>>Dan wrote:
>>
>>>"Wound Up" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Man oh man...
>>>>
>>>>It would have creases in the top
>>>>And a little dirt on the paint
>>>>And my forever ****-eating grin behind its wheel
>>>>
>>>>(Wipes drool from bottom lip)
>>>>
>>>>http://www.cars-on-line.com/17262.html
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Wound Up
>>>>
>>>>1967 Mustang Coupe, restored & modified
>>>>
>>>>"A pessimist is just a well-informed optimist." - Anonymous
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>How about a '69 Mach I R code?
>>>http://www.volocars.com/showroom/sho...g/T-Bird&show=
>>>
>>>Oh, my head. I wish I had the money. If you're ever in the area, this is
>>>a great place to visit. Wear a bib.
>>
>>That's simply gorgeous. What a ride!
>>
>>Yes, on our next trip to Chicago, I will have to check that place out.
>>Baseball games are fine, but there are priorities!
>>
>
>
> Volo is just a short ride from my house. I could live there. I don't have a
> Mustang anymore but I've had the Jones pretty bad lately. I can't decide if
> I want a late 60's Mach I or wait for the '06 Cobra.

That would be an easy decision for me, at least...

Every now and then I
> think about a late '80's - early 90's 5.0 project car. They all have their
> plusses and minuses. The '06 SVT Cobra has the advantage of being the
> perfect car since it hasn't been built yet.

Hmm... I know what you mean, but I would prefer to wait a year or two
and see what happens with any new model. Of course, there are things
like the R models (like the 95 351R), but even if I were going to drop
that on a new Cobra I'd want to see some independent review.

The vintage 'stangs to me are
> the best looking, prolly cause of my age. But they can't hold a candle to
> the new cars performance wise.

Again, we differ in opinion here. Performance to me doesn't -just- mean
road test numbers. And I'm quite sure an R-code, 4-speed Mach would run
that Cobra in the 1/4 quite handily. My carbureted, pushrod small block
can edge stock pre-05 GTs. And it wasn't $25,000 with the taxes and the
insurance and all that. Much more fun IMO. With the five-speed, I
dared 130 once, but it got floaty so I shut it down. Then I did it in
the other direction to verify New Mustangs are very watered down in
terms of visceral experience. I like the wail of 4 barrels on WOT. I
like the ability to fling the ass end out in a cloud of tire smoke when
I want to. I don't like tires at $250 each. I like the feel, the
smell, the sound, the stance and the presence of my '67. I like to tune
it, improve it, and to know it stem-to-stern from having worked on it...
it's just my preference, I'm not saying there's a right and wrong.
There's a lot to be said for simplicity IMO.

The Fox body 5.0's are kinda ugly, but I know
> the car inside out, and I regret selling my '88 5.0 LX notchback. I paid
> $11,700.00 for it and with a few cheapo mods, it was a lot of bang for the
> buck. Decisions, decisions. I'm going to wait until I see the SVT. I figure
> word will be out by mid summer.

79-93 Foxes... I like 'em, but not enough to lust for one. I went to
Bondurant in 91 and wrung the snot out of them for four days, so I do
have an appreciation. And yeah, they were definitely a lot of bang for
the buck. I wish there were cars priced and equipped like that now.
Unfortunately auto prices have outpaced inflation for far too long now.
It's a damned shame. Everything got overbundled and complicated. The
5.0LX was one of the last "basic car with the good engine" models you
could get, anywhere. And they do have potential.

> So you play baseball or watch?

Just watch. Cards fan. Aching to forget last season. Played as a kid,
but beer-league softball is all now.

>
> Dan
>
>


--
Wound Up

1967 Mustang Coupe, restored & modified

"A pessimist is just a well-informed optimist." - Anonymous