"Rich" > wrote in message
...
> On Jul 28, 2:04 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>> dwight wrote:
>> > "Rich" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> The traditional idea of a muscle car was a stripped-down product, with
>> >> power. In later years (1970-71) the muscle car version of a line
>> >> became almost a luxury vehicle. Now, Ford only knows that kind.
>> >> Check out the sticker on a convertible GT in Toronto, Canada.
>>
>> >> $45k, plus $3000 insurance (way more if you are younger) and $3000/yr
>> >> in gas means this car costs about the same as the mortgage to a
>> >> medium-
>> >> priced condo or a cheap house.
>>
>> >>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/100830683
>>
>> > Is there a point here? Are you somehow mad at Ford for not putting
>> > "muscle cars" in the hands of more young people?
>>
>> > I don't get it.
>>
>> This guy resides in my kill file because he is a low grade troll. He
>> posts the same worthless crap in the photography newsgroups and gets
>> slapped around their too.
>
> $45,000. In 1988, $16,500 for an LX 5.0 or less. 240,000 sold in
> 1988. 2008....? Case closed.

Sorry, not. There are too many variables behind those numbers to just spit
them out and think that it proves something.

You're completely discounting inflation, trends, evolution of taste and
style, and the simple fact that NOBODY GIVES A CRAP about muscle cars
anymore.

But you just rest now. Your brain must be tired.

dwight