudas were not note worthy? Not any more than any other 6 cylinder compact. > My cousin hard one and it wasn't a boring car. Well most people would say that six clyinder compacts are. I'm different than most... but if they put out something like they did in 1964 with only 6 cylinder engines it would fail today, don't ya think? > Well you do think the early GTOs were > boring so this opinion isn't much of a stretch for you. I wrote 'looks boring'. Read for comprehension much? >>> It was the expectations people had of the name, the car was true to the >>> early version of the GTO. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Both slightly gussied up family sedans with more punch. Which family sedan was it "gussied up" from? None sold here in the USA. >>>> If D-C markets a Hemi Cuda worthy of the name it will sell regardless of >>>> whether it is a Dodge or Plymouth. Like Joe said, I don't remember [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Not any more than any other 6 cylinder compact. If you say so. I guess the early I-6 Mustang was a boring compact too? >> My cousin hard one and it wasn't a boring car. > > Well most people would say that six clyinder compacts are. I'm different > than most... but if they put out something like they did in 1964 with > only 6 cylinder engines it would fail today, don't ya think? You do know that not all of them sported a six cylinder? >> Well you do think the early GTOs were >> boring so this opinion isn't much of a stretch for you. > > I wrote 'looks boring'. Read for comprehension much? I do OK. Reading text from a competent author makes comprehending things somewhat easier. >>>> It was the expectations people had of the name, the car was true to the >>>> early version of the GTO. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> Both slightly gussied up family sedans with more punch. > Which family sedan was it "gussied up" from? None sold here in the USA. And you complain about splitting hairs. The holden from which it came. >>>>> If D-C markets a Hemi Cuda worthy of the name it will sell regardless of >>>>> whether it is a Dodge or Plymouth. Like Joe said, I don't remember [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >>> Are you saying the early Cudas were not note worthy? >> Not any more than any other 6 cylinder compact. > If you say so. I guess the early I-6 Mustang was a boring compact too? Whatever floats your boat... remember you're saying they are boring, I am only saying that it isn't special or remarkable. And before you continue this, I'll remind you I have a 250 I6 maverick.... figure it out. >>> My cousin hard one and it wasn't a boring car. >> Well most people would say that six clyinder compacts are. I'm different >> than most... but if they put out something like they did in 1964 with >> only 6 cylinder engines it would fail today, don't ya think? > You do know that not all of them sported a six cylinder? The very early ones did according to the article I read today, and I specifically referenced those making it very clear. >>> Well you do think the early GTOs were >>> boring so this opinion isn't much of a stretch for you. >> >> I wrote 'looks boring'. Read for comprehension much? > I do OK. Reading text from a competent author makes comprehending > things somewhat easier. It's me because you can't put two simple words together. >>>>> It was the expectations people had of the name, the car was true to the >>>>> early version of the GTO. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And you complain about splitting hairs. The holden from which it came. You really don't see a major difference between a vintage and the last rendition of the GTO? Amazing! I can tell you one. The vintage one sold well and for a long time. The last one was still born. I wonder why? >>>>>> If D-C markets a Hemi Cuda worthy of the name it will sell regardless of >>>>>> whether it is a Dodge or Plymouth. Like Joe said, I don't remember [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > only saying that it isn't special or remarkable. And before you continue > this, I'll remind you I have a 250 I6 maverick.... figure it out. Is it boring too? >>>> My cousin hard one and it wasn't a boring car. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The very early ones did according to the article I read today, and I > specifically referenced those making it very clear. I guess we have dueling articles. Looks like it came with a 273 CI V-8 in 1964. In 1965 it got a stronger V-8 in its option list. Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Barracuda#1964-1966 BTW, take a look at the pictures. I don't see the original Cuda as being boring. In fact, its styling was somewhat unique for the period. >>>> Well you do think the early GTOs were >>>> boring so this opinion isn't much of a stretch for you. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It's me because you can't put two simple words together. Well I guess that is better than not being able to put two simple thoughts together. ;) > You really don't see a major difference between a vintage and the last > rendition of the GTO? Amazing! Ya know what, let me know when you're going to stop making stuff and assigning it to me and we can discuss things, until then forget it. I stated nothing of the sort and you damn well know it. >> You really don't see a major difference between a vintage and the last >> rendition of the GTO? Amazing! > > Ya know what, let me know when you're going to stop making stuff and > assigning it to me and we can discuss things, until then forget it. I > stated nothing of the sort and you damn well know it. Let me quote you from earlier in this thread: "It was the expectations people had of the name, the car was true to the early version of the GTO." >>> You really don't see a major difference between a vintage and the last >>> rendition of the GTO? Amazing! [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "It was the expectations people had of the name, the car was true to the > early version of the GTO." Which is about three universes away from what you assigned to me above. Of course there are major differences... It's been 40 years! >>>> You really don't see a major difference between a vintage and the last >>>> rendition of the GTO? Amazing! [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Of course there are major differences... It's been 40 years! I'm assigning you your own words. So now we have you saying it was true to the original and then saying there were major differences. Which is it? >>>>> You really don't see a major difference between a vintage and the last >>>>> rendition of the GTO? Amazing! [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I'm assigning you your own words. So now we have you saying it was true > to the original and then saying there were major differences. Which is it? It's been forty years. If you could get that carburated no seat belts tempest to pass current regs without major changes you'd be a miracle worker and should be an engineer for GM. Today's mustang has major differences from the ones that rolled out in '64... there's not even a compact to base it on any more. But it's the same theme right? Where's the falcon ? Shouldn't the mustang be based on an ordinary bread and butter compact under the skin? All that can be held on to is the general themes. The GTO held to one it had, it wasn't the one people expected though. >>>>>> You really don't see a major difference between a vintage and the last >>>>>> rendition of the GTO? Amazing! [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > tempest to pass current regs without major changes you'd be a miracle > worker and should be an engineer for GM. We are talking about the concept of the original GTO to the latest offering. Not about the technology used in either car. Of course there are major differences in technology but there were also major differences between the concepts employed in their development. > Today's mustang has major differences from the ones that rolled out in > '64... there's not even a compact to base it on any more. But it's the > same theme right? Where's the falcon ? Shouldn't the mustang be based on > an ordinary bread and butter compact under the skin? The Mustang has held true to the original in design and concept. That is why it is still around and the GTO is gone. > All that can be held on to is the general themes. The GTO held to one it > had, it wasn't the one people expected though. It wasn't what people expected because GM deviated too far from the original concept they used in the 1960s. >> It's been forty years. If you could get that carburated no seat belts >> tempest to pass current regs without major changes you'd be a miracle >> worker and should be an engineer for GM. > We are talking about the concept of the original GTO to the latest > offering. A family sedan made with more punch. That's the concept, that's what was done. > Not about the technology used in either car. Of course there > are major differences in technology but there were also major > differences between the concepts employed in their development. A family sedan with more punch, that's the concept of the development. >> Today's mustang has major differences from the ones that rolled out in >> '64... there's not even a compact to base it on any more. But it's the >> same theme right? Where's the falcon ? Shouldn't the mustang be based on >> an ordinary bread and butter compact under the skin? > The Mustang has held true to the original in design and concept. That > is why it is still around and the GTO is gone. You do know the car that the GTO was based on ended production.... But you could make various similiar gripes based on where the SN197 platform came from. >> All that can be held on to is the general themes. The GTO held to one it >> had, it wasn't the one people expected though. > It wasn't what people expected because GM deviated too far from the > original concept they used in the 1960s. It's a family sedan with more punch. That's the original concept, that's what the last one was. All your gripes of 'difference' are behind the scenes trivia that most people don't even concern themselves with knowing. When someone says GTO they expect this: http://home.rochester.rr.com/vampyres/images/1970%20Pontiac%20GTO%20Go%20Big%20L EAGUE!.jpg Not something that looks like an ordinary sedan. >>> It's been forty years. If you could get that carburated no seat belts >>> tempest to pass current regs without major changes you'd be a miracle [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > A family sedan made with more punch. That's the concept, that's what was > done. Let me better define the concept. Family sedan with more punch that was based off an existing, domestically mass produced chassis with a high bang for the buck factor. >> Not about the technology used in either car. Of course there >> are major differences in technology but there were also major >> differences between the concepts employed in their development. > > A family sedan with more punch, that's the concept of the development. >>> Today's mustang has major differences from the ones that rolled out in >>> '64... there's not even a compact to base it on any more. But it's the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > But you could make various similiar gripes based on where the SN197 > platform came from. The Mustang chassis is exclusively for the Mustang. Want to add another point to argue? >>> All that can be held on to is the general themes. The GTO held to one it >>> had, it wasn't the one people expected though. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Not something that looks like an ordinary sedan. Whatever it is someone expects from a GTO, the last one didn't deliver it. The first one did. What was different between them? Care to answer the question this time or are you just going to ignore it again? It the question too hard for you to answer? > Let me better define the concept. Family sedan with more punch that was > based off an existing, domestically mass produced chassis with a high > bang for the buck factor. A mustang is a smallish sporty car based off a domestically mass produced small family car chasis with a high bang for the buck factor. What small family car is the current production mustang based off of? If you get detailed enough you can disqualify whatever you want. > The Mustang chassis is exclusively for the Mustang. Want to add another > point to argue? Then it isn't truthful to the original by your own detailed standards. >> Let me better define the concept. Family sedan with more punch that was >> based off an existing, domestically mass produced chassis with a high [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > If you get detailed enough you can disqualify whatever you want. You dodged the question again. >> The Mustang chassis is exclusively for the Mustang. Want to add another >> point to argue? > > Then it isn't truthful to the original by your own detailed standards. If you can't see the difference between the current Mustang offering relative to its past and the last GTO relative to its past then you are beyond hope or help. >>> Let me better define the concept. Family sedan with more punch that was >>> based off an existing, domestically mass produced chassis with a high >>> bang for the buck factor. >> A mustang is a smallish sporty car based off a domestically mass produced >> small family car chasis with a high bang for the buck factor. >> What small family car is the current production mustang based off of? >> If you get detailed enough you can disqualify whatever you want. > You dodged the question again. You didn't ask one. >>> The Mustang chassis is exclusively for the Mustang. Want to add another >>> point to argue? >> Then it isn't truthful to the original by your own detailed standards. > If you can't see the difference between the current Mustang offering > relative to its past and the last GTO relative to its past then you are > beyond hope or help. I can tell the difference, but logically your standard is invalid because it does not support your conclusions in both cases. >>>> Let me better define the concept. Family sedan with more punch that was >>>> based off an existing, domestically mass produced chassis with a high [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You didn't ask one. If you are really this dense then I feel sorry for you. >>>> The Mustang chassis is exclusively for the Mustang. Want to add another >>>> point to argue? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I can tell the difference, but logically your standard is invalid because > it does not support your conclusions in both cases. So, are you morphing the discussion into another topic again? You're like that kid in the Family Circle cartoon running all over the neighborhood. >>>>> Let me better define the concept. Family sedan with more punch that was >>>>> based off an existing, domestically mass produced chassis with a high [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > If you are really this dense then I feel sorry for you. You can be insulting, but you did not ask a question, you made a statement. I then asked a question in reply to that statment. >>>>> The Mustang chassis is exclusively for the Mustang. Want to add another >>>>> point to argue? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> I can tell the difference, but logically your standard is invalid because >> it does not support your conclusions in both cases. > So, are you morphing the discussion into another topic again? You're > like that kid in the Family Circle cartoon running all over the > neighborhood. Logical evaluation of your standard is not changing the subject. >>>>>> Let me better define the concept. Family sedan with more punch that was >>>>>> based off an existing, domestically mass produced chassis with a high [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > You can be insulting, but you did not ask a question, you made a > statement. I then asked a question in reply to that statment. You must be a real treat to interact with IRL. >>>>>> The Mustang chassis is exclusively for the Mustang. Want to add another >>>>>> point to argue? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Logical evaluation of your standard is not changing the subject. You are not capable of logical evaluation. > You must be a real treat to interact with IRL. > You are not capable of logical evaluation. When in doubt remove all argument and leave only insult! >> You must be a real treat to interact with IRL. >> You are not capable of logical evaluation. > > When in doubt remove all argument and leave only insult! Thanks for explaining your strategy. I would have never figured it out. >>> You must be a real treat to interact with IRL. >>> You are not capable of logical evaluation. >> >> When in doubt remove all argument and leave only insult! > > Thanks for explaining your strategy. I would have never figured it out. I see you've completely regressed to grade school... good day. >>>> You must be a real treat to interact with IRL. >>>> You are not capable of logical evaluation. >>> When in doubt remove all argument and leave only insult! >> Thanks for explaining your strategy. I would have never figured it out. > > I see you've completely regressed to grade school... good day. If that is true then we must be class mates. >> You dodged the question again. > > You didn't ask one. Talk about lacking logic... Since you seem unable to follow along Brent, I'll post Michael's question here for the third time for your viewing pleasure... Whatever it is someone expects from a GTO, the last one didn't deliver it. The first one did. What was different between them? Care to answer the question this time or are you just going to ignore it again? Is the question too hard for you to answer? >>> You dodged the question again. >> You didn't ask one. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > question this time or are you just going to ignore it again? Is the question > too hard for you to answer? Give it up. He can't get his mind around the question or he does and knows the answer will sink his pretzel logic. Funny how he always ends up in this position no matter what the topic may be. > Give it up. He can't get his mind around the question or he does and > knows the answer will sink his pretzel logic. Funny how he always ends > up in this position no matter what the topic may be. It would seem that way to someone such as yourself. >> Give it up. He can't get his mind around the question or he does and >> knows the answer will sink his pretzel logic. Funny how he always ends >> up in this position no matter what the topic may be. > > It would seem that way to someone such as yourself. It would seem that way to anybody with a little common sense. >>> You dodged the question again. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Since you seem unable to follow along Brent, I'll post Michael's question > here for the third time for your viewing pleasure... > Whatever it is someone expects from a GTO, the last one didn't deliver it. > The first one did. What was different between them? Care to answer the > question this time or are you just going to ignore it again? Is the question > too hard for you to answer? That question was not where he was claiming I 'didn't answer one' He claimed I didn't answer a question where none had been asked, where he had made a statement, but I am supposed to magically know out which part of which post he is complaining about? Secondly, it's irrelevant. It's like asking why did the '05 mustang sell so poorly compared to the '64 mustang? Thirdly, it's impossible to answer. Which 'difference'? The cars probably don't even share so much as a common light bulb or screw. They just share a very basic theme. Fourthly, I answered it multiple times, telling him it's not 1964 anymore, 40 years had passed by, that makes for a huge amount of difference. All that is left is basic concept. Thusly, It's nothing more than distraction, nothing more than tactic. A lot has changed with cars since 1974 and even more since 1964. Maybe practically nobody wants a hopped up family sedan any more. Note the maurader also failed on the market. It had all american chasis and base car.... no blaming it on being a foreign market platform there. >>>> You dodged the question again. >>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > also failed on the market. It had all american chasis and base car.... no > blaming it on being a foreign market platform there. We are not talking about how different the cars of the 60's and 70's cars are from those of today. That is self evident. We are saying GM can't just slap a old well liked name badge on a car that has ZERO styling ques of that car and expect the fans of that name plate to jump on board with it. This was proven, by the lack luster sales and short 2 year run... Just saw a Marauder today, this car did not fail for the same reason the newest GTO did. Some of the reasons the Marauder failed are because Ford keeps trying to build sports sedans, but can't seem to understand who their market is for sports sedans. The SHO died because of this. Ford decided they would appeal to a larger market, softened the tires and suspension, toss in a slush-box-only and hum, no more sports sedan. The Marauder needed about 100 more horsepower then it came with and they absolutely needed a manual transmission. If Ford would have aimed it at true driving enthusiast rather than the "RICE" crowd I would have bought one, well if they would have been less anemic and had a manual transmission.... Ford seems to have figured out what I want with the Shelby GT500, but now they won't build enough to go around.... Now how nice would the Marauder be with the GT500's 500 horsepower engine and 6 speed gearbox? I would buy one... > We are not talking about how different the cars of the 60's and 70's cars > are from those of today. That is self evident. We are saying GM can't > just slap a old well liked name badge on a car that has ZERO styling ques of > that car and expect the fans of that name plate to jump on board with it. > This was proven, by the lack luster sales and short 2 year run... Like the '74 GTO or the 80s 422, or the current malibu or impala.... > Just saw a Marauder today, this car did not fail for the same reason the > newest GTO did. Nah... when ford changes around the trim on a boring sedan and slaps a classic badge on it without any of the classic styling cues.... it's different... > Some of the reasons the Marauder failed are because Ford keeps trying to > build sports sedans, but can't seem to understand who their market is for > sports sedans. Sure it's not because it lacked any Marauder styling cues? > The Marauder needed about 100 more horsepower then it came with and they > absolutely needed a manual transmission. If Ford would have aimed it at > true driving enthusiast rather than the "RICE" crowd I would have bought > one, well if they would have been less anemic and had a manual > transmission.... That's what happens when you base it on a existing car like that.... but wait... when GM did that it was a horrible abortion of a car... with ford it was just misguided and dumb. > Ford seems to have figured out what I want with the Shelby GT500, but now > they won't build enough to go around.... Gee... who saw that coming? > Now how nice would the Marauder be with the GT500's 500 horsepower engine > and 6 speed gearbox? I would buy one... In a crown victoria / gran marquis body without any Marauder styling cues? >A lot has changed with cars since 1974 and even more since 1964. Maybe >practically nobody wants a hopped up family sedan any more. They sell the hell out of Hemi 300s and Chargers... -- lab~rat >:-) Do you want polite or do you want sincere? > In article <V--dnQO4XPMG9GzYnZ2dnUVZ_oLin...@giganews.com>, Michael Johnson wrote: > >> In article <IuCdnUK6ldJofG3YnZ2dnUVZWhedn...@giganews.com>, Michael Johnson wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > All that can be held on to is the general themes. The GTO held to one it > had, it wasn't the one people expected though. Some random thoughts: The '64 GTO was an option package on the Tempest. It was a bare minimum to get the project off the ground. John DeLorean was sneaking it under the radar of the GM ban on big car engines in intermediates, and did not want to attract too much attention prior to the roll-out, by adding a bunch of distinctive features. The '64 Tempest may or may not have been intended to be boring. What it was intended to do was to make the buying public forget all about the '61-'63, which was probably the worst modern domestic ever. A Corvair transaxle with swing axles designed to flip you over in hard cornering. A sliced in half V8 that shook so bad it required a rope drive shaft to try to cope. A truly nasty little vehicle. The Barracuda always had an available with a V8. In '65 -- the second year of production -- it got a 235 hp solid lifter 273-4v that was as strong and probably had more potential than the Ford Hi-Po 289 sitting in the Shelby Cobras and the K-code and GT350 Mustangs of the day. In the '66 Trans Am series, Mustangs won the season manufacturer's title with 46 points to the Barracuda's 39. Adding the Barracuda's 39 and Dodge Dart's 33 got you to 62 total Mopar points. The 225 ci slant six was far torquier than the equivalent Ford and not to be disdained, for what it was. Funny to see the classic Cuda exalted for its inherent wonderfulness and the modern GTO scorned for its poor sales. The '70-'74 Cudas were terrible cars AND did not sell, both. In particular they could not give away the Hemis and 440-6v's. That's why they're so expensive now -- that Plymouth made so few of them when they were new. For example, only 11 '71 Hemi verts found buyers. I would guess that's one-tenth the number of Ferrari Daytona Spyders sold in that same model year. The modern GTO blew away the hi-po Cudas in sales, and will do the same thing in any measure of performance, comfort or utility. So it's funny to scorn the GTO just because Ma and Pa Yahoo preferred an Explorer in their driveway, unless you're going to apply the same yardstick to the classic Barracuda. I don't know why this thought occurs to me, but the Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8 remains one of the quickest Hemis of all time. It's 13.2 @ 104 -- http://www.autofacts.ca/classics/fast.htm -- is better than most the magazine tests of 426 hemi cars "in the day." I guess the thought occurs because I'm in Cuda-bashing mode. Fraudulent and stupid cars. Sorry if any of these points have already been made; I did not read every post in this thread. 180 Out >>>> marketing now... Challenger with a Hemi. Then, if they are smart, a >>>> Hemi Cuda will appear. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > called a Cuda either. It could be the Dodge Coelacanth.... > http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/InNews/prehistoric2006.html I disagree... > >> marketing now... Challenger with a Hemi. Then, if they are smart, a > >> Hemi Cuda will appear. > > How does one have a Plymouth Barracuda without a Plymouth? > If I were D-C I would rebrand it a Dodge in a second. There's too much > marketing power behind the name to ignore, IMO. Much more |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message