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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 08:35 AM |
A whole new way to buy & sell muscle cars on the net. | [email protected] | Antique cars | 0 | January 23rd 05 08:31 AM |
New place to buy and sell muscle cars on the net. | [email protected] | Antique cars | 0 | January 23rd 05 08:30 AM |