You might want to brush up on your history. The Mustang was introduced as an "affordable sports car," and was introduced with a base model that came equipped with a 170 c.i. 6 cylinder that put out a whopping 101 horses to go along with the 289 on the upscale model. So where you get the idea that they "cheapened" it when it was their intention to have two versions from day one is beyond me. Again, read what I said. They ALWAYS had the lower model version. I don't get what you're trying to say when it was always that way. There was no change. About the same as I call a third generation Camaro with an inline 4-cylinder and a whopping 165 horses in the Z28. By '91 it was up to 230 horses, while still retaining the base 6 cylinder model. Or the second generation Challenger with the 1.6 or 2.6L 4 cylinder and NO performance model. That's my point. Why are you ragging on Ford when it was something EVERY auto maker was doing? As did Camaro owners. After '73 the bottom dropped out on all models, unless you consider a 150 horse 350 engine a beast. As for the SVO making 200 horse with a 4 banger, I guess if it's not an 8 cylinder it isn't muscle to you. I'll have to remember that next time I'm taking to a Grand National owner. smh I'll quote from Camaro history: "1996 Camaro - 61,362 Camaros Produced. The Rally Sport Coupe and the Rally Sport Convertible were reintroduced this year after quite an absence. The SS, with its 305 horsepower rating was the first factory Camaro to break the 300 horsepower barrier since 1971." Your point? And up until is discontinuation in 2002 the Camaro hovered around 345 while continuing to have base 6 cylinder models. Again, why single out Ford? Who's not paying attention? Once again, it was ALWAYS that way. As it also was with Camaro. When Camaro was first introduced, it had a base model with 140 horses, and has ALWAYS had a base - i.e. - affordable model. This is getting tiresome. I'll say it again....it was ALWAYS that way. In the 60's and 70's, Ford offered an affordable base Mustang and the more powerful performance models. The SAME thing they have always done, yet you keep citing that era as "iconic." Nothing has changed. Nothing. Not. A. Thing. Again, a 210 horse "piece of ****" base model had the same power as the fabled IROC Z. Why are you avoiding that fact? So is the legendary IROC a "piece of ****" also? AGAIN, the same for Camaro. Why isn't this sinking in? And in one sentence you say I'm "just one person" when in the paragraph before you state that there were "a million disgruntled" protest letters. Which is it? Apparently, there are plenty of car owners who like the Mustang just the way it is. And you miss the point entirely. Modifying cars GIVES you that exclusivity. There's no other Stang out there like mine. Buy a Z350, while there's not as many of them out there as Mustangs, it's still the same damn car when you see another one except for color. I have. I don't talk out my ***. It's too big, floaty, and feels more like a cruiser than a musclecar. And I have almost a full sleeve and 10 other tattoos. Doesn't mean I want my car to look like a tattoo. On one hand you're snarking about heritage and tradition, then on the other you say you like a car that's painted up like a Lincoln Tunnel whore. You're a study in contradiction, bro! But the color thing is taste. Simple as that. As for your comments blasting Ford, they did what every other car company trying to keep their sales up did. Only with them it worked and allowed an icon to remain in production. If you don't believe me, then feel free to go buy a new Trans Am, or GTO, or Cutlass, or Roadrunner, or Cuda, or...ooops.
Bro, all joking aside I'd buy an Optima or a Forte in a heartbeat. Kia's starting to improve like Hyundai did.
In all seriousness, I absolutely love this thing. It has the smoothest ride I ever had in a car. It even has decent pick up. And it has ridiculous amounts of room. Its ugly as sin though.
I contiplate crashing my Versa into a ****ing tree at least 5 times a day, good gas, ****ty pick up, nice room, but looks like a ****ing igloo. I despise it. And I despise the ****-bag who sold it to me like the piece of **** salesmen he is. I can't wait to pay it off.
If it looked like a damn igloo why did you buy it? For the record id rock the funky colors on the car in the first post. Id also probably put hydraulics on it and black rims. Maybe id make the whole thing that teal or aqua shade though and put a dolphins insignia on tge trunk or side.
They are pretty big...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ....... ...... ....... ....... ...and dangly.
Kind of funny, I just took a Prius for a test drive today and am seriously contemplating getting it (to be fair, I currently have a Corolla).
Here's the minivan compromise we just bought - It's about as close to a minivan as you can get without being a minivan but it's not a minivan so small victories.
You can knock minivans all day long, but I love my wife's van. Especially on long trips. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You love it so much, you refer to it as "your wife's" van and refuse to claim any portion of the ownership.
And I thank you. You do know that you've been had, right? You're really not saving squat on gas. It's all a matter of mathmatics. Let's match the Prius against the car I own, the Hundai Veloster. I paid $17K for my car, and it's loaded with options. Touch screen, bluetooth, Hyundai's version of OnStar, 7-inch touchscreen, voice activated controls, heated sideview mirrors, etc. etc. etc. It has a third door on the passenger side for easy access into the back seat while still retaining it's coupe appearance, and with the rear seats folded down I'm able to fit an Ampeg 8x10 speaker cabinet, my road case with my poweramp, tuner and wireless in it, and two bass guitars in the hatch...so it has ample carrying capacity. It gets an average of 37.8 mpg (I'm actually averaging slightly higher than that) according to fuelecomomy.gov. The average base price of a Prius runs from $24K to $39K, so we'll take the base model and do some configuring and averaging and say a similarly optioned Prius would be $27K. (and that's being generous!) The Prius gets an average of 50 mpg according to the same source. Now, for argument's sake let's say both cars are driven 15K miles a year and the cost of gas is $3.50 a gallon. To go 15K miles you'd need 300 gallons of gas for the Prius and 397 gallons for the Veloster. At $3.50 a gallon that's $1,050 a year for the Prius and $1,390 for the Veloster. So, by purchasing a Prius you spend $340 dollars less a year than I do on gasoline. But hold on a second. Didn't you spend TEN THOUSAND more dollars on the initial purchase price? Hmmm...that means, at a savings of $340 a year, you'd have to drive the Prius for 29 years in order to make up that difference in initial cost. Not to mention the appearance of the vehicle. The Veloster: The Prius: Sucker.
I never said I was saving money on gas (and I knew going in any money I saved on gas over what I would have wouldn't pay for the difference in cost). Plus, I like the Veloster (I tried to get my friend to get one before he opted for a Mini Cooper), so you don't need to sell me on it.
Technically...wasn't talking to just you specifically. Was aiming that at those fooled by the "gas mileage" ruse. That being said, then why on earth did you buy that ugly thing? LOL
