A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Ford Mustang
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell cars now)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 29th 08, 04:51 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Spike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 413
Default Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell cars now)

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:12:10 -0500, "WindsorFox<SS>"
> wrote:

>dwight wrote:
>> "Spike" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Don't take this as a negative directed at you, but how old are you?
>>>
>>> The following is not to say how it was so good back in the day, but as
>>> an illustration of how similar it was. And cars of that era were
>>> rusting out, had lower mileage, less safety features, etc.
>>>
>>> Being over 30+ (x2 :0) When I graduated high school in 1966, you could
>>> buy a brand new Mustang for under $3,000. At that time, incomes were a
>>> lot lower. As a Ranch Hand in Merced, CA, I made $76.10 per week
>>> working 5.5 days from sun up to sun down. As a Manager Trainee in a
>>> grocery store in 1966, I made $500 per month no matter how many hours
>>> I worked.

>>
>>> snip gold standard era history lesson<

>>
>> Preach on, Spike. I remember when the new VW Beetles jumped from $1,595
>> to $1,795. When we married, my wife and I bought a brand new 1978
>> Mustang II (a nice little six-cylinder hatchback model), and stretched
>> for it - an incredible $5,000. The monthly payments were $108, and there
>> were many months when we couldn't manage to pay on time.
>>
>> Somewhere around here, I still have a 1972 Ford price sheet for the new
>> Mustangs, with a Chinese menu of available options. $3,000 would have
>> bought a nicely-equipped model, but who could afford $3,000 in 1972?
>>
>> dwight
>> (damn, we're old)
>>
>>

>
> Heh, here ya go gramps, take a look at this...
>
>http://www.shamikaserver.com/ssforum...2033#post82033
>
>or
>
>http://tinyurl.com/5weq5o



Saw that one a few weeks ago and told the friend who sent it to look
close and she'd notice that a burger and fries isn't even on the menu.
:0)
Ads
  #12  
Old July 29th 08, 04:54 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Spike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 413
Default Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell cars now)

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:59:28 -0400, "dwight" >
wrote:

>"Spike" > wrote in message
.. .
>>
>> Don't take this as a negative directed at you, but how old are you?
>>
>> The following is not to say how it was so good back in the day, but as
>> an illustration of how similar it was. And cars of that era were
>> rusting out, had lower mileage, less safety features, etc.
>>
>> Being over 30+ (x2 :0) When I graduated high school in 1966, you could
>> buy a brand new Mustang for under $3,000. At that time, incomes were a
>> lot lower. As a Ranch Hand in Merced, CA, I made $76.10 per week
>> working 5.5 days from sun up to sun down. As a Manager Trainee in a
>> grocery store in 1966, I made $500 per month no matter how many hours
>> I worked.

>
>>snip gold standard era history lesson<

>
>Preach on, Spike. I remember when the new VW Beetles jumped from $1,595 to
>$1,795. When we married, my wife and I bought a brand new 1978 Mustang II (a
>nice little six-cylinder hatchback model), and stretched for it - an
>incredible $5,000. The monthly payments were $108, and there were many
>months when we couldn't manage to pay on time.
>
>Somewhere around here, I still have a 1972 Ford price sheet for the new
>Mustangs, with a Chinese menu of available options. $3,000 would have bought
>a nicely-equipped model, but who could afford $3,000 in 1972?
>
>dwight
>(damn, we're old)
>

By the way, when my dad was flying Air Sea Rescue missions out of
Scotland in 1959, he bought a VW bug straight from the factory for
$1212 fully equipped. He traded it in on a Ford SW in 1963 and got
$1260. The SW went through 3 engines in the first 6 months.
  #13  
Old July 29th 08, 04:56 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Spike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 413
Default Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell cars now)

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 07:28:51 -0400, "dwight" >
wrote:

>"WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote in message
...
>> dwight wrote:
>>> "Spike" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Don't take this as a negative directed at you, but how old are you?
>>>>
>>>> The following is not to say how it was so good back in the day, but as
>>>> an illustration of how similar it was. And cars of that era were
>>>> rusting out, had lower mileage, less safety features, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Being over 30+ (x2 :0) When I graduated high school in 1966, you could
>>>> buy a brand new Mustang for under $3,000. At that time, incomes were a
>>>> lot lower. As a Ranch Hand in Merced, CA, I made $76.10 per week
>>>> working 5.5 days from sun up to sun down. As a Manager Trainee in a
>>>> grocery store in 1966, I made $500 per month no matter how many hours
>>>> I worked.
>>>
>>>> snip gold standard era history lesson<
>>>
>>> Preach on, Spike. I remember when the new VW Beetles jumped from $1,595
>>> to $1,795. When we married, my wife and I bought a brand new 1978 Mustang
>>> II (a nice little six-cylinder hatchback model), and stretched for it -
>>> an incredible $5,000. The monthly payments were $108, and there were many
>>> months when we couldn't manage to pay on time.
>>>
>>> Somewhere around here, I still have a 1972 Ford price sheet for the new
>>> Mustangs, with a Chinese menu of available options. $3,000 would have
>>> bought a nicely-equipped model, but who could afford $3,000 in 1972?
>>>
>>> dwight
>>> (damn, we're old)
>>>
>>>

>>
>> Heh, here ya go gramps, take a look at this...
>>
>> http://www.shamikaserver.com/ssforum...2033#post82033
>>
>> or
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/5weq5o

>
>Hah! Not just 25-cent milk shakes, but wonderful, real, full-of-ice-cream
>milk shakes. And comic books, 3-for-a-quarter.
>
>In other words, the numbers may have changed, but the relativity hasn't.
>
>dwight
>

Dang! I think you have finally found proof of Eisensteen's Theory of
Relativity. All this time and I still though the proof was in how many
unknown relatives showed up for the reading of the will.
  #14  
Old July 29th 08, 04:58 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Spike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 413
Default Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell cars now)

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:26:19 -0400, Falcon Guy
> wrote:

>Not a chance in hell of getting a condo or cheap house in Toronto at
>that price. Maybe if you were trying to buy two GT40's.
>
>Rich wrote:
>> 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


What? Toronto doesn't have any slums? :0) LOL
  #15  
Old July 29th 08, 06:51 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
WindsorFox[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 234
Default Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell carsnow)

dwight wrote:
> "WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote in message
> ...
>> dwight wrote:
>>> "Spike" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Don't take this as a negative directed at you, but how old are you?
>>>>
>>>> The following is not to say how it was so good back in the day, but as
>>>> an illustration of how similar it was. And cars of that era were
>>>> rusting out, had lower mileage, less safety features, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Being over 30+ (x2 :0) When I graduated high school in 1966, you could
>>>> buy a brand new Mustang for under $3,000. At that time, incomes were a
>>>> lot lower. As a Ranch Hand in Merced, CA, I made $76.10 per week
>>>> working 5.5 days from sun up to sun down. As a Manager Trainee in a
>>>> grocery store in 1966, I made $500 per month no matter how many hours
>>>> I worked.
>>>
>>>> snip gold standard era history lesson<
>>>
>>> Preach on, Spike. I remember when the new VW Beetles jumped from
>>> $1,595 to $1,795. When we married, my wife and I bought a brand new
>>> 1978 Mustang II (a nice little six-cylinder hatchback model), and
>>> stretched for it - an incredible $5,000. The monthly payments were
>>> $108, and there were many months when we couldn't manage to pay on time.
>>>
>>> Somewhere around here, I still have a 1972 Ford price sheet for the
>>> new Mustangs, with a Chinese menu of available options. $3,000 would
>>> have bought a nicely-equipped model, but who could afford $3,000 in
>>> 1972?
>>>
>>> dwight
>>> (damn, we're old)
>>>
>>>

>>
>> Heh, here ya go gramps, take a look at this...
>>
>> http://www.shamikaserver.com/ssforum...2033#post82033
>>
>> or
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/5weq5o

>
> Hah! Not just 25-cent milk shakes, but wonderful, real,
> full-of-ice-cream milk shakes. And comic books, 3-for-a-quarter.
>
> In other words, the numbers may have changed, but the relativity hasn't.
>
> dwight
>
>


We have a local place that was an Independent Rexall Drug store since
the 50's with a lunch counter. Dearman's Drugs, the couple retired and
after being screwed up by a poor 2nd owner has reopened as "Dearman's"
and is just a lunch spot with the food as close to original as can be.
But stuff is excellent, but the burgers are more than 40 cents and the
shakes are NOT a quarter.

--



TEACHER: Harold, what do you call a person who keeps on
talking when people are no longer interested?

HAROLD: A teacher
  #16  
Old July 30th 08, 12:57 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
dwight[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 118
Default Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell cars now)

"WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Hah! Not just 25-cent milk shakes, but wonderful, real, full-of-ice-cream
>> milk shakes. And comic books, 3-for-a-quarter.
>>
>> In other words, the numbers may have changed, but the relativity hasn't.
>>
>> dwight

>
> We have a local place that was an Independent Rexall Drug store since the
> 50's with a lunch counter. Dearman's Drugs, the couple retired and after
> being screwed up by a poor 2nd owner has reopened as "Dearman's" and is
> just a lunch spot with the food as close to original as can be. But stuff
> is excellent, but the burgers are more than 40 cents and the shakes are
> NOT a quarter.


Were there any chains in the 50's? I can't remember (because I was 6 in
1960). In my memory, the drug store was a place that had a counter with
stools, where you could sit down and get a cherry cola for a dime. And the
counterperson had to mix the cola with cherry syrup for you - it wasn't
prepackaged that way.

We used to go into downtown Philadelphia once in a while, and a great time
was feeding nickles into the slots for your choice of a la carte lunch at
Horn and Hardart. Everything from sandwiches to pies was behind glass, and
you'd put in your 15cents to 50cents, one nickle at a time, to get what you
wanted.

)


  #17  
Old July 30th 08, 01:34 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Spike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 413
Default Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell cars now)

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:57:58 -0400, "dwight" >
wrote:

>"WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> Hah! Not just 25-cent milk shakes, but wonderful, real, full-of-ice-cream
>>> milk shakes. And comic books, 3-for-a-quarter.
>>>
>>> In other words, the numbers may have changed, but the relativity hasn't.
>>>
>>> dwight

>>
>> We have a local place that was an Independent Rexall Drug store since the
>> 50's with a lunch counter. Dearman's Drugs, the couple retired and after
>> being screwed up by a poor 2nd owner has reopened as "Dearman's" and is
>> just a lunch spot with the food as close to original as can be. But stuff
>> is excellent, but the burgers are more than 40 cents and the shakes are
>> NOT a quarter.

>
>Were there any chains in the 50's? I can't remember (because I was 6 in
>1960). In my memory, the drug store was a place that had a counter with
>stools, where you could sit down and get a cherry cola for a dime. And the
>counterperson had to mix the cola with cherry syrup for you - it wasn't
>prepackaged that way.
>
>We used to go into downtown Philadelphia once in a while, and a great time
>was feeding nickles into the slots for your choice of a la carte lunch at
>Horn and Hardart. Everything from sandwiches to pies was behind glass, and
>you'd put in your 15cents to 50cents, one nickle at a time, to get what you
>wanted.
>
>)
>


There WERE chains in the 1950s. F. W. Woolworths (which became WoolCo)
had soda fountains. The Creamery.

It's a fog, but my memory is that A&W existed.

Giant Orange for sure. All their stands were shaped like a giant
orange. Go figure. There were a bunch of those throughout California
along the main highways.

And what about Howard Johnsons? Or Stukeys souvenier stands along the
interstate?

  #18  
Old July 30th 08, 01:59 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Rich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 82
Default Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell cars now)

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.
  #19  
Old July 30th 08, 01:59 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Rich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 82
Default Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell cars now)

On Jul 28, 9:26*pm, Falcon Guy > wrote:
> Not a chance in hell of getting a condo or cheap house in Toronto at
> that price. *Maybe if you were trying to buy two *GT40's.
>
> Rich wrote:
> > 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


$250,000 mortgage at 7.5% for the condo.
  #20  
Old July 30th 08, 02:01 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Rich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 82
Default Idea of the muscle car is dead (Or, why Ford can't sell cars now)

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.


Hyundai just announced a 360hp V8. Wonder what it'll cost? Pontiac's
G8, what does it cost?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New - Mercury Muscle Cars Muscle Car Color History Book, Cover - Front.jpg 255893 bytes HEMI-Powered@[email protected] Auto Photos 0 April 23rd 08 01:02 PM
New - Mercury Muscle Cars Muscle Car Color History Book, Cover - Back.jpg 242202 bytes HEMI-Powered@[email protected] Auto Photos 0 April 23rd 08 01:01 PM
A whole new way to buy & sell muscle cars on the net. [email protected] Antique cars 0 January 23rd 05 09:35 AM
A whole new way to buy & sell muscle cars on the net. [email protected] Antique cars 0 January 23rd 05 09:31 AM
New place to buy and sell muscle cars on the net. [email protected] Antique cars 0 January 23rd 05 09:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.