Mustang Sales, Specialty Models

John C. wrote:
> "Thomas Hart" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 17:33:56 -0500 Michael Johnson > wrote
>> in Message id: >:
>>
>>> You're the first person I have ever heard refer to the early GTO's as
>>> boring sedans. IMO, they are classics and icons in the history of
>>> muscles cars. I drove a 1966 GTO for awhile and thought (still do) it
>>> was one of the best looking cars ever produced. A true classic in every
>>> sense of the word.
>> I've got to agree with you there, but the '64 was a bit boring. The 65-67
>> Goats were, IMO, the best looking cars that Detroit ever produced.
>
> It's good to know I'm not the only person who feels that way. When I think
> "GTO" an image of a '66 is instantly conjured up in my mind. A truly
> beautiful design, IMO.

I loved that car. It had wonderful little styling touches all through
the car inside and out. Things like a real wood veneer dash face, the
chromed steel grating on the console, the grill intake mesh, louvered
tail lights (a feature only found on the 1966 model) and the small
nostril hood scoop to name a few. It had a 389 with a Carter four
barrel and a two speed auto. That combination wasn't the fastest but it
was fun. It would shift to second at 70 mph and the rear would do a
quick slide to the side when it shifted from a little tire spin. The
car was very quick from 20-25 mph and up. Ahhh, the memories.

> For the "rebirth" of the GTO to have had any chance at all, it should have
> taken more styling cues from the 65-67's,... the "jelly bean" with a GTO
> emblem was ill-conceived, at best.
>

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:
>
>> Let me better define the concept. Family sedan with more punch that was
>> based off an existing, domestically mass produced chassis with a high
>> bang for the buck factor.
>
> A mustang is a smallish sporty car based off a domestically mass produced
> small family car chasis with a high bang for the buck factor.
>
> What small family car is the current production mustang based off of?
>
> If you get detailed enough you can disqualify whatever you want.

You dodged the question again.

>> The Mustang chassis is exclusively for the Mustang. Want to add another
>> point to argue?
>
> Then it isn't truthful to the original by your own detailed standards.

If you can't see the difference between the current Mustang offering
relative to its past and the last GTO relative to its past then you are
beyond hope or help.

In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> Let me better define the concept. Family sedan with more punch that was
>>> based off an existing, domestically mass produced chassis with a high
>>> bang for the buck factor.

>> A mustang is a smallish sporty car based off a domestically mass produced
>> small family car chasis with a high bang for the buck factor.

>> What small family car is the current production mustang based off of?
>> If you get detailed enough you can disqualify whatever you want.

> You dodged the question again.

You didn't ask one.

>>> The Mustang chassis is exclusively for the Mustang. Want to add another
>>> point to argue?

>> Then it isn't truthful to the original by your own detailed standards.

> If you can't see the difference between the current Mustang offering
> relative to its past and the last GTO relative to its past then you are
> beyond hope or help.

I can tell the difference, but logically your standard is invalid because
it does not support your conclusions in both cases.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Let me better define the concept. Family sedan with more punch that was
>>>> based off an existing, domestically mass produced chassis with a high
>>>> bang for the buck factor.
>
>>> A mustang is a smallish sporty car based off a domestically mass produced
>>> small family car chasis with a high bang for the buck factor.
>
>>> What small family car is the current production mustang based off of?
>>> If you get detailed enough you can disqualify whatever you want.
>
>> You dodged the question again.
>
> You didn't ask one.

If you are really this dense then I feel sorry for you.

>>>> The Mustang chassis is exclusively for the Mustang. Want to add another
>>>> point to argue?
>
>>> Then it isn't truthful to the original by your own detailed standards.
>
>> If you can't see the difference between the current Mustang offering
>> relative to its past and the last GTO relative to its past then you are
>> beyond hope or help.
>
> I can tell the difference, but logically your standard is invalid because
> it does not support your conclusions in both cases.

So, are you morphing the discussion into another topic again? You're
like that kid in the Family Circle cartoon running all over the
neighborhood.

In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Let me better define the concept. Family sedan with more punch that was
>>>>> based off an existing, domestically mass produced chassis with a high
>>>>> bang for the buck factor.
>>
>>>> A mustang is a smallish sporty car based off a domestically mass produced
>>>> small family car chasis with a high bang for the buck factor.
>>
>>>> What small family car is the current production mustang based off of?
>>>> If you get detailed enough you can disqualify whatever you want.
>>
>>> You dodged the question again.
>>
>> You didn't ask one.
>
> If you are really this dense then I feel sorry for you.

You can be insulting, but you did not ask a question, you made a
statement. I then asked a question in reply to that statment.

>>>>> The Mustang chassis is exclusively for the Mustang. Want to add another
>>>>> point to argue?
>>
>>>> Then it isn't truthful to the original by your own detailed standards.
>>
>>> If you can't see the difference between the current Mustang offering
>>> relative to its past and the last GTO relative to its past then you are
>>> beyond hope or help.
>>
>> I can tell the difference, but logically your standard is invalid because
>> it does not support your conclusions in both cases.

> So, are you morphing the discussion into another topic again? You're
> like that kid in the Family Circle cartoon running all over the
> neighborhood.

Logical evaluation of your standard is not changing the subject.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>> In article >, Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me better define the concept. Family sedan with more punch that was
>>>>>> based off an existing, domestically mass produced chassis with a high
>>>>>> bang for the buck factor.
>>>
>>>>> A mustang is a smallish sporty car based off a domestically mass produced
>>>>> small family car chasis with a high bang for the buck factor.
>>>
>>>>> What small family car is the current production mustang based off of?
>>>>> If you get detailed enough you can disqualify whatever you want.
>>>> You dodged the question again.
>>> You didn't ask one.
>> If you are really this dense then I feel sorry for you.
>
> You can be insulting, but you did not ask a question, you made a
> statement. I then asked a question in reply to that statment.

You must be a real treat to interact with IRL.

>>>>>> The Mustang chassis is exclusively for the Mustang. Want to add another
>>>>>> point to argue?
>>>>> Then it isn't truthful to the original by your own detailed standards.
>>>
>>>> If you can't see the difference between the current Mustang offering
>>>> relative to its past and the last GTO relative to its past then you are
>>>> beyond hope or help.
>>> I can tell the difference, but logically your standard is invalid because
>>> it does not support your conclusions in both cases.
>
>> So, are you morphing the discussion into another topic again? You're
>> like that kid in the Family Circle cartoon running all over the
>> neighborhood.
>
> Logical evaluation of your standard is not changing the subject.

You are not capable of logical evaluation.

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
...
> Joe wrote:
>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>> :
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Mar 8, 1:19 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> marketing now... Challenger with a Hemi. Then, if they are smart,
>>>>>>> a Hemi Cuda will appear.
>>>>>> How does one have a Plymouth Barracuda without a Plymouth?
>>>>> If I were D-C I would rebrand it a Dodge in a second. There's too
>>>>> much marketing power behind the name to ignore, IMO. Much more than
>>>>> the name Challenger. Would you really care if it were a Dodge or a
>>>>> Plymouth Hemi Cuda with 450+ hp? I sure wouldn't.
>>>> DC won't be rebranding anything. D will split from C. (There's no
>>>> way this won't happen.) And it'll be some investor(s) new Dodge
>>>> Challenger.
>>> I wonder who will buy Chrysler? I don't see Ford or GM doing it. Toyota
>>> doesn't need it and most other companies would be crazy to take
>>> that leap. I guess if Daimler lets it go cheap enough someone will
>>> step up.
>>
>> Here's today's latest:
>> http://tinyurl.com/38d5wr
>
> I think if it goes with private investors it will either be a disaster or
> brilliant move. There will be no middle ground. Private investors might
> break from the old way of doing things that don't work anymore. Then
> again, they may not know what they are doing and run the whole mess right
> of a cliff.

This would be a great time for the rebirth of AMC.

dwight

dwight wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Joe wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson > wrote in
>>> :
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 8, 1:19 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> marketing now... Challenger with a Hemi. Then, if they are smart,
>>>>>>>> a Hemi Cuda will appear.
>>>>>>> How does one have a Plymouth Barracuda without a Plymouth?
>>>>>> If I were D-C I would rebrand it a Dodge in a second. There's too
>>>>>> much marketing power behind the name to ignore, IMO. Much more than
>>>>>> the name Challenger. Would you really care if it were a Dodge or a
>>>>>> Plymouth Hemi Cuda with 450+ hp? I sure wouldn't.
>>>>> DC won't be rebranding anything. D will split from C. (There's no
>>>>> way this won't happen.) And it'll be some investor(s) new Dodge
>>>>> Challenger.
>>>> I wonder who will buy Chrysler? I don't see Ford or GM doing it. Toyota
>>>> doesn't need it and most other companies would be crazy to take
>>>> that leap. I guess if Daimler lets it go cheap enough someone will
>>>> step up.
>>> Here's today's latest:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/38d5wr
>> I think if it goes with private investors it will either be a disaster or
>> brilliant move. There will be no middle ground. Private investors might
>> break from the old way of doing things that don't work anymore. Then
>> again, they may not know what they are doing and run the whole mess right
>> of a cliff.
>
> 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.

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!

"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?