richard wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 14:41:30 -0500, WindsorFox<[SS]> wrote:
>
>> richard wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 07:57:57 -0700 (PDT), boyari2 wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's the original muscle car that spawned all the other imitators,
>>>> isn't it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://surftofind.com/car
>>> Sorry, not the original muscle car.
>>>
>>> http://www.autoevolution.com/news/mu...-gto-5493.html
>>>
>>> The original was a 1964 Pontiac GTO "The Goat".
>>>
>>> Your pictured mustang was a piece of ****.
>>> A 1963 plymouth Belvedere with a stock 318 could run circles around that
>>> mustang with ease.
>>>
>>> Personally, I owned a 1968 Dodge Coronet Station Wagon with a 383 and a
>>> holley 750 quad. Your mustang would still be at the line while I was
>>> halfway down the strip.
>>
>> I think you are a troll, but tell me by looking at that picture
>> which engine is in that Mustang? The two most common ones have the same
>> power as a 318 did in 1963. Comparing a 335 HP station wagon with a 235
>> hp or more Mustang would be a bad idea, I'd still put my money on the
>> Mustang even with only th 4V 302 simply because of the weight
>> difference. If it were a 390 or bigger, you're hosed.
>
> The 67 mustang fastback as pictured here was and still is a piece of ****.


That's an opinion, AFAIC so are you.

> How many of them are sought after by collectors today? None.

As opposed to what, a 63 Belvadere? GMAFB

> The OP claimed the 67 mustang shown was the original muscle car.

And I corrected him without offending half of Usenet or being a
dickhead about it.

> Goes to show he dont know **** about cars.

It was a troll. Are you new to Usenet?

--
..



"Uhoh, well that shouldn't have happened..." - Mike Holmes