anyone else catch the recent motorweek where they tested the International CTX (or was it CXT?)? Now THAT is a BIG pickup truck!!
tow rating of 20,000 lbs!!
I just can't imagine using it to haul stuff in the bed, though. With the tailgate in the down position, it was level with the reviewers shoulders. It comes equipped with a hydraulic dumper, but you still gotta load it to begin with.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
When did people start deciding that Darts are a good starting point for a hot rod? He also refers to his Dart as an investment; That is a questionable choice of words.
Is this horrid Mustang really worth the high bid? When I was in high school, you could get a pile like this for close to free if you would haul it off.
I guess this must be market price for hopeless Mustangs.
I look at the '67-69 style as being kind of the '55-57 Chevy of Darts, but later ones never really interested me as much. I do like the style of the '70-72 though, especially that '72 front end, which I think has an aggressive stance to it. The '73-76 models just started getting too busy in styling though.
I do think the Dart was about the best compact of the 70's, although I guess that's not really saying much. I think one reason is that in the 70's, most new designs ended up being worse than the 60's designs they replaced. And since the Dart was relatively unchanged through its end in 1976, it didn't get THAT screwed up. Most of what was wrong with it was bolt-on stuff like wimped-down carburetors, heads, emissions controls, etc...stuff that could easily be swapped out for older mechanicals.
I think 1972 was also the last year that the slant six was a halfway decent engine, giving a good balance of power and economy. That year it put out 110 hp (145 gross), although California versions were smogged down to 100. In '73 though I think it dropped to 100, and soon thereafter went as low as 90-95. By 1977 it took a 2-bbl carb to get it back up to 110 hp, and with the cars that were offering it, you were probably better off just getting a 318, which took better to emissions controls, and was also a better engine for the heavier compacts of the late 70's.
I wouldn't mind having a '72 Dart hardtop with a 318. 150 hp, 265 ft-lb of torque, and I don't think they started messing around with overly tall axle ratios yet.
As for that Riviera, I do like that '95-99 style. Every once in awhile I'll check AutoBytel and Traderonline for them, but I dunno if I'd ever actually spring for something like that. At this point I think I'd rather have something that's only a couple years old, or old enough that I can get historic plates for it (currently 1981 and older)
The MG is ready for the scrap yard. There are so many better examples out there, why bother.
Both of those Mustangs are so horribly over priced its not even funny, and I'm a Mustang guy. Maybe 500-800 bucks a piece. The 66 is going to need a new body basically. I doubt either one of them is a serious candidate for a full restoration. Probably just parts cars at best. Even then, I'm not sure what parts are worth any thing. Core exchange on the motors maybe??
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee L Limited Velvet Red over Wicker Beige
2024 Audi Q5 Premium Plus Daytona Gray over Beige
2017 BMW X1 Jet Black over Mocha
that Riviera. I think black-over-silver looks really sharp on a car, and downsized late 70's cars usually had the angles and creases to pull it off with some dignity.
That little '81 Sube hardtop is kinda cool, too. Ugly as sin, but I appreciate the fact that they still went through the effort to make the back windows roll down!
Wasn't it said that buying a 1976 Dart was like buying a new 1965 car?
Yeah, Lemko, I read that in some Consumer-type magazine from 1975. I forget the name of it, but it wasn't CR. I think it was called "Consumer's Digest"? Anyway, they compared a 1975 Dart to a 1975 Granada, 1975 Nova, and I forget what else.
The line they used was something like "This Dart is almost more like a well-preserved 1965 model than a brand-new 1975 model, but with way cars seem to be progressing, that's not as bad as it sounds!"
And to be fair, a 1975 Granada was really just a heavily facelifted Maverick, which dated back to 1970. And the Nova, while it looked modern for 1975, was still riding on 1968 underpinnings.
I think the Nova probably had the advantage of slightly better handling, and its base 6-cyl was larger, a bit torquier, and took better to emissions controls than the Darts slant six. And since the Dart coupe was a hardtop, I'm sure the Nova was probably a bit more solid-feeling.
But on the minus side, I think Novas rusted out quicker, and while their interiors were more modern looking, they weren't as roomy, and didn't have as much luggage space. And in V-8 models, the 318 was usually a better performer than the 305, although you could get a 350 in the Nova. In Darts, I think the only way to get a 360 was to get a Dart Sport 360, and that was almost overkill, making a car that was ready to embarrass Corvettes, Trans Ams, etc.
As for the Granada, I think the only thing it really had going for it was a top-notch marketing team that was able to convince buyers that they were buying a Mercedes-type car at flea-market prices. I don't think they were really all that unreliable for the time, but most 50's cars handled better. And the transmission on my grandparents' '77 did fail. I think the 250 inline 6 was probably as bulletproof as the slant six, but emissions controls hurt it just as bad. And they were pretty cramped too. Now all 2-door cars tended to be cramped back then, but model-for-model, the Granada was worse than the Nova or Dart.
The ratty MGB would be worth the $300 bid for the overdrive transmission, but the whole car isn't worth much more than $750.
MUSTANGS -- two "rats". I can't explain the bids. Goofy buyers. There's no justification for this over-bidding in the marketplace. You can buy a pretty decent Fastback for $15K, so my response is HUH?
'90 Jaguar V-12: It will destroy the new owner, and laugh while doing it.
'87 Mercedes 190D -- poor fellow. He paid $11,000 for a car worth $3,500 and now he wants someone else to do the same thing. I especially liked his line: "This car will run for years without any major work needed". I wonder if he'll put that in a written warranty?
...I love how the driver states that the car is 'fast'. Compared to what, other diesels or four-cylinder 190Es, maybe? I don't have the performance numbers in front of me, but I don't see how 143hp in a 3000 pound car is going to translate 'fast'. Kind of a cool and rare car, but yeah, the notion of buying a twenty year-old daily driver @$12k (or even $6k, for that matter) ostensibly to save money on fuel or something along those lines is nuts.
Book says that the 190D 2.5 turbo will do 0-60 in about 15 seconds. The slowest car sold today in the USA is the Civic Hybrid at 0-60 in 10.3 seconds.
Of course this is a lot better than the fintail 190Db of say 1961, with 0-60 in a blazing 28 seconds, or the 1955 170D that made it in (get out the egg timer) 55 seconds.
The slowest car sold today in the USA is the Civic Hybrid at 0-60 in 10.3 seconds.
Where are these stats coming from? I can think of several cars that take longer than 10.3 seconds to get from 0-60, like the Taurus/Sable with the Vulcan 3.0, or the Chrysler 300/Dodge Magnum with the 2.7. IIRC they're pushing 11 seconds. And the Ford Focus, if it still offers that base 110 hp 2.0, is probably around there.
Now if you look down some road test digest in the back of MT or C&D, you might not find anything worse than 10.3 because they didn't test it. I just did that, and the worst I could find was a Toyota Prius, at 11.2 seconds, last tested in 2004. FWIW though, they have the Civic hybrid at 10.8 seconds.
Well this "first year" Porsche 911 is a case of: "yes, it's rare, but does anyone care?"
I have no idea how flukey cars like this go in an auction. I think his asking price is preposterous beyond words. I mean, yes, a very early 911 would be a nice collector piece in a larger 911 or larger Porsche collection; however, the early 911s are pretty terrible to drive....you know, the "first year" blues and all that.
Maybe if it were the FIRST one every made, yeah, you could sell it for a big price and ship it to the Porsche museum. But there's no indication that this one is #1 or #2, etc.
Another issue here that has to be addressed is that this 911 is an entire unibody car...if it is rusted where the suspension points are attached, and where the body attaches to the floorpans, you can just about junk the thing--it will never be restored and only a lunatic would try. So THAT'S a big IF here as well.
Considering that you can buy the identical car as a 1965 model in spectacular condition for probably $18,000, and as a decent clean driver for #12,000, I really don't see where this $65,000 is coming from and who would care to own it at this price.
Real value? Probably no more than the opening bid, if that.
I had NO idea these could even generate this high of a bid, let alone whatever ridiculous price the reserve is set at. And its not even in show condition.
I have always liked Panteras. I guess they weren't so good from the factory, but it seems like most of the survivors have all the factory issues fixed. Compare it other exotics of the time and it might seem like a bargain - and you can get your engine parts at Pep Boys.
I suppose its a personal bias, but I just can't accept anything with a Ford engine (or Chevy, for that matter) as "exotic."
To me, its just like any other professional built kit car. And, frankly, with a 0-60 of 5.5 secs (according to the listing), for $30k, I'd rather get a new Z.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Pretty brutal, but I see your point. How about an Iso Rivolta as an exotic? An Intermeccanica Italia? They have American V8s. (I am sure Shifty could provide us with a laundry list of such cars).
I see your point about the Z car too. It would be a hard choice for me. Of course, I would consider spending that $30K on a Ferrari 308 that can barely keep on with a late '90s Accord V6 or an old Porsche 356 that can't keep up with a new Corolla.
It could be worth $35,000---$40,000, because it is unmodified.
Most Panteras come in three flavors: 1) beaters 2) pimped out, over the top modded cars that look and drive like a wild beast and 3) properly and expensively restored cars.
So finding an original (if it's true) is going to be very attractive to buyers.
The car isn't my cup of tea because the Italian styling, interior, etc. just clashes with the sound of that truck engine behind your ears. Somehow it's like two different worlds that don't go all that well together.
But if you just want bang for the buck, the Pantera is a pretty good deal.
I'm not sure I buy the "cheap to maintain" myth however...there are a lot of speciality components built into that car.
maybe not an "exotic", by the value of an original CObra or GT40 doesn't seem to be hurt by the FOrd V8 under the hood!
Exactly. Its one thing to build a straight-up muscle car like the Cobra. And its another thing for Ford to build a supercar. But I just have this mental block about these kit cars built with components from 12 different countries. Maybe it would be exotic if someone in Sweden had a Pinanfarina designed car with an AMG powertrain, but as soon as you take a run-of-the-mill 351 Ford, 350 chevy, or what have you, it loses a bit of its status, IMHO.
Should it even command original musclecar money? Well, what does a decent Cobra replica fetch? Somewhere in the $20k range? What if it was a Cobra replica that was 30 years old? Would that be worth any more? I seriously doubt it. So, to me, this is a used kit car. The only thing I think of when I see the name Pantera is a bad '80s hair band of the same name.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
AMG has really only been in major production for our consumption for about 10 years...but I've really heard of little problems with the cars, and just about none with the engines. I think it is a direct result of them being hand-built. I don't know if this will hold true for the non-normally aspirated cars as time goes on...but for the normal cars, they seem to be very sound. There are lots of AMG owners groups out there, and I rarely see engine problems on the forums. I do think they fare better than normal MB, and there might be something to it as some of these cars do actually get driven hard.
Yeah why buy a car like that then not drive it. Just seems silly.
One of my customers has a F430 that is his third or fourth Ferrari I think. He waited an extra year to get his because he had to have it in Red with the saddle interior and a REAL manual.
He did not want any silly F1 style tranny because he wanted to feel connected to the road. We were closing up a sale for a new car for his daughter and he drove in his F430 at night in Feburary with the temps getting down near freezing.
I was like John aren't you a little worried I mean it is getting close to freezing out there I don't want you to hit some ice in that car.
He was like nah it will be ok I drive bad weather every once in a while you just got to be a bit more cautious then normal.
Now you just cannot drive a Ferrari a lot but he does put a couple of hundred miles a month on that F430. As long as there is not real snow and ice on the ground he tries to get it out and enjoy the car.
I think the biggest problem with AMG cars is the resale value---very nasty downside.
As for the "M" cars, historically at least the engines have not been particularly long-lived...but that could have more to do with how they are driven (one would hope).
Many of the recent AMG cars have really tame styling compared with some of their predecessors - and I mean that in a good way. Maybe that will help with resale in the long-term.
The resale value is a good thing if you're like me (and I assume most of us here) and don't buy the cars new. Let someone else eat it. I think something like my C43 is/was a relatively good value for the performance and even exclusivity. And it is pretty stealth, which is a good attribute. Insurance and fuel economy are acceptable...take care of it and it won't hurt you.
The days of the strange blackout cars and strangely colored cars (purple AMG W126 sedan anyone?) are gone. AMG is mainstream now...heck, it's even just an appearance package somewhat.
And about driving the cars...it's a shame when money overrules sense and modern performance cars sit idle. Like that Porsche...they are meant to be driven, they take mileage easily. Or the local house I know of that has a S55 AND a SL55 perpetually in the driveway...they rarely move and are often covered in dust. On the flipside, there's a guy I see almost every day apparently commuting in a current model Aston. Now that's cool.
Is an Acura NSX an exotic? In normal driving, it couldn't feel a whole lot more like an Accord V6/90s Acura Legend if it wanted to. It makes the same Honda googlie noise when you turn it on. Of course, when it is in its element, it earns its stripes.
Ah, the NSX---it's a great performer and wonderful to drive, but yes, you are looking at an Acura steering wheel all day long. It is certainly competent...it's not a poser car...it'll go mighty fast.
Brandon---what's all the money for a '93 Defender 110, #161, 41K miles, pretty darn clean all around with just a coupla' small dings in the doors? White, manual transmission.
Oh man I am not sure there are so few of them. A D90 in similar condition would be 40,000 to 45,000. I have seen low mileage D110s break the six figure mark but I am not sure if a 41,000 mile one could hit that number.
Let me do some research tomorrow and see what I find. The problem with the 110s is that only true rover geeks know how rare the NAS D110s are and if none of them are in the market it at the moment then the truck won't reach its full potential.
Comments
tow rating of 20,000 lbs!!
I just can't imagine using it to haul stuff in the bed, though. With the tailgate in the down position, it was level with the reviewers shoulders. It comes equipped with a hydraulic dumper, but you still gotta load it to begin with.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
EZ Fix Riviera. Doesn't Andre like these?
When did people start deciding that Darts are a good starting point for a hot rod? He also refers to his Dart as an investment; That is a questionable choice of words.
Is this horrid Mustang really worth the high bid? When I was in high school, you could get a pile like this for close to free if you would haul it off.
I guess this must be market price for hopeless Mustangs.
I do think the Dart was about the best compact of the 70's, although I guess that's not really saying much. I think one reason is that in the 70's, most new designs ended up being worse than the 60's designs they replaced. And since the Dart was relatively unchanged through its end in 1976, it didn't get THAT screwed up. Most of what was wrong with it was bolt-on stuff like wimped-down carburetors, heads, emissions controls, etc...stuff that could easily be swapped out for older mechanicals.
I think 1972 was also the last year that the slant six was a halfway decent engine, giving a good balance of power and economy. That year it put out 110 hp (145 gross), although California versions were smogged down to 100. In '73 though I think it dropped to 100, and soon thereafter went as low as 90-95. By 1977 it took a 2-bbl carb to get it back up to 110 hp, and with the cars that were offering it, you were probably better off just getting a 318, which took better to emissions controls, and was also a better engine for the heavier compacts of the late 70's.
I wouldn't mind having a '72 Dart hardtop with a 318. 150 hp, 265 ft-lb of torque, and I don't think they started messing around with overly tall axle ratios yet.
As for that Riviera, I do like that '95-99 style. Every once in awhile I'll check AutoBytel and Traderonline for them, but I dunno if I'd ever actually spring for something like that. At this point I think I'd rather have something that's only a couple years old, or old enough that I can get historic plates for it (currently 1981 and older)
Both of those Mustangs are so horribly over priced its not even funny, and I'm a Mustang guy. Maybe 500-800 bucks a piece. The 66 is going to need a new body basically. I doubt either one of them is a serious candidate for a full restoration. Probably just parts cars at best. Even then, I'm not sure what parts are worth any thing. Core exchange on the motors maybe??
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee L Limited Velvet Red over Wicker Beige
2024 Audi Q5 Premium Plus Daytona Gray over Beige
2017 BMW X1 Jet Black over Mocha
It'd be more efficient to get a wad of cash and burn it
Looks great, seems a bit steep
Not many of these left
Maybe an Andre-mobile
That little '81 Sube hardtop is kinda cool, too. Ugly as sin, but I appreciate the fact that they still went through the effort to make the back windows roll down!
Yeah, Lemko, I read that in some Consumer-type magazine from 1975. I forget the name of it, but it wasn't CR. I think it was called "Consumer's Digest"? Anyway, they compared a 1975 Dart to a 1975 Granada, 1975 Nova, and I forget what else.
The line they used was something like "This Dart is almost more like a well-preserved 1965 model than a brand-new 1975 model, but with way cars seem to be progressing, that's not as bad as it sounds!"
And to be fair, a 1975 Granada was really just a heavily facelifted Maverick, which dated back to 1970. And the Nova, while it looked modern for 1975, was still riding on 1968 underpinnings.
I think the Nova probably had the advantage of slightly better handling, and its base 6-cyl was larger, a bit torquier, and took better to emissions controls than the Darts slant six. And since the Dart coupe was a hardtop, I'm sure the Nova was probably a bit more solid-feeling.
But on the minus side, I think Novas rusted out quicker, and while their interiors were more modern looking, they weren't as roomy, and didn't have as much luggage space. And in V-8 models, the 318 was usually a better performer than the 305, although you could get a 350 in the Nova. In Darts, I think the only way to get a 360 was to get a Dart Sport 360, and that was almost overkill, making a car that was ready to embarrass Corvettes, Trans Ams, etc.
As for the Granada, I think the only thing it really had going for it was a top-notch marketing team that was able to convince buyers that they were buying a Mercedes-type car at flea-market prices. I don't think they were really all that unreliable for the time, but most 50's cars handled better. And the transmission on my grandparents' '77 did fail. I think the 250 inline 6 was probably as bulletproof as the slant six, but emissions controls hurt it just as bad. And they were pretty cramped too. Now all 2-door cars tended to be cramped back then, but model-for-model, the Granada was worse than the Nova or Dart.
MUSTANGS -- two "rats". I can't explain the bids. Goofy buyers. There's no justification for this over-bidding in the marketplace. You can buy a pretty decent Fastback for $15K, so my response is HUH?
'90 Jaguar V-12: It will destroy the new owner, and laugh while doing it.
I wonder if this is a northwest-only issue
Of course this is a lot better than the fintail 190Db of say 1961, with 0-60 in a blazing 28 seconds, or the 1955 170D that made it in (get out the egg timer) 55 seconds.
Where are these stats coming from? I can think of several cars that take longer than 10.3 seconds to get from 0-60, like the Taurus/Sable with the Vulcan 3.0, or the Chrysler 300/Dodge Magnum with the 2.7. IIRC they're pushing 11 seconds. And the Ford Focus, if it still offers that base 110 hp 2.0, is probably around there.
Now if you look down some road test digest in the back of MT or C&D, you might not find anything worse than 10.3 because they didn't test it. I just did that, and the worst I could find was a Toyota Prius, at 11.2 seconds, last tested in 2004. FWIW though, they have the Civic hybrid at 10.8 seconds.
Another nice one this time in black.
Much pricer then the others and more rare but I am guessing to pricey.
An R code/427 car is very sought after...the good ones are worth big bucks.
Speaking of bad 0-60...the Volvo diesel wagon in my 1981 Consumer Guide did it in 25.8 sec. The fintail has an excuse (55 hp)
These are cool and this one looks like a keeper...but not the best colors
When I was a teenager, really slow was when the 0-60 time and 1/4 mile time were the same.
Rusted out, non-running shell of a Porsche for only $65,000. How much does a nice one of these go for?
Another 427 4 speed galaxie but this one is a clone. Can you say overbid.
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee L Limited Velvet Red over Wicker Beige
2024 Audi Q5 Premium Plus Daytona Gray over Beige
2017 BMW X1 Jet Black over Mocha
I have no idea how flukey cars like this go in an auction. I think his asking price is preposterous beyond words. I mean, yes, a very early 911 would be a nice collector piece in a larger 911 or larger Porsche collection; however, the early 911s are pretty terrible to drive....you know, the "first year" blues and all that.
Maybe if it were the FIRST one every made, yeah, you could sell it for a big price and ship it to the Porsche museum. But there's no indication that this one is #1 or #2, etc.
Another issue here that has to be addressed is that this 911 is an entire unibody car...if it is rusted where the suspension points are attached, and where the body attaches to the floorpans, you can just about junk the thing--it will never be restored and only a lunatic would try. So THAT'S a big IF here as well.
Considering that you can buy the identical car as a 1965 model in spectacular condition for probably $18,000, and as a decent clean driver for #12,000, I really don't see where this $65,000 is coming from and who would care to own it at this price.
Real value? Probably no more than the opening bid, if that.
I'll watch it and let you know what happens.
Pantera
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
They have a lot of really nice cars at that place. Most just sitting in the front lot, where you can wander through any time day or night.
Mostly newer high end stuff, but also an interesting collection of older cars. Lots of kit car stuff too it seems (and stuff like a Beck speedster).
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
To me, its just like any other professional built kit car. And, frankly, with a 0-60 of 5.5 secs (according to the listing), for $30k, I'd rather get a new Z.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Fintail, how is the longevity on AMG engines in comparison to a "regular" MB engine?
This is the car that my Miata wanted to grow up to be. Price doesn't look too bad, although that is a lot of miles for one of these.
At least it is the older 240 HP engine, so it shouldn't be as high strung (or expensive) as a new one.
Just remember to hang on if you punch it in the wet. I hear they are a handful (easily able to overpower the old style rear suspension).
If I got one to keep, and I had the $$, I would look into some rear suspension upgrades to stabalize the handling. I assume there are kits available.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I see your point about the Z car too. It would be a hard choice for me. Of course, I would consider spending that $30K on a Ferrari 308 that can barely keep on with a late '90s Accord V6 or an old Porsche 356 that can't keep up with a new Corolla.
I loved the Pantera when I was a kid. They came out when I was about 10, and were hot stuff for a Mercury dealer!
Yes, even in those days I had odd tastes. That, and I was already subscribing to a number of the car magazines by that age!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Most Panteras come in three flavors: 1) beaters 2) pimped out, over the top modded cars that look and drive like a wild beast and 3) properly and expensively restored cars.
So finding an original (if it's true) is going to be very attractive to buyers.
The car isn't my cup of tea because the Italian styling, interior, etc. just clashes with the sound of that truck engine behind your ears. Somehow it's like two different worlds that don't go all that well together.
But if you just want bang for the buck, the Pantera is a pretty good deal.
I'm not sure I buy the "cheap to maintain" myth however...there are a lot of speciality components built into that car.
I like that funky clown shoe styling.
Exactly. Its one thing to build a straight-up muscle car like the Cobra. And its another thing for Ford to build a supercar. But I just have this mental block about these kit cars built with components from 12 different countries. Maybe it would be exotic if someone in Sweden had a Pinanfarina designed car with an AMG powertrain, but as soon as you take a run-of-the-mill 351 Ford, 350 chevy, or what have you, it loses a bit of its status, IMHO.
Should it even command original musclecar money? Well, what does a decent Cobra replica fetch? Somewhere in the $20k range? What if it was a Cobra replica that was 30 years old? Would that be worth any more? I seriously doubt it. So, to me, this is a used kit car. The only thing I think of when I see the name Pantera is a bad '80s hair band of the same name.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
On that note, a few weeks back a guy showed up in a late model Porsche Carrera 4...I've seen it driven once since. What's the point?
One of my customers has a F430 that is his third or fourth Ferrari I think. He waited an extra year to get his because he had to have it in Red with the saddle interior and a REAL manual.
He did not want any silly F1 style tranny because he wanted to feel connected to the road. We were closing up a sale for a new car for his daughter and he drove in his F430 at night in Feburary with the temps getting down near freezing.
I was like John aren't you a little worried I mean it is getting close to freezing out there I don't want you to hit some ice in that car.
He was like nah it will be ok I drive bad weather every once in a while you just got to be a bit more cautious then normal.
Now you just cannot drive a Ferrari a lot but he does put a couple of hundred miles a month on that F430. As long as there is not real snow and ice on the ground he tries to get it out and enjoy the car.
As for the "M" cars, historically at least the engines have not been particularly long-lived...but that could have more to do with how they are driven (one would hope).
The days of the strange blackout cars and strangely colored cars (purple AMG W126 sedan anyone?) are gone. AMG is mainstream now...heck, it's even just an appearance package somewhat.
And about driving the cars...it's a shame when money overrules sense and modern performance cars sit idle. Like that Porsche...they are meant to be driven, they take mileage easily. Or the local house I know of that has a S55 AND a SL55 perpetually in the driveway...they rarely move and are often covered in dust. On the flipside, there's a guy I see almost every day apparently commuting in a current model Aston. Now that's cool.
Let me do some research tomorrow and see what I find. The problem with the 110s is that only true rover geeks know how rare the NAS D110s are and if none of them are in the market it at the moment then the truck won't reach its full potential.