Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="audioholic" data-source="post: 5970484" data-attributes="member: 549629">You cant compare the cars in a vacuum. Your statements were that the new car is a waste because if someone wants a car that looks like an old one, they will buy an old one. When I mention you are comparing an antique muscle car with very little in the way of technological conveniences aimed at comuting in the modern world, your reply is you were only talking about looks. Well, what if someone wanrs a car that LOOKS like an old one, but performs like a modern car that you can easily comute in? Sure, we could all run out and spend $100k to buy a 69 and have a shop modify/modernize it, or we could jsut run down to the dealership and buy a new camaro (or challenger for that matter) for a small fraction of that price. Some of you are forgetting the sticker price of a decent 69 &#039;maro these days, go look it up.Driving a turbo&#039;d 89 mustang daily is a far cry from driving a cammed out bigblock antique with a manual transmission or stall converter, no AC, Vinyl seats, and parts that are hard to locate/purchase anymore. Again, your analysis of &#039;if someone wants an extremely popular car of yesteryear, than buy that car, not some new car that &quot;looks&quot; kinda the same&#039; is you merely looking at the aesthetics of the cars, and not thinking the entire thought through before laying down your judgement on the viability of the design. Your half-thought has been noted, thanks for that.Detroit has tried &#039;new design&#039; cues for plenty of years, some with sucess, some without. But muscle cars from the late 60&#039;s have been extremely popular for a couple decades now as collectables, and IMO Detroit trying to cash in on that nostalgia and remind us of their &#039;golden era&#039; was quite smart of them. Say what you want about how it looks, how it performs, whatever... you cannot deny this generation of Camaro has generated more buzz than any other gen released in my lifetime or yours.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="audioholic, post: 5970484, member: 549629"] You cant compare the cars in a vacuum. Your statements were that the new car is a waste because if someone wants a car that looks like an old one, they will buy an old one. When I mention you are comparing an antique muscle car with very little in the way of technological conveniences aimed at comuting in the modern world, your reply is you were only talking about looks. Well, what if someone wanrs a car that LOOKS like an old one, but performs like a modern car that you can easily comute in? Sure, we could all run out and spend $100k to buy a 69 and have a shop modify/modernize it, or we could jsut run down to the dealership and buy a new camaro (or challenger for that matter) for a small fraction of that price. Some of you are forgetting the sticker price of a decent 69 'maro these days, go look it up. Driving a turbo'd 89 mustang daily is a far cry from driving a cammed out bigblock antique with a manual transmission or stall converter, no AC, Vinyl seats, and parts that are hard to locate/purchase anymore. Again, your analysis of 'if someone wants an extremely popular car of yesteryear, than buy that car, not some new car that "looks" kinda the same' is you merely looking at the aesthetics of the cars, and not thinking the entire thought through before laying down your judgement on the viability of the design. Your half-thought has been noted, thanks for that. Detroit has tried 'new design' cues for plenty of years, some with sucess, some without. But muscle cars from the late 60's have been extremely popular for a couple decades now as collectables, and IMO Detroit trying to cash in on that nostalgia and remind us of their 'golden era' was quite smart of them. Say what you want about how it looks, how it performs, whatever... you cannot deny this generation of Camaro has generated more buzz than any other gen released in my lifetime or yours. [/QUOTE]

Verification