EnviroLink Forum
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/

Grace's car lust
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2137
Page 2 of 2

Author:  Wayne Stollings [ Sat Mar 04, 2006 12:01 pm ]
Post subject: 

TruVenom wrote:
I got a 1997 Humvee. I t was one that the military was rotating off of the overseas bases and they gave them to different state agencies. I bought mine for $10,000 and it had less the 30,000 miles on it then!!!


That would be a ride that could take you nearly anywhere you wanted to go too ....

I almost bought one that had been rebuilt and modified for a Hollywood series project as a "police cruiser" with tons of lights and a killer sound system, but I would have had to ship it in from Nevada and deal with which of the lights could legally remain on the vehicle so I decided not to. I kick myself now, as it was a multi-fuel with a snorkel with an expanded battery capacity and all new rubber for $11,500.00. They sent me pictures of it in the desert at night with ALL of the lights on .... think about Close Encounters type space ship ... :wink:

Author:  Archer [ Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

Wayne Stollings wrote:
Grace wrote:
Holy crap that is retro. My brother in law had one of these way back.

http://www.autoblog.com/2005/07/20/dodg ... auto-show/


If it weren't a Chrysler product....yes. Give me the new Mustang any day... :wink:


I see Grace isn't the only one with good taste in vehicles. Those new Mustangs are in a class of their own.

Author:  Fosgate [ Sat Mar 04, 2006 7:41 pm ]
Post subject: 

wijim wrote:
the challenger is awesome looking cept the fog lights look kida small n silly on that big barren front clip.


I don't think they're fog lights. My '72 'Cuda had them and they were blinkers. The 'Cuda was the Plymouth version of the Dodge Challenger...at least from 1970 and up.

wijim wrote:
but other than that...that big hemi oughta scream. (what is it 6.3 liter?) is it going to production? or just built as a possibility? last i saw n read on it was months ago.


6.1 L hemi, 0-60 in 4.5 seconds, from what I've managed to find. Don't know if it's headed to production or not. I like the new Mustangs too. They're totally awesome. If I can find a good used GMC Syclone, I'll blow both both their doors off. :twisted:

Author:  RF [ Sat Mar 04, 2006 7:46 pm ]
Post subject: 

Fosgate wrote:
wijim wrote:
the challenger is awesome looking cept the fog lights look kida small n silly on that big barren front clip.


I don't think they're fog lights. My '72 'Cuda had them and they were blinkers. The 'Cuda was the Plymouth version of the Dodge Challenger...at least from 1970 and up.

wijim wrote:
but other than that...that big hemi oughta scream. (what is it 6.3 liter?) is it going to production? or just built as a possibility? last i saw n read on it was months ago.


6.1 L hemi, 0-60 in 4.5 seconds, from what I've managed to find. Don't know if it's headed to production or not. I like the new Mustangs too. They're totally awesome. If I can find a good used GMC Syclone, I'll blow both both their doors off. :twisted:


We considered getting a new GTO for the performance, but the styling of it is just...unfortunate. GM has been making a lot of missteps lately.

Author:  Archer [ Sat Mar 04, 2006 9:03 pm ]
Post subject: 

RF wrote:
We considered getting a new GTO for the performance, but the styling of it is just...unfortunate. GM has been making a lot of missteps lately.

Couldn't agree more.

Author:  RF [ Sat Mar 04, 2006 10:42 pm ]
Post subject: 

Archer wrote:
RF wrote:
We considered getting a new GTO for the performance, but the styling of it is just...unfortunate. GM has been making a lot of missteps lately.

Couldn't agree more.


I don't know what led to the decision to drop the F-body. And what's more, with Ford selling retro-Mustangs seemingly fast as they can make them...where's the retro-Camaro? Didn't GM have any good corporate spies?

Author:  Fosgate [ Sat Mar 04, 2006 11:28 pm ]
Post subject: 

RF wrote:
I don't know what led to the decision to drop the F-body. And what's more, with Ford selling retro-Mustangs seemingly fast as they can make them...where's the retro-Camaro? Didn't GM have any good corporate spies?


There <i>is</i> a concept Camaro, but it isn't near as "retro" as the new Mustangs or the Challenger. I don't know much about it but I do think it is UHH-gly.

Author:  RF [ Sun Mar 05, 2006 12:25 am ]
Post subject: 

Fosgate wrote:
RF wrote:
I don't know what led to the decision to drop the F-body. And what's more, with Ford selling retro-Mustangs seemingly fast as they can make them...where's the retro-Camaro? Didn't GM have any good corporate spies?


There <i>is</i> a concept Camaro, but it isn't near as "retro" as the new Mustangs or the Challenger. I don't know much about it but I do think it is UHH-gly.


I saw GM's concept Camaro. You're right...not very retro, and ugly to boot. Maybe ugly as a result of the designer's fear to go too retro and so coming up with a mongrel mix, or too many corporate hands in the design mix. I don't really know...but I do know it sucks. They better keep it as a concept only. There is a kid getting some attention for designing a much better version.

Author:  RF [ Sun Mar 05, 2006 12:28 am ]
Post subject: 

I say bring out a real first gen Camaro with updated drivetrain and amenities. What the hey...they have little to lose at this point.

Author:  Archer [ Sun Mar 05, 2006 9:38 pm ]
Post subject: 

RF wrote:
I say bring out a real first gen Camaro with updated drivetrain and amenities. What the hey...they have little to lose at this point.


Exactly. I'm not real impressed with the new camaro either. At least everyone is starting to make some cars with more muscle again. They've been kind of dissapointing for a good while.

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/