Mustang Sales, Specialty Models

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
...
> dwight wrote:

>>
>> This would be a great time for the rebirth of AMC.
>
> My Mother drove a 1979 four wheel drive Eagle for a couple of years. It
> was a decent car in its day and somewhat ahead of its time.

Naw, something more on the order of the little 1971-1974 Javelin AMX ...

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:
>
>> 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.

My Name Is Nobody wrote:
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> In article >, Michael
>> Johnson wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> In article >, Michael
>>>> Johnson wrote:
>>> 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?

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.

My Name Is Nobody wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> dwight wrote:
>
>>> This would be a great time for the rebirth of AMC.
>> My Mother drove a 1979 four wheel drive Eagle for a couple of years. It
>> was a decent car in its day and somewhat ahead of its time.
>
> Naw, something more on the order of the little 1971-1974 Javelin AMX ...

The are better models to bring back to life but AMC was ahead of the
curve with the Eagle. It had four doors, great ground clearance,
compact and got decent mileage. Here's more than you ever cared to know
about the car: http://amceaglenest.com/history1980.html

In article <8RpIh.346$mh7.71@trnddc04>, My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> In article >, Michael
>> Johnson wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> In article >, Michael
>>>> Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> 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?

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.

In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> 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.

In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:

> 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.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:
>
>> 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.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article <8RpIh.346$mh7.71@trnddc04>, My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>>
>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> In article >, Michael
>>> Johnson wrote:
>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>> In article >, Michael
>>>>> Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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?
>
> 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.


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...