Mustang versus Vette

Say I take a Vette, that costs $45,000 when new.
Then I take a Mustang GT, that costs $27,000.
Then I put $18,000 into the Mustang.
Which is now the better car?
-Rich

Around 1/29/2005 4:55 PM, RichA wrote:

> Say I take a Vette, that costs $45,000 when new.
> Then I take a Mustang GT, that costs $27,000.
> Then I put $18,000 into the Mustang.
> Which is now the better car?
> -Rich

"Better" is such a subjective term...

How about you put the 18 grand into the bank instead, and enjoy both
cars on their own merits?


--
/ Garth - '83 GL V6stang Hatch <Former MW #7> \
| My V6stang: http://www.v6stang.com/v6stang |
| RAMFM Merchandise: http://www.cafeshops.com/ramfm |
\ Mail for secure reply information /

Sorry, but you are trolling. You *know* there was a huge argument in a
different thread about this specifically. Bad Rich!! =(

-Mike

--
A happy kid behind the wheel of a 98 Mustang GT
Cold air intake
FRPP 3.73 gears
Steeda Tri-Ax Shifter
Flowmaster 40 Series mufflers (self-installed woohoo)
Hi-speed fan switch
255/60R-15 rear tires
Subframe connectors
Aluminum adjustable clutch quadrant


"RichA" > wrote in message
...
> Say I take a Vette, that costs $45,000 when new.
> Then I take a Mustang GT, that costs $27,000.
> Then I put $18,000 into the Mustang.
> Which is now the better car?
> -Rich

You're talking the new Vette vs the New Mustang.
If someone offered me the choice between the two modded as you wrote here...

damn... I'd have to take the Vette.

Kate

"RichA" > wrote in message
...
| Say I take a Vette, that costs $45,000 when new.
| Then I take a Mustang GT, that costs $27,000.
| Then I put $18,000 into the Mustang.
| Which is now the better car?
| -Rich

"Joe" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you put the $18,000 cash into the Mustang's glove box, I'd have to
> say the Mustang.
>

Dang, _that_ kind of incentive makes a GTO look good!
--
John C.
'03 Cobra Convt.

RichA wrote:
> Say I take a Vette, that costs $45,000 when new.
> Then I take a Mustang GT, that costs $27,000.
> Then I put $18,000 into the Mustang.
> Which is now the better car?
> -Rich

Try and get that $18k back out of the Mustang when you try and sell it.
The Vette would be a better investment and a better performing car for
the money spent.

Now I just need to figure out whether you're a troll since you have also
authored a thread about GM going into bankruptcy. Seems to be too loony
a post to take you very seriously.

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 09:10:31 GMT, > wrote:

>Sorry, but you are trolling. You *know* there was a huge argument in a
>different thread about this specifically. Bad Rich!! =(
>
>-Mike

Not really. I didn't follow the other thread. But what I've seen
people do with Mustangs with relatively little money (compared to
the prices of cars that are "better" initially) impresses me.
The idea that "the Vette is a better car to begin with" is true,
but then where do you stop? A 911 is a better car still...
Maybe I should have phrased it; "Give me a $50,000 Vette and
a Mustang GT and only $10,000 ($8000 less than a Vette) and then
see which car is better." I'd have $8000 to put "in the bank"
as two posters suggested and still a subjectively better car than
the Vette.
-Rich

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:39:54 -0500, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>> Say I take a Vette, that costs $45,000 when new.
>> Then I take a Mustang GT, that costs $27,000.
>> Then I put $18,000 into the Mustang.
>> Which is now the better car?
>> -Rich
>
>Try and get that $18k back out of the Mustang when you try and sell it.
> The Vette would be a better investment and a better performing car for
>the money spent.

Investment? A modern car? That is a laugh. If I want an investment
I'll spend the $50,000 on a Hemi Chrysler (1964-1971).

>Now I just need to figure out whether you're a troll since you have also
>authored a thread about GM going into bankruptcy. Seems to be too loony
>a post to take you very seriously.

Rumours abound. How else to determine authenticity unless you ask?
-Rich

Yea, but the new Vette is just SOOooooooo easy on the eyes.

"RichA" > wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 09:10:31 GMT, > wrote:
|
| >Sorry, but you are trolling. You *know* there was a huge argument in a
| >different thread about this specifically. Bad Rich!! =(
| >
| >-Mike
|
| Not really. I didn't follow the other thread. But what I've seen
| people do with Mustangs with relatively little money (compared to
| the prices of cars that are "better" initially) impresses me.
| The idea that "the Vette is a better car to begin with" is true,
| but then where do you stop? A 911 is a better car still...
| Maybe I should have phrased it; "Give me a $50,000 Vette and
| a Mustang GT and only $10,000 ($8000 less than a Vette) and then
| see which car is better." I'd have $8000 to put "in the bank"
| as two posters suggested and still a subjectively better car than
| the Vette.
| -Rich

Well, if , by "better" you mean "faster" then why not just put 18k into a 72
Nova or something ??

"Better car" encompasses a LOT more than horsepower, or speed.

If you like the lines, stance, interior, etc of a Corvett then no amount of
money will likely make you think a Mustang is "better"

OTOH there are many folks that think it's ALREADY a better car than a Vette.

Personally, I LOVE my Mustang, and it's been a great car. I'd like to have
an '05 too, and likely will some day.

OTOH, I love Vettes too! I've owned a few in the past, and had lots of fun
with them. I think the C6 is a BEAUTIFUL car, and, although I hate to admit
it HERE, if you offered me an 05 Vette STOCK, and an 05 Mustang with a
supercharger, and handling mods, I'd snatch that little bowtie beauty up
in a HEARTBEAT ! ! !


"RichA" > wrote in message
...
> Say I take a Vette, that costs $45,000 when new.
> Then I take a Mustang GT, that costs $27,000.
> Then I put $18,000 into the Mustang.
> Which is now the better car?
> -Rich