areaseven Posted October 30, 2009 Author Posted October 30, 2009 Here are some old pics I took years ago while I was having my Mustang serviced. These were taken at Galpin Motors in North Hills, CA and at their specialty shop Galpin Motor Sports - home of MTV's Pimp My Ride. These two Shelby GT500 Mustangs were among the first batch made in 2006. Because of their low serial numbers, they were fetching ridiculously high prices. The white one went for $88,000 while the red one went for $100,000 (as compared to the normal sticker price of $42,000). Panoz Esperante - a hand-built sports car using lots of carbon fiber parts and the engine of the older (2000-2004) Mustang SVT Cobra. There's a good reason why you don't see many of these on the road: they start at around $80,000. This Ford GT was custom-painted by the dealer with the classic Gulf Oil racing scheme. If I remember, this one went for around $270,000. An old Mustang Shelby GT350 customized with 17" rims from the 2005 model. Didn't get to see what else was modified, though.
yellowlightman Posted October 30, 2009 Posted October 30, 2009 These two Shelby GT500 Mustangs were among the first batch made in 2006. Because of their low serial numbers, they were fetching ridiculously high prices. The white one went for $88,000 while the red one went for $100,000 (as compared to the normal sticker price of $42,000). That's ridiculous. A janky Ford built in 2006 is never going to be a collectors item.
areaseven Posted November 1, 2009 Author Posted November 1, 2009 The 50 Ugliest Cars of the Past 50 Years
areaseven Posted November 4, 2009 Author Posted November 4, 2009 WTF is this monstrosity? It's probably even uglier than the Panamera!
Shadow Posted November 4, 2009 Posted November 4, 2009 Rear bumper of an Insight while the front reminds me of the Audi Q7. Not digging it all though I'm not real big on the new Accords in general.
reddsun1 Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 That's ridiculous. A janky Ford built in 2006 is never going to be a collectors item. I imagine folks said the same thing about Mustangs back in 1966 as well. After all, they were built in numbers approaching millions. And look what prices they fetch nowadays. Ain't irony a bi*ch? But I see your point. Them horses were made to be "ridden hard and put up wet," NOT hermetically sealed away by rich di*kheads who are scared to even drive them--and probably can't even drive them properly anyway--and speculate on how much other rich di*kheads will overpay for them in 5, 10, 20+ years...
Agent ONE Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 I imagine folks said the same thing about Mustangs back in 1966 as well. After all, they were built in numbers approaching millions. And look what prices they fetch nowadays. Ain't irony a bi*ch? But I see your point. Them horses were made to be "ridden hard and put up wet," NOT hermetically sealed away by rich di*kheads who are scared to even drive them--and probably can't even drive them properly anyway--and speculate on how much other rich di*kheads will overpay for them in 5, 10, 20+ years... Newer cars are made from materials that volatilize, meaning they dissolve. The cars made after 1980 are all disposable... Not saying that none of them will last (some guy will remanufacture parts for ferraris and other high end cars), they just won't have a collectable quality as they are all built be be 'throw away.'
David Hingtgen Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 Also, if 90% of them are "saved" in the first place---their lose their "rare value". Good example is the first Darth Maul figure---everyone figured he'd be desired/valuable later, and bought a few to store away. Well, now he's actually about the least-valuable figure of the line---because everyone already has their own mint example! The only people interested in buying one--already have one! Same happens to cars nowadays---all the rich people who want those cars--already bought one new and kept it mint. They'll never be rare and hard to find in good condition, if every single one is saved in mint condition to start with.
Beltane70 Posted November 6, 2009 Posted November 6, 2009 Does that mean that my '05 Sentra SE-R SpecV has more of a chance of becoming a classic car than an '05 Mustang?
Gaijin Posted November 6, 2009 Posted November 6, 2009 Does that mean that my '05 Sentra SE-R SpecV has more of a chance of becoming a classic car than an '05 Mustang? Yes in theory, but...no in reality!
Beltane70 Posted November 6, 2009 Posted November 6, 2009 Yes in theory, but...no in reality! Ain't that the truth!
areaseven Posted November 7, 2009 Author Posted November 7, 2009 It's amazing how a simple set of Cragar-like wheels makes the Dodge Challenger look drop-dead sexy. 2009 Dodge Challenger Moparized
emajnthis Posted November 8, 2009 Posted November 8, 2009 I think it looks better stock than it does "moparized", they can keep their wheels spoiler and hood latches.
David Hingtgen Posted November 8, 2009 Posted November 8, 2009 Now see if I had a Challenger, I would so get those wheels and possibly the hood pins.
areaseven Posted November 8, 2009 Author Posted November 8, 2009 Power Wheels for the big boys? Presented at this year's SEMA Convention, this Jeep Lower Forty sports a 5.7 liter Hemi V8 and massive 40" tires. 2009 Jeep Lower Forty
emajnthis Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 (edited) Now see if I had a Challenger, I would so get those wheels and possibly the hood pins. The wheels don't do it for me, maybe it's because they're on every GT Mustang i see around town so the look is spoiled, same thing goes for the hood pins being on every ricer car with a stock motor and a fart can muffler. Edit: I think the wheels would've looked better if the rears were a little wider, looking at the photos the rear proportions don't look right to me and i think it's because they used too skinny a wheel (or the offset isn't correct), or maybe if they staggered the rear wheels slightly (not ridiculously, but in a subtle manner). Edited November 10, 2009 by emajnthis
reddsun1 Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 (edited) It's amazing how a simple set of Cragar-like wheels makes the Dodge Challenger look drop-dead sexy. 2009 Dodge Challenger Moparized While the stripe design may be closer to "historically correct," I'm surprised they didn't go with something running the full length of the body. Would help to break up the slab-sided appearance of the rear quarters, visually. Front end looks busy, while the rear looks like blank billboards. I guess consumers have been taken in by the automotive equivalent of a designing "slight of hand," so to speak; moreso with the Challenger and Camaro than the Mustang. In order to keep a sense of proportion, they have to have huge gaping wheelwells--which have to be filled out with some huge-normous rolling stock, upwards of 20" or more--in order to not to betray their portly dimensions. This Camaro is on 18" x 10" and 18" x 10.5" wheels/tires, which ain't exactly small. But it still looks kinda silly. Edited November 10, 2009 by reddsun1
emajnthis Posted November 10, 2009 Posted November 10, 2009 While the stripe design may be closer to "historically correct," I'm surprised they didn't go with something running the full length of the body. Would help to break up the slab-sided appearance of the rear quarters, visually. Front end looks busy, while the rear looks like blank billboards. I guess consumers have been taken in by the automotive equivalent of a designing "slight of hand," so to speak; moreso with the Challenger and Camaro than the Mustang. In order to keep a sense of proportion, they have to have huge gaping wheelwells--which have to be filled out with some huge-normous rolling stock, upwards of 20" or more--in order to not to betray their portly dimensions. This Camaro is on 18" x 10" and 18" x 10.5" wheels/tires, which ain't exactly small. But it still looks kinda silly. No kidding, those 18's look like 16's on that car, it needs 20's to keep up with those wheel wells and probably a pretty good side wall to flesh out the rest. I'm a big fan of how these are designed, but finding a light and stylish 20 inch wheel (that won't bankrupt you) is still pretty hard, it'll be easier in the next few years since all of the new performance cars are using 19 and 20 inch wheels, but i can see why people are settling for this kind of look in the mean time.
reddsun1 Posted November 11, 2009 Posted November 11, 2009 (edited) No kidding, those 18's look like 16's on that car, it needs 20's to keep up with those wheel wells and probably a pretty good side wall to flesh out the rest. I'm a big fan of how these are designed, but finding a light and stylish 20 inch wheel (that won't bankrupt you) is still pretty hard, it'll be easier in the next few years since all of the new performance cars are using 19 and 20 inch wheels, but i can see why people are settling for this kind of look in the mean time. I know using that race car probably wasn't the best example; that sanctioning body restricts wheel/tire sizes to 18" max, IIRC. I think 18" is still considered the "industry standard" as representative of what's most available/identifiable on high-performance cars. But yes, it will be interesting to see how the wheel and tire industries cope with balancing [no pun intended] the need for increased sizes in rolling stock to satisfy auto designers against the goal of reducing overall weight. Edited November 11, 2009 by reddsun1
areaseven Posted November 12, 2009 Author Posted November 12, 2009 Now this looks sexy. 2009 Chevrolet Camaro Dusk
reddsun1 Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) Ya gotta admit, Chevy did good on the new Camaro. Despite having the frontal area of an industrial truck--observe one parked next to a previous-gen F-body, and you'll see what I mean--it still just looks, "right." One mean lookin mutha... BUUUUUT. If the interior ergonomics and design quality is on par with Chevrolet's other offerings [i have relatives that own an HHR and Malibu respectively], then I'd still have to say: PASS. I just don't like their cars. Edited November 12, 2009 by reddsun1
Gaijin Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 Ya gotta admit, Chevy did good on the new Camaro. Despite having the frontal area of an industrial truck--observe one parked next to a previous-gen F-body, and you'll see what I mean--it still just looks, "right." One mean lookin mutha... BUUUUUT. If the interior ergonomics and design quality is on par with Chevrolet's other offerings [i have relatives that own an HHR and Malibu respectively], then I'd still have to say: PASS. I just don't like their cars. Try sitting in a new Camaro. It's nothing like a Malibu. You won't mistake it for a Bimmer, but it's above the usual Chevy/Ford interiors. Only thing I thought was beyond stupid is the trunk opening...it's like a mail slot, you can't stick anything in it.
David Hingtgen Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 Man, it must really suck to have a pelican buzz your Bugatti Veyron, causing you to drive it into a marsh: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/slides...BUCB800?index=0
ambient73 Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 Dangit, sniped! Dumbo gets an A+ for the inventiveness of his BS explanation though. The Veyron has never been that appealing to me...design's a little ugg, IMO. More importantly, why do so many of the jokers that can afford these supercars seem to be so damn stupid?
miles316 Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 Dangit, sniped! Dumbo gets an A+ for the inventiveness of his BS explanation though. The Veyron has never been that appealing to me...design's a little ugg, IMO. More importantly, why do so many of the jokers that can afford these supercars seem to be so damn stupid? I thought the only reason some one would buy it was because it is the fastest stock street legal car in the world.
David Hingtgen Posted November 14, 2009 Posted November 14, 2009 And the crash was caught on tape: http://jalopnik.com/5404403/exclusive-vide...into-texas-lake "I'm pretty sure it's a Lambo, dude".
ambient73 Posted November 14, 2009 Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) "See, what happened was, I was trying to commit insurance fraud avoid a low flying pelican...HONEST! Trying to figure out how Beavis could mistake a Veyron for a Lamborghini...jeebus Edited November 14, 2009 by ambient73
reddsun1 Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 Lingenfelter T/A concept from SEMA show. Bit of a useless exercise though, considering the Poncho's getting axed. Interesting that they chose 2nd-gen body style as their inspiration [for the nose]. And good God, what a nose that is! Looks like it was grafted off one of their GMC industrial trucks or something! Wonder what the coefficient of drag is on that baby?
Chewie Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 Wouldn't be surprised if someone started selling a kit for the Camaro after seeing something like that.
David Hingtgen Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 Have I ever mentioned that one of the main reasons I like 4th gen F-bodies is their tapered nose? The 5th gen is the exact opposite of that.
Agent ONE Posted November 30, 2009 Posted November 30, 2009 Ugly... Where is Phyrox, doesn't he own the original car in that exact paint scheme?
myk Posted December 5, 2009 Posted December 5, 2009 Jesus, I hope that Finger-felt-her T/A doesn't make it out of their doors; that thing is hideous...
David Hingtgen Posted December 6, 2009 Posted December 6, 2009 Anyone seen "Synergy green", the awesome new color for the Camaro? Well they just announced it'll be V6-only. And only for the non-RS models. Maybe they'll make Polo Green available for the SS model.
Recommended Posts