Time To Buy A Classic Pinto?

On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 07:23:06 -0400, "dwight" > wrote:

>
>"Dickr" > wrote in message
...
>> On 6/3/2011 5:04 PM, dwight wrote:
>>>
>> <snip>
>>>> Dunno, this looks collectible to me...
>>>> http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-19...King-Cobra.jpg
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/626oyf
>>>
>>> Hah! It was a piece of crap when new, and now it's just a much older
>>> piece of crap.
>>>
SNIP
>
>But I'm honest about Ford's build quality of the day (heck, all
>manufacturers' build quality), and there's no way that I would ever want to
>go back. It really wasn't until the early 1990s that car companies had the
>emphasis on quality and the manufacturing techniques to back that up.
>
>It's funny, buy my '93 LX 5.0 is now a comparative piece of crap, when
>looking at what's being built today. But my '93 is far better than either of
>my Mustang IIs. I may be blinded by my Fox loyalty, but I would consider the
>Fox 5.0's as far more "collectible" than the Mustang IIs.
>
>dwight
>
>* In 1974, second-hand cars were still called "used." The term "pre-owned"
>was not yet invented, and I remember thinking how utterly stupid that word
>was, when it first came around. Pre-owned. Y'know, if you think about it, a
>really good meal is nothing more than pre-****.
>
Ahhh, but the "flaws" in quality lended to the character of many of
the cars of yesteryear. :0)

On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 20:15:35 +0100, "Jim GM4DHJ / M......"
> wrote:

>Who wants to admit trading in a V8 Mustang for a pinto because they thought
>the oil was running out in '73?.....
>
Not I. I had a 71 Mustang 351, a 72 Nova 305, a Mustang II Ghia 302
4bbl, and my trusty little MG Midget 4 banger. Didn't give a thought
to trading any of them over the 70s oil embargo when we had rationing,
long lines, and fights in lines..... However, we did cut back on how
much travel we did, and there was a lot more car pooling to work.
Oh, and we had a lot of patrol vehicles that ended up sitting as we
ran out of our fuel allocations. They started a drive and walk patrol.
You drove a circuit through your patrol sector, then parked and
walked.

On 6/5/2011 20:37, D E Willson wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 07:23:06 -0400, > wrote:
>> But I'm honest about Ford's build quality of the day (heck, all
>> manufacturers' build quality), and there's no way that I would ever want to
>> go back. It really wasn't until the early 1990s that car companies had the
>> emphasis on quality and the manufacturing techniques to back that up.
>>
>> It's funny, buy my '93 LX 5.0 is now a comparative piece of crap, when
>> looking at what's being built today. But my '93 is far better than either of
>> my Mustang IIs. I may be blinded by my Fox loyalty, but I would consider the
>> Fox 5.0's as far more "collectible" than the Mustang IIs.
>>
>> dwight
>>
>> * In 1974, second-hand cars were still called "used." The term "pre-owned"
>> was not yet invented, and I remember thinking how utterly stupid that word
>> was, when it first came around. Pre-owned. Y'know, if you think about it, a
>> really good meal is nothing more than pre-****.
>>
> Ahhh, but the "flaws" in quality lended to the character of many of
> the cars of yesteryear. :0)


::::BOOM!::::

On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 18:37:16 -0700, D E Willson rearranged some electrons
to say:

> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 07:23:06 -0400, "dwight" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Dickr" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 6/3/2011 5:04 PM, dwight wrote:
>>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>>> Dunno, this looks collectible to me...
>>>>> http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-19...-Mustang-King-
Cobra.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/626oyf
>>>>
>>>> Hah! It was a piece of crap when new, and now it's just a much older
>>>> piece of crap.
>>>>
> SNIP
>>
>>But I'm honest about Ford's build quality of the day (heck, all
>>manufacturers' build quality), and there's no way that I would ever want
>>to go back. It really wasn't until the early 1990s that car companies
>>had the emphasis on quality and the manufacturing techniques to back
>>that up.
>>
>>It's funny, buy my '93 LX 5.0 is now a comparative piece of crap, when
>>looking at what's being built today. But my '93 is far better than
>>either of my Mustang IIs. I may be blinded by my Fox loyalty, but I
>>would consider the Fox 5.0's as far more "collectible" than the Mustang
>>IIs.
>>
>>dwight
>>
>>* In 1974, second-hand cars were still called "used." The term
>>"pre-owned" was not yet invented, and I remember thinking how utterly
>>stupid that word was, when it first came around. Pre-owned. Y'know, if
>>you think about it, a really good meal is nothing more than pre-****.
>>
> Ahhh, but the "flaws" in quality lended to the character of many of the
> cars of yesteryear. :0)

Really? Drop-in gas tanks?

On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 09:40:38 +0000 (UTC), david >
wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 18:37:16 -0700, D E Willson rearranged some electrons
>to say:
>
>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 07:23:06 -0400, "dwight" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Dickr" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On 6/3/2011 5:04 PM, dwight wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> Dunno, this looks collectible to me...
>>>>>> http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-19...-Mustang-King-
>Cobra.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/626oyf
>>>>>
>>>>> Hah! It was a piece of crap when new, and now it's just a much older
>>>>> piece of crap.
>>>>>
>> SNIP
>>>
>>>But I'm honest about Ford's build quality of the day (heck, all
>>>manufacturers' build quality), and there's no way that I would ever want
>>>to go back. It really wasn't until the early 1990s that car companies
>>>had the emphasis on quality and the manufacturing techniques to back
>>>that up.
>>>
>>>It's funny, buy my '93 LX 5.0 is now a comparative piece of crap, when
>>>looking at what's being built today. But my '93 is far better than
>>>either of my Mustang IIs. I may be blinded by my Fox loyalty, but I
>>>would consider the Fox 5.0's as far more "collectible" than the Mustang
>>>IIs.
>>>
>>>dwight
>>>
>>>* In 1974, second-hand cars were still called "used." The term
>>>"pre-owned" was not yet invented, and I remember thinking how utterly
>>>stupid that word was, when it first came around. Pre-owned. Y'know, if
>>>you think about it, a really good meal is nothing more than pre-****.
>>>
>> Ahhh, but the "flaws" in quality lended to the character of many of the
>> cars of yesteryear. :0)
>
>Really? Drop-in gas tanks?
Among other things, yes. If you want to think that way, then you
would have to take into account the deadly problems of far more recent
models. For example, the number of people (especially my comrades in
law enforcement) who lost limbs while standing between a patrol car
and a subjects car, when the rear bumper suddenly released. Engine
fires from faulty electrical parts. Seat belts which wouldn't release
following a collision. True, engineering mistakes were made, but that
is part of progress. Heck... don't forget things like the Titanic, or
an atomic submarine lost with all hands because valves were installed
backward.

In the 1970s I worked with various new test aircraft. With the
millions of dollars spent on engineering, you wouldn't expect a
bomber's bay doors to rip off the plane the first time they are opened
in flight. Or how many swing wing aircraft had catastrophic failures.

There is no progress without errors which reveal the deficiencies
people didn't think about.

> My only complaint with the Fusion is that I really wanted a new Mustang
> GT. My wife observed that since I was retired, I should grow up; she
> coerced me to get a car with an automatic and with a back seat big enough
> for adults.
>
> Cheers, Bob

wummin ........

> There is no progress without errors which reveal the deficiencies
> people didn't think about.

airbust are top class at that........DIGITAL DEATH ......