6th Apr 2006, 13:19
I totally agree with the above comment except for one thing: the current GTO is a rear-drive car. And yes, I would take the current GTO over any of the 60's rust buckets.
6th Apr 2006, 16:44
Funny it took the Australians to show the Americans how to build a 21st century GTO.
And, yes, virtually any muscle car today is superior to those of the 1960's. In fact, there have been several articles on how these more-money-than-brains baby boomers pay insane prices for these collectible muscle cars only to realize that they really are crappy to drive and built worse.
6th Apr 2006, 17:48
Where are these articles and who wrote them? Obviously when it comes to the appeal of a true muscle car (not a modern plastic knock-off), you just don't get it, and probably never will. If you tromp your foot to the floor in a 454 Chevelle, and can only complain about the lack of cup holders, then you just don't know what a real muscle car is, or what it's for.
7th Apr 2006, 09:22
The articles didn't talk about raw speed which muscle cars have in abundance, but that the rest of the car was so primitive compared to modern cars.
I mean, you can't possibly say that the OVERALL driving experience of a 40 year old car is superior to a modern GTO.
And this is nothing against the original muscle cars. Just that people have ridiculous expectations when buying these things, when all they really are is pure power designed to win drag races.
7th Apr 2006, 16:21
Wish you people would understand the point at hand.
The term "primitive' does NOT refer to comfort. It refers to the fact that 1960's era muscles cars had POOR brakes, POOR handling and were only designed to go in a straight line. They can see the lack of comforts before they even get in the vehicle, the handling and brakes they really can't until they drive it, usually after they've paid $100K for something that was $5000 15 years ago.
There is nothing wrong with that given the era, but the FACT which you people CONTINUE to miss is that these more-money-than-brains baby boomers buy these cars for exhorbidant sums and then are disappointed when they realize the horrific handling and brakes. For me, I could care less either way since I prefer handling and the ability to avoid an accident over raw power.
Sorry to rain on your parade with FACTS from the stupid baby boomers. Figures you would shoot the messenger.
7th Apr 2006, 18:45
"Please point out where the poster was insulting muscle cars." Very well:
Insult No. 1: Funny it took the Australians to show the Americans how to build a 21st century GTO.
Insult No. 2: And, yes, virtually any muscle car today is superior to those of the 1960's.
Insult No. 3: There have been several articles on how these more-money-than-brains baby boomers pay insane prices for these collectible muscle cars only to realize that.
Insult No. 4: they really are crappy to drive and built worse.
Nice try, you pose as presenting facts from interviews with people that you insultingly refer to as more-money-than-brains baby-boomers, when the real fact is that the statement happens to nicely reflect your own bias. Car and Driver? Autoweek? Ha ha!! These are the so-called car magazines that are so biased that they will tell you anything other than a $70,000 BMW is a waste of time. Nice sources you have. Let me guess--you have never actually driven a real muscle car, have you?
You may imagine that you are raining on my parade by senselessly trashing a great car by presenting selected facts that support your own biased opinion that original muscle cars are junk. In fact, I merely feel sorry for you as you expose yourself as small minded individuals who are so enamored with anything flashy and new that you believe anything old must be junk. Why not admit that you just don't understand the phenomena, instead of blindly attacking it? The original reviewer simply posted an honest, fair review of a well known and well liked car, and it has been a lightning rod for hateful comments from people who are obviously so insecure with themselves and their own cars, that they hope to make themselves feel better by running down one of the most famous cars in automotive history. I begin to doubt whether you jokers even own new GTO's, which really makes me wonder why you are here trashing the '64 at all.
7th Apr 2006, 21:59
Is that what you're so angry about to be compelled to keep trying to trash muscle cars, your jealousy that a '64 GTO has skyrocketed in value, when you know that your own 2005 won't be worth $2,000 in less than 5 years? That's your problem, and nobody else's. You just have to accept that muscle cars are special for reasons that you don't seem able to understand, and the rules of depreciation and blue book value just don't apply to them. Sorry for your lack of understanding, but nobody will be able to explain it to you.