jvs (04/11/83)
Hear, Hear. Another Muscle Car fan out there. I tend to agree. Very few cars built today could probably stand up to the great ones of yesterday. This may not be true in the area of overall performance, but it's certainly true in the areas of outright speed, looks, and lovability. Not only that, they were more affordable. What? More affordable you say, a 10 - 12 mpg gass guzzler. Yes! Air Pollution and Fuel Conservation aside (I know gas was cheaper then so we wasted it), those were more affordable and withen the reach of the common man/woman. For a few hundred dollors more a person could get the high speed/performance great looking version of their hearts desire. Today if you want a so called high performer you probably can't afford it What choices do you really have? A 280Z, Mazda, Porche, perhaps the new Corvette. Look at the prices of these cars (the high performance versions any way). These cars cost 2, 3, 4 times or more than the average car around, and the average car isn't cheap. You can buy a lot of gas for $15,000 - $20,000+ . These cars are also ugly. Be honest, can you honestly look at a Porshe or Fuego and say it's not ugly? Compare these cars to the old GTO, Barracuda, or the original AMX (Is this really a contest). In the end, comparing the "Performance Cars" of today with the "Muscle Cars" of yesterday, there's no contest. Muscle Cars were even more fun to drive. Respecting pure power John V. Smith
hall (04/15/83)
#R:iwu1d:-11000:uiucdcs:7700020:000:124 uiucdcs!hall Apr 14 23:21:00 1983 Porsche's are ugly? By the way, note the spelling of Porsche. --John Hall, University of Illinois, (...pur-ee!uiucdcs!hall)