no thanks cars

[davester]

There are a lot of awfully fine cars on the lists above. I have come to the conclusion that all of you guys are wusses because you can't handle a fantastic car that might have a few foibles. As for myself...bring it on!...Citroen SM, Lamborghini Miura, Jensen Interceptor, any Ferrari, '66 Thunderbird, '67 Corvette Stingray, etc.

[kj]

davester wrote:
There are a lot of awfully fine cars on the lists above. I have come to the conclusion that all of you guys are wusses because you can't handle a fantastic car that might have a few foibles. As for myself...bring it on!...Citroen SM, Lamborghini Miura, Jensen Interceptor, any Ferrari, '66 Thunderbird, '67 Corvette Stingray, etc.

No doubt. I've had 2 alfa romeos. Totally worth the trouble (which really wasn't that much). Which DeTomaso is it that has the structural issues that can cause death? Maybe that would be a deal killer. Nah, I'd still take one of each (pantera, mangusta). Jenson Interceptor? It's just a Chrysler. It can't be that bad.

No, they aren't Camrys or Accords, but on the plus side, they aren't Camrys or Accords.

edit: What's so bad about BMWs? And Porsches? You guys are weird. I'd give both nuts and throw in my prostate for a Miura. I don't care if it ever ran, it could just sit there and look pretty.

[Racer X]

Speedy wrote:
Chevy Vega, a Motor Trend magazine car of the year. Also, most any convertible no matter how sexy.

But you're still up for a Pontiac Astra though?

[DeusxMac]

Racer X wrote:
[quote=Speedy]
Chevy Vega, a Motor Trend magazine car of the year. Also, most any convertible no matter how sexy.

But you're still up for a Pontiac Astra though.
You mean Astre.

"The Astre was cancelled with the Vega at the end of the 1977 model year..."

[DeusxMac]

davester wrote:
There are a lot of awfully fine cars on the lists above. I have come to the conclusion that all of you guys are wusses because you can't handle a fantastic car that might have a few foibles. As for myself...bring it on!...Citroen SM, Lamborghini Miura, Jensen Interceptor, any Ferrari, '66 Thunderbird, '67 Corvette Stingray, etc.

Davester, are there any pre-1976 "production sexy beasts" you wouldn't accept if given?

[davester]

DeusxMac wrote:
[quote=davester]
There are a lot of awfully fine cars on the lists above. I have come to the conclusion that all of you guys are wusses because you can't handle a fantastic car that might have a few foibles. As for myself...bring it on!...Citroen SM, Lamborghini Miura, Jensen Interceptor, any Ferrari, '66 Thunderbird, '67 Corvette Stingray, etc.

Davester, are there any pre-1976 "production sexy beasts" you wouldn't accept if given?
Sure. The post-66 Thunderbirds are ugly yank tanks and the Mustang II was a Pinto Those things were garbage and hardly sexy..

[Rolando]

davester wrote:
Sure. The post-66 Thunderbirds are ugly yank tanks and the Mustang II was a Pinto Those things were garbage and hardly sexy..

For free? I'd take just about any car that is not giant sized.

If the body is good and the engine not running? Get it Electric-converteed!

I rather like the Mustang2 Hatchbacks..
And the original Mustang was just a Falcon...
And the 79-2004 Mustang was a really nice Fairmont...

But I still will not call the Mach-E a Mustang. It would have made a nice Falcon!

[kj]

Maybe now days an suv or truck would count as a sexy vehicle, and I would not take either. They would just take up space in my driveway, so no reason to have them, even for free.

[DeusxMac]

Rolando’s post reminded me - Audi Fox; I would reject that too.

[Racer X]

Wasn't the Audi Fox just a Jetta?