Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: FUNKED1 on October 04, 2004, 01:19:15 PM
-
Originally posted by Preon1
You could even argue that the first blows on Americans in the war on terror occurred during Clinton's (D) watch. Who will end it? and how much will it cost?
One could do a lot more than argue it. It's an undeniable fact. Al Qaeda bombed the WTC and the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Clinton responded with cruise missile attacks in Sudan and Afghanistan. And so it began.
-
I think it all started when Coca-Cola changed thier formula. "New Coke" sent the entire world spiraling into paranoia.
-
DETH TO COKEREEKA!!! (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/07/world/main539891.shtml)
-
This is as dumb as "Freedom Fries"
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
One could do a lot more than argue it. It's an undeniable fact. Al Qaeda bombed the WTC and the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Clinton responded with cruise missile attacks in Sudan and Afghanistan. And so it began.
One of two possible points here. Either you are just plain wrong, or you are saying that the war on terror should be limited to Al Queda. Which would you rather be PWNED for?
-
The war on terror should be limited to terrorist groups from the Middle East, because they are clearly the only terrorists in the world.
-SW
-
Personally, I think it was the demise of muscle cars in the late '60's that caused all the problems.
When folks saw THIS, they KNEW we meant business.
(http://musclecars.ecweb.cl/imagenes/articulos/69boss429a.jpg)
Then we put out this nancy-boy .... thing... no wonder people hate us.
(http://www.nicecarsforwomen.com/Ford/Mustang/FordMustang_History/1974_1978_MustangII/1974MustangHardtop.jpg)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
One of two possible points here. Either you are just plain wrong, or you are saying that the war on terror should be limited to Al Queda. Which would you rather be PWNED for?
1. I'm not wrong.
2. The war on terror should be limited to any terrorist groups who attack America or her citizens. Al Qaeda is obviously #1 on the list.
-
Good point Toad, but I still think the world blames us for the Coke formula change. I tend to think it was an act of terrorism.
We can only blame ourselves for the 'Nancy' car 70's, 80's, and 90's.
-
It's a Global War on Terror.
Not a War on Terrorists Who Only Attack America.
Well, it's supposed to be a Global War on Terror.
-SW
-
I think it started in the early 70s. Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, etc... they all had their world and terrorism issues to deal with.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
1. I'm not wrong.
2. The war on terror should be limited to any terrorist groups who attack America or her citizens. Al Qaeda is obviously #1 on the list.
#2 then... Iraq was a stupid move that did nothing to further our cause against "Terrorist groups who attacked America".
#1. There were serious attacks well before the 1993 WTC attack. Panam Flight 103? The Truck bombing in Libya? etc. etc. Luckily Reagan attacked Grenada or we would have really gotten it!
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
One could do a lot more than argue it. It's an undeniable fact. Al Qaeda bombed the WTC and the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Clinton responded with cruise missile attacks in Sudan and Afghanistan. And so it began.
Don't forget Ronald Reagan.
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1985/70885a.htm
-
Ah, but we gave them the "old" Coke back in "Classic" form.
I ask you, where are the Boss 429's of yesteryear? And puh-leez... don't give me any of that slug-ugly "Viper" stuff. I'm talking a totally bad lookin' ride with huge amounts of horsepower... that didn't take a millionaire's salary to buy just for the fun of it.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Personally, I think it was the demise of muscle cars in the late '60's that caused all the problems.
When folks saw THIS, they KNEW we meant business.
LOL Toad!
Yeah, but we're BAAAAAAAAACK! ;)
2005>>
(http://bradbarnett.net/mustangs/timeline/05/05/0914-52.jpg)
-
That Mustang has the perfect combination of gay and queer.
-SW
-
C'mon Rip. That looks like the love-child of the 1969 and the 1974.
It's got half it's genes right, I guess. They should have gone full retro. Imagine a 1969 Boss body with 2004 underpinnings and tech advances. I'd be over at the Ford dealer right now.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
LOL Toad!
Yeah, but we're BAAAAAAAAACK! ;)
2005>>
Bring forth the "muscle". :)
(http://www.auto.co.yu/img/download/Chrysler-300C.jpg)
Oh... and what's this "we" ****? Don't you drive a bimmer? :D
-
Originally posted by Toad
C'mon Rip. That looks like the love-child of the 1969 and the 1974.
It's got half it's genes right, I guess. They should have gone full retro. Imagine a 1969 Boss body with 2004 underpinnings and tech advances. I'd be over at the Ford dealer right now.
Well, the ponies are there... (shrugs)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
[IMG]
Oh... and what's this "we" ****? Don't you drive a bimmer? :D
Proverbial "We" as in Americans. And, I've owned a couple muscles cars...the 2006 Cobra might be my "bimmer killer", just have to buy the wife a car first. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Bring forth the "muscle". :)
(http://www.auto.co.yu/img/download/Chrysler-300C.jpg)
Oh... and what's this "we" ****? Don't you drive a bimmer? :D
CONGRATS YOU ARE THE PROUD NEW OWNER OF... A BAR OF SOAP ON WHEELS!
What's next, the Oscar-Meyer Wienermobile?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Ah, but we gave them the "old" Coke back in "Classic" form.
I ask you, where are the Boss 429's of yesteryear? And puh-leez... don't give me any of that slug-ugly "Viper" stuff. I'm talking a totally bad lookin' ride with huge amounts of horsepower... that didn't take a millionaire's salary to buy just for the fun of it.
Classic? EEEEK! It still was not the same! Remember, Coke lost the original formula.
I do agree about the old Boss. The 69 Mustang was the best looking Mustang that ever hit the street. The 69 Shelby GT500 was even better looking.
The 'new' Mustand does, at least, pay homage to its roots. It looks like a real offshoot of the original and it does the 'go-fast' pretty nicely, at a decent street price.
But you are right about one thing. Nothing feels better than a big block with gobs of torque. It gives 'go fast' new meaning.
**By the way, as far as hijacks goes, this is pretty dang good. :D **
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
CONGRATS YOU ARE THE PROUD NEW OWNER OF... A BAR OF SOAP ON WHEELS!
What's next, the Oscar-Meyer Wienermobile?
Wind tunnels killed automobile style. :p
-
Pffft...
good one Funker..
I can't make up my mind onf that chrysler, but at 23,000 list, their going to be all over the place.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I do agree about the old Boss. The 69 Mustang was the best looking Mustang that ever hit the street. The 69 Shelby GT500 was even better looking.
I preferred the '67. :)
-
Originally posted by Muckmaw1
Pffft...
good one Funker..
I can't make up my mind onf that chrysler, but at 23,000 list, their going to be all over the place.
Yeah... but for 23K, you don't get the V8.
-
I'm holding out for the 2006 Shelby Mustang. Mmmmm!
2007 might be the year to buy.. all the bugs from the 2005, 2006 models are worked out...
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Bring forth the "muscle". :)
(http://www.auto.co.yu/img/download/Chrysler-300C.jpg)
Oh... and what's this "we" ****? Don't you drive a bimmer? :D
Packard: "been there, done that, 53 years before you" aka "Is that your grand mothers car?"
(http://www.classiccar.com/photopost/data/585/142Hill5-med.JPG)
-
The 300 and the new pony (throw in the new vette) are definitly a breath of styling in a sea of American design decadence. Too bad they had to dig in the past to make something that looks nice.
Ahhh ... the 69 ... beaauuuuuuuutifull:D
-
Terrorists from the middle east do not like cars that remind them of women.
That Mustang is no doubt on their **** list.
-SW
-
the return of the muscle
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/407_1096918888_fordgt05_03_800.jpg)
-
Can't call the Ford GT a 'muscle-car'. One of the qualifiers to be a muscle car was to be inexpensive. It ain't. But it is a very nice looking ride and a very serious piece of hardware.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Can't call the Ford GT a 'muscle-car'. One of the qualifiers to be a muscle car was to be inexpensive.
Damn... I was thinking the same thing. ;)
-
Aside from the '69 in Toad's post, these cars you are labelling as "muscle cars"...
You don't happen to eat BonBons while watching male figure skating?
-SW
-
That's scary Sandman.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
One of the qualifiers to be a muscle car was to be inexpensive. It ain't.
Have you factored in inflation? I bet if you did factor it in, you'd find out they're not much different in their price from 1969. Just saying...
-
Given that the Corvette has been the only one which has stuck to is original design philosohy (for the most part), it would be the most expensive 'muscle-car' around. That puts the 'GT' over the top.
-
By the way FUNKED, thanks for starting this muscle car thread. :D
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
That's scary Sandman.
Try to breathe normally and relax your shoulders. The feeling will pass. :)
-
Yeah,..they said the same thing about the kidney stones.
-
Poor chice of car to wave the flag and bash German cars Sandman, that DaimlerChrysler 300 is practically half Mercedes Benz..
:D
As for the new mustang, I like the front, the interor is very cool, 300hp in a mustang is great (finally) but I dont like the rear styling of this car as of right now..
-
I was just throwing some numbers around...
$5027 was the cost of a new 1969 Shelby Mustang in 1969 $5027 would cost $25407 in 2003.
Heres the fun part...the 428 ci. produced 335 bhp. The plain jane 2005 Mustang GT bhp is 300. :eek:
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Can't call the Ford GT a 'muscle-car'. One of the qualifiers to be a muscle car was to be inexpensive. It ain't. But it is a very nice looking ride and a very serious piece of hardware.
The exotic all-alloy ZL-1 big-block engine in the 69' Vette was intended strictly for racing. The ZL-1 engine itself carried a $3,000 price tag (that's in 1969 dollars) and with the other extras that a check the ZL-1 option box required, the total package ran over $6,000 more than a standard-issue base Corvette. In total, the list price was well over $10,000, and while that seems a steal today, the fact was virtually nobody wanted to spring for that kind of money for a Corvette , or pretty much any other sports car in that day and age.
Todays cost of this car given for inflation? $50541. About the same as todays new vettes.
-
Hmmmm.... what WOULD I call "muscle car" considering Skuzzy's point that they had to be relatively inexpensive, stylish and brutally powerful.......
Here's some that spring to mind, besides the various '67-69 Mustangs, things I wouldn't mind having in the garage.
A 68 Z28 Camaro.
A 67 Chevelle SS.
A 69 Charger R/T
A 70 Hemi Cuda
A 68 GTO
A 69 Firebird T/A
A 68 G/S Buick Convertible... always liked. that one for some reason.
All fast, most stylish for the time and while not EASILY affordable, they were somewhat affordable.
Now.. what was this thread about again?
-
Terrorism has been around since the Crusades.
As for muscle: (http://img66.exs.cx/img66/3649/Ra4.jpg)
1974 Plymouth Road Runner. My brother's 1974 Duster/Dart. My RR was sold when I ran out of cash to restore it, my brother has since put in a 440 into his Duster, repainted, tubbed, caged, and runs in high 10's.
As for my next muscle....:(http://www.bullz-eye.com/carreviews/2003%20images/dodge_neon_srt4.jpg)
2004 Neon SRT-4. 0-60 5.7 seconds, 230 bhp
Call me nuts...but for under 20k I say its pretty nice.
-
Originally posted by Toad
... and while not EASILY affordable, they were somewhat affordable.
Here is that inflation calculator I was playing with, if you know how much it cost in the year it was new, its interesting to see what it would cost today:
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
Example:
Base price 1969 Dodge Charger R/T $3575
2003= $18068
Insurance back then was prohibitive! Usually more than the car payment itself ;)
-
So, clearly muscle cars were more affordable back then. $18k isn't going to buy you much nowadays.
With apologies to Sigma, I'd call that 2004 Neon SRT-4. 0-60 5.7 seconds, 230 bhp "cute and quick" but I sure wouldn't call it a muscle car. Maybe if it could play real loud bellowing V-8 sounds from external speakers or something.... and that body style.... need something that looks a bit more brutal than a jellybean.
;)
-
Gotta agree with Toad about that Neon. It's not a 'muscle-car'. The original GTO defined 'muscle-car'. Big engine, light body, and low price.
On the costs, the old muscle cars did not have to have all the safety and emissions equipment required today. Pile all that on and you would probably double the costs of an old muscle-car built today.
-
Prices can really jump up depending of the options:
1966 Pontiac Tempest GTO Sport Coupe FOB factory $2,763
But sold $3,585 with
Air cond, 4 speed trany, console, tinted glass, calif emiss control, remote mirrors, rear speackers, rally guages, seat belts, rally wheels, radio.
1970 Judge GTO
FOB factory is $3493, Equiped as tested $4439 with options including Ram Air IV eng $390, front disc brakes $64, four speed trany $195, power steering $100, poly tires $72, radio $61, hood tach $63 ...
-
The reason I have a liking towards the neon is because I grew up with a fascination with it when I was young.
My sister had a neon that she brought to the Mopar Nationals and it inspired people to gout and race neons in pro-body, etc
I would read in mopar magazines about the rumors of a new Neon build, with a 6 cyc and supercharged.
Its more of a personal like and plus its something I could more easily afford in more ways than one. Plus my family is big time Dodge and theres nothing else that I can get thats just as powerful next to the Viper( too expensive) and the 300 (too classy)
-
(http://www.automotriz.net/images/galeria/images/Kia-Sportage-0x.jpg)
The Love-Muscle car.
-
Paint it pink and put spandex seat covers in it and you are set.
-
Sandman , with hemi 300 is real nice...good choice.
muscle ?
1969 dodge charger datona with leaded in front ,440, cross rams with holley double pumpers.
1970 road runner 383, 4 speed with pistol grip , deep set cragers with 70 by 14 inch tires. Paid 1100 for it in 1973,had 45000 miles on it. Used it for another 65000 miles no trouble except clutches. Ran 13.95 at 104 with bad tires...never got back to irindale...got married lol.
All cars mentioned good choices,anyone remember the ford black widow production car?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Don't forget Ronald Reagan.
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1985/70885a.htm
I was just gonna mention that.
Actually didnt it all really start back in the middle ages during the holy wars?
Or is that just when they first declared war on us? LOL
-
heh Ok I'll admit it. Its my fault
Back in the Early 80's I picked up one of these.
.(http://chevyhiperformance.com/featuredvehicles/p130730_image_large.jpg)
Fixed it up and blew away one of Saddams Kid Who was in a Dachsund Z28 in a street race comming off a redlight.
Funny thing was. for the longest time he was the only one that knew we were racing. I came off the light and suddenly I hear a car going through its gears like it was trying to pass me. I look over and See this ******* Driving like mad trying to get ahead of me.
So I looked over, Smiled and waved bye bye then punched it. And left him like he was standing still.
They've hated us ever since
-
Originally posted by Toad
Personally, I think it was the demise of muscle cars in the late '60's that caused all the problems.
So... It's all Nader's fault?
-
Probably more correct to say it's the Insurance Company Cabal that murdered the muscle cars. In the garage, with the premiums.
Sniff. A sad day, fer shure dude.
Now people run around in quick little jelly beans from Asia with wing-thingies sprouting all over and exhausts that make high-pitched farting noises; these people think they're in a real car.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
heh Ok I'll admit it. Its my fault
Back in the Early 80's I picked up one of these.
.(http://chevyhiperformance.com/featuredvehicles/p130730_image_large.jpg)
Fixed it up and blew away one of Saddams Kid Who was in a Dachsund Z28 in a street race comming off a redlight.
Funny thing was. for the longest time he was the only one that knew we were racing. I came off the light and suddenly I hear a car going through its gears like it was trying to pass me. I look over and See this ******* Driving like mad trying to get ahead of me.
So I looked over, Smiled and waved bye bye then punched it. And left him like he was standing still.
They've hated us ever since
Very cool car! I had a 1972 split bumper with a 400 small block.
I always loved the look of those 70-72 split bumper Camaros.
Very nice!
-
Originally posted by Mini D
So... It's all Nader's fault?
Him and the Environazis.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
1. I'm not wrong.
2. The war on terror should be limited to any terrorist groups who attack America or her citizens. Al Qaeda is obviously #1 on the list.
"War on Terror".... Deliberately mis-named to avoid offending Muslims.
It implies essentially the same logic that the anti-gun nuts use in that guns are to blame for gun violence, rather than the nutball culture that breeds killers.
We currently wage war terrorists because the terrorists are the cause of terror.
What we really have is a "War on Radical Islam". Until the western world openly admits that you don't have terror without a radical and obcenely violent religious sect that breeds killers, we will make no more progress on terror than we do in curbing inner-city gun violence.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Him and the Environazis.
Methinks you're too young to get that one. I feel really really old right now.
-
widewing is correct in my opinion on this and....
what demise of muscle cars? got one in the driveway... better than it was in 1969. They didn't have 6 speeds in 69.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Toad
So, clearly muscle cars were more affordable back then. $18k isn't going to buy you much nowadays.
With apologies to Sigma, I'd call that 2004 Neon SRT-4. 0-60 5.7 seconds, 230 bhp "cute and quick" but I sure wouldn't call it a muscle car. Maybe if it could play real loud bellowing V-8 sounds from external speakers or something.... and that body style.... need something that looks a bit more brutal than a jellybean.
;)
Of course it would run away from many if not most "true" muscle cars from "back in the day".
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Methinks you're too young to get that one. I feel really really old right now.
I thought he was a Safetynazi not an Environazi?
-
Oh yeah, Funks... the little jellybeans are FAST. They handle and stop much better than the old muscle cars too.
I wouldn't dispute that for a moment.
But in the looks, charisma, sound and visceral imaging department... they ain't even in the race.
;)
-
In fact, ya know those Mazda commercials? Where the little kid goes "vroom, vroom"?
Mazda makes some nice hardware.
But no true muscle car goes "vroom" and no true muscle car manufacturer would ever have pictured their beast with a little kid going "vroom, vroom".
The image of "vroom, vroom" is pretense. Like a kid playing army waving a stick around going "rat-a-tat-tat-tat". Child's play.
Gimmme the actual bad actor; I want the mean axe BAR.
I want the Boss 429.
"Vroom" my axe. ;)
-
Yep, Toad is right. I have no misconceptions about how new performance cars run. Most of them would chew up and spit out most of the old stock 60's era muscle cars.
BUT, which one will turn heads more? Which one, at the blip of the throttle will perk ears and turn heads? Which one is most easily recognizable by the exhaust note?
Nostalgia. It's a good thing.
-
That's it Skuzzy.
It's all about image, about perception.
Those cars looked strong, sounded strong, hurled clouds of tire smoke skyward and moved pretty darn fast on the street.
Only at a track would a guy really notice much difference between a 0-60 time of 6.5 and 7.3.
But when you stomped a Plymouth GTX out on the street, the look, the sound, the smoke and fury closed the deal. It was just RIGHT. Add in "Born To Be Wild" blaring from the Lear 8-track and your babe in the right seat.....
well, atomic jellybeans just ain't the same.
I'll have another nostalgia, please. Make it a double. ;)
-
I miss my '69 Camero. 327, deep well ET w/ G60 X 14's....
Finally blew the 327 in '85 then dropped in a LT1 from a Vette...
Good GAWD man did it scare the BeJesus outta me.
Ahhhh memories.....
:D
-
Looking at the thread title, and where the discussion ended up, I'm reminded of that old saying; "many a truth is spoken in jest".
-
I figure someone, somewhere is going to slam me for allowing this hijack, but what the heck. It ended up being a better discussion than what it could have been.
-
Why didn't you lock this thread with such an obvious hijack that you participated in?
Only Communists let Hijacked threads go on that THEY like.
-SW
-
Done.
I guess I should go back and purge all the off topic remarks as well. Thanks Wulfe. God forbid a decent discussion takes place in this forum.