Recent Comments:
New York 2008: The Mitsubishi i is A-OKei {Autoblog}
Mar 22nd 2008 3:28PM In person this car is unbelievably impressive. Mitsubishi used this vehicle for transport at a car show many months ago in SoCal.
The packaging is incredible...even by today's standards.
The vehicle is actually rear-engined with the engine neatly tucked away under a cover in the rear.
It's also unexpectedly roomy and quiet.
It reminded me of a contemporary/modified adaptation of a classic VW van (more than VW's own).
That's a comparison that may not flatter Mitsubishi (perhaps it would), but the car had that "feeling".
It's weird ;-)
It would be easy to imagine it's success in Japan. But, here...
Well, I guess time will tell.
Cirbin V13R blurs scenery, line between car and bike {Autoblog}
Mar 21st 2008 6:24AM The concept of another mass market three wheeled vehicle has viable market potential as evidenced by the enthusiasm over the Volkswagen concept as well as (somewhat) for the production T-Rex...but, this car pushes the boundaries of good taste a bit too far.
They're gonna have to work very hard to make it into something more than an unusual novelty item for those with significant disposable income.
It definitely needs further refinement. The SUB 3-wheeler has a much more sophisticated and better executed design.
http://www.sub3wheeler.com/
I hope the manufacturers get some useful feedback and make this into a success.
Based on the posts before this one...they've got their work cut out for them.
Porsche 911 Turbo, Chevrolet Corvette Z06 and U.S. spec. Nissan GT-R hit the racetrack {Autoblog}
Mar 21st 2008 5:59AM We're all cut from the same cloth.
Everyone of us would likely proudly declare ourselves car fanatics.
It's in our nature to split hairs about cars that are only separated in performance by tenths...if not thousandths of a second (that we may or may not be able to duplicate).
Hey just think if it weren' for us manufacturers wouldn't keep pushing the limit.
But really, can't we all just get along ;-) jk
Cheers
New York 2008: Milner Motors AirCar lands in Javits Center {Autoblog}
Mar 21st 2008 5:29AM On a very basic level I see a few small problems.
While I have not done any recent market analysis on the hypothetical flying car...I don't see this particular model as appealing to those who COULD afford it.
Can you imagine Donald Trump driving one of these???
Other minor logistic and practical problems remain.
Assuming PERFECT mechanical reliability:
What happens when the careless driver (any of us at one time or another) runs out of fuel...
Or even the, still prevalent, drunk driver operates one of these above your house or a preschool?
I'm as eager as anyone to see the mass flying vehicles we've been promised for decades...but, should we be careful what we wish for?
Just posing a casual question.
There are many solutions we still need in addition to the required technology. It's not gonna be easy...
Ford making more of the Shelby GT500KR for 2009 {Autoblog}
Mar 21st 2008 4:21AM Since I have been proven "wrong" I suppose the proper thing to do would be to step back into the ring.
Dear Mr. Rob,
$11,515 MSRP buys you a KIA RIO.
-Does that vehicle NOT have to meet American emissions standards?
-Does that vehicle NOT have to meet American crash standards?
Many,(arguably superior) vehicles have been prevented from even competing in our marketplace due to the inability to follow OUR rules and standards. The Porsche 959 and, up until fairly recently, the Lotus Elise are memorable examples.
The Mustang has to play by some rules.
It could even be said that a vehicle using (arguably) archaic technology in respect to competitors (PS: I'm not gonna even open the independent rear suspension can of worms) could reasonably be developed and produced for less money.
Lest we forget; that until the 2005 model year the Mustang was using a platform designed in 1979 and GT engines were shared with several models (Crown Vic, Towncar, F-150, Cougar, T-Bird, Expedition, and Explorer).
In addition, on the affordable/sales note...As MK mentioned there is a significant difference in credit and purchasing an automobile today versus 1964.
-Of those 165,000 vehicles sold last year how many of these cars were repossessed?
-How many of these ended up back in Autotrader with only 3k miles on them? We've all seen 'em.
While these things happened in 1964 as well; logic would persist that a car that was more affordable would make it less likely.
In addition, with the HUGE sales success (over 1 million cars within the first two years) the Mustang enjoyed in it's heyday those numbers would be minuscule in comparison.
Back full circle. The Mustang DID NOT get those sales numbers PURELY based on it's good looks! All of those buyers knew a great deal when they saw one...Just like they'd know it today ;-)
Lastly, on the minor old vs. new performance issue: ever heard of 1960's era bias ply tires? Those old V8 'stangs were plenty tough for their time.
I've done enough floating and stinging for a week. I'm, personally, hanging up the gloves on this topic.
Peace be with you.
Ford making more of the Shelby GT500KR for 2009 {Autoblog}
Mar 20th 2008 9:22PM Hmmmm,
I didn't think housing prices were relevant, especially considering the large price variance based on regional location (IE: good luck finding a 2 bedroom house for $216,000 in Southern California), but okay.
It's safe to say that the same house can, expectedly, cost you TWICE as much depending on region. However, that doesn't apply to VEHICLES in the US.
Here's a link to the United States Census Bureau:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income06.html
-The median household income for in the US in the last census (2006) was $48,201.
-The median household income for 1967 (the first year the data was made available) was $36,847.
-Mustang GT brand new: $25,000 (assuming a great negotiation/or minus dealer fees, tax, title and license costs, or a spectacular combination of all of the above)
-To contrast a 1967 SHELBY Mustang GT500 (just for fun) was approximately (assuming the same price "wheelin'n and dealin'" of the above) $4,195!
The brand spankin' new 2008 V8 regular, bargain GT will cost over half of the median working household's salary.
Even with payments; few can argue that nowadays it's a hard sell for many consumers.
Particularly, those of the masses (including lower income) who made the Mustang the sales/automotive legend that it is
today.
If this vehicle is "just as financially feasible" as it was in 1964 please, by all means, prove me wrong.
That's all I have to say on the matter.
Suggested reading: Any financial book out there.
New York 2008: Saleen S5S Raptor is all claw [w/VIDEO] {Autoblog}
Mar 20th 2008 7:01PM kerrymeaway,
My personal opinion. Take it for what it is...
Just as valid as yours or the opinion of anyone else :-)
Wishing you the best.
Ford making more of the Shelby GT500KR for 2009 {Autoblog}
Mar 20th 2008 4:41PM OUT OF CURIOSITY.
When the Mustang came out there were affordable, high performance, V8 versions available to the lower income bracket (IE: Even high school students) brand new.
Does a model like that exist now...Or is it gone with the proverbial dodo?
It seems that, occasionally, some vehicles mature in such a way that they lose sight of what made them popular in the first place.
Mustang, Beetle, Mini: have they forgotten their roots?
New York 2008: Gurney still battling Parnelli {Autoblog}
Mar 20th 2008 4:27PM RIDDLE ME THIS, RIDDLE ME THAT
WHAT NUMBER MUSTANG ARE WE AT???
Mustang: great car. Not brand on it's own.
Yawn,
PASSIONATE RANTER
New York 2008: Milner Motors AirCar lands in Javits Center {Autoblog}
Mar 20th 2008 4:09PM BRILLIANT. NOW I WON'T LOSE MY LUGGAGE.
THIS WILL UNDOUBTEDLY LEAD TO LONGER SLOWER LINES AT THE DMV.
Classic. The combination of two products based on utility made to ultimately produce an inferior product with lesser utility than the separates.
IE: Poor car...more than likely poorer aircraft.
Gotta love it.
PASSIONATE RANTER
