My/Our S197 versus the 2017 Camaro (side by side)
9/18/16, 09:02 AM
#104
All I gotta say is 47k. If you want the car don't get married and especially don't have kids. I would give it a look but there is no point with that kind of sticker. It used to be stangs and camaros were the cheap v8 a young man could afford. And many can, but I think more can not. I guess the reality is most are left with the v6 option or used. The technology has changed and the v6 cars are faster than the v8's from not that long ago. It is still not a v8. I'm not complaining but a fifty grand car is only a dream for most.
9/18/16, 01:01 PM
#105
2013 RR Boss 302 #2342
Join Date: March 6, 2012
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 11,668
Likes: 0
Received 2,174 Likes
on
1,621 Posts
Originally Posted by bh6247
All I gotta say is 47k. If you want the car don't get married and especially don't have kids. I would give it a look but there is no point with that kind of sticker. It used to be stangs and camaros were the cheap v8 a young man could afford. And many can, but I think more can not. I guess the reality is most are left with the v6 option or used. The technology has changed and the v6 cars are faster than the v8's from not that long ago. It is still not a v8. I'm not complaining but a fifty grand car is only a dream for most.
Muscle cars are becoming more of an upscale car/purchase anymore. 
9/18/16, 04:08 PM
#106
Cobra R Member
Join Date: September 22, 2012
Location: Ontario, California
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
17 Posts
Originally Posted by Mustang Freak
Muscle cars are becoming more of an upscale car/purchase anymore.
9/19/16, 12:22 PM
#107
Shelby GT500 Member
Muscle cars began with the idea of making something more fun to drive that wasn't fun to drive. The auto industry realized they'd hit on something and started building them cheaply.
True muscle cars are gone and have been for a very long time. What I have isn't, by definition, a true muscle car. Yeah, it has the SRA, the boat anchor under the hood that produces power and torque equal to three cookie-cutter hondas or toyotas, etc. But it's also governed by a computer that is designed to make the most of the gas I put in it, save the engine from burning up, etc. It has a suspension under it (stock) that is adjustable and designed to help the car corner better (diametrically opposed to the definition of a muscle car hahahaha). It's aerodynamic (splitters, spoilers, diffusers, etc). These are things that, when talking about true muscle cars, are never mentioned. That's because a true muscle car had an engine, four wheels, brakes and a steering wheel. They were designed to do one thing: go as fast as your ***** would allow in a straight line. Those are gone.
The auto companies (the big three) are selling an idea packaged in modern technology. They're selling the idea that one can go back to their glory days with these new cars. No. They might be able to remember them more easily, these cars might in some ways recall those memories, etc. But these cars are not the drum-brake, body-rolling monsters that were made back then. Similarities do not mean authenticity. They're not a late-'60s/early-'70s muscle car. They'd be sued into oblivion if they sold something like that today and someone had an accident in it. If you're fortunate enough to get into a muscle car--any kind--from the 60's or 70's and get to drive it hard, you will INSTANTLY notice the difference between that car and these we have.
True muscle cars are gone and have been for a very long time. What I have isn't, by definition, a true muscle car. Yeah, it has the SRA, the boat anchor under the hood that produces power and torque equal to three cookie-cutter hondas or toyotas, etc. But it's also governed by a computer that is designed to make the most of the gas I put in it, save the engine from burning up, etc. It has a suspension under it (stock) that is adjustable and designed to help the car corner better (diametrically opposed to the definition of a muscle car hahahaha). It's aerodynamic (splitters, spoilers, diffusers, etc). These are things that, when talking about true muscle cars, are never mentioned. That's because a true muscle car had an engine, four wheels, brakes and a steering wheel. They were designed to do one thing: go as fast as your ***** would allow in a straight line. Those are gone.
The auto companies (the big three) are selling an idea packaged in modern technology. They're selling the idea that one can go back to their glory days with these new cars. No. They might be able to remember them more easily, these cars might in some ways recall those memories, etc. But these cars are not the drum-brake, body-rolling monsters that were made back then. Similarities do not mean authenticity. They're not a late-'60s/early-'70s muscle car. They'd be sued into oblivion if they sold something like that today and someone had an accident in it. If you're fortunate enough to get into a muscle car--any kind--from the 60's or 70's and get to drive it hard, you will INSTANTLY notice the difference between that car and these we have.
The following users liked this post:
FromZto5 (9/19/16)
9/19/16, 01:03 PM
#108
I Have No Life
Thread Starter
Muscle cars began with the idea of making something more fun to drive that wasn't fun to drive. The auto industry realized they'd hit on something and started building them cheaply.
True muscle cars are gone and have been for a very long time. What I have isn't, by definition, a true muscle car. Yeah, it has the SRA, the boat anchor under the hood that produces power and torque equal to three cookie-cutter hondas or toyotas, etc. But it's also governed by a computer that is designed to make the most of the gas I put in it, save the engine from burning up, etc. It has a suspension under it (stock) that is adjustable and designed to help the car corner better (diametrically opposed to the definition of a muscle car hahahaha). It's aerodynamic (splitters, spoilers, diffusers, etc). These are things that, when talking about true muscle cars, are never mentioned. That's because a true muscle car had an engine, four wheels, brakes and a steering wheel. They were designed to do one thing: go as fast as your ***** would allow in a straight line. Those are gone.
The auto companies (the big three) are selling an idea packaged in modern technology. They're selling the idea that one can go back to their glory days with these new cars. No. They might be able to remember them more easily, these cars might in some ways recall those memories, etc. But these cars are not the drum-brake, body-rolling monsters that were made back then. Similarities do not mean authenticity. They're not a late-'60s/early-'70s muscle car. They'd be sued into oblivion if they sold something like that today and someone had an accident in it. If you're fortunate enough to get into a muscle car--any kind--from the 60's or 70's and get to drive it hard, you will INSTANTLY notice the difference between that car and these we have.
True muscle cars are gone and have been for a very long time. What I have isn't, by definition, a true muscle car. Yeah, it has the SRA, the boat anchor under the hood that produces power and torque equal to three cookie-cutter hondas or toyotas, etc. But it's also governed by a computer that is designed to make the most of the gas I put in it, save the engine from burning up, etc. It has a suspension under it (stock) that is adjustable and designed to help the car corner better (diametrically opposed to the definition of a muscle car hahahaha). It's aerodynamic (splitters, spoilers, diffusers, etc). These are things that, when talking about true muscle cars, are never mentioned. That's because a true muscle car had an engine, four wheels, brakes and a steering wheel. They were designed to do one thing: go as fast as your ***** would allow in a straight line. Those are gone.
The auto companies (the big three) are selling an idea packaged in modern technology. They're selling the idea that one can go back to their glory days with these new cars. No. They might be able to remember them more easily, these cars might in some ways recall those memories, etc. But these cars are not the drum-brake, body-rolling monsters that were made back then. Similarities do not mean authenticity. They're not a late-'60s/early-'70s muscle car. They'd be sued into oblivion if they sold something like that today and someone had an accident in it. If you're fortunate enough to get into a muscle car--any kind--from the 60's or 70's and get to drive it hard, you will INSTANTLY notice the difference between that car and these we have.
Can I get an AMEN? AMEN!
I agree 100% with all you said, but couldn't have stated it more eloquently than that. Enough said.
thanks.
9/19/16, 02:30 PM
#109
Shelby GT500 Member
9/19/16, 04:32 PM
#110
Kco Tiger... I do agree... And I have no desire to go back to anything prior to about I would say 05. In any case, I doubt a Boss was ever cheap. Nada guides have some interesting info. The point is you used to be able a base car with just a big motor for a considerable savings over "the package." I graduated in 87 and the truth is I have no experience with true muscle cars. The guys were picking up Novas and Monte Carlos Malibus etc. Youd find one with a 350 and those who were inclined did some work on them. They drove like crap were unsafe and not real dependable. No one I knew had a true muscle car spec'd from the factory. Their dad's might have. Anyhow 87 was the first year you had to get a GT in order to get the 302. Per NADA 86 LX 5.0 HO $7200.. 87 GT 11800. Over 50% bump in one year. It may be just my perception but pricing is different now. I think the manufactures have tightened up production relative to the old days. They just don't kick out as many cars without thought as to whether or not they will sell. Even in the 90's it seemed you were able to find a car model year or maybe even 2 pretty easy for a few bucks off.
A 16 is over 7k premium for the 5.0. I understand bigger brakes maybe sway bars etc. Just keep in mind the 5.0 in a f150 is a 1500 buck option.
Another edit $7200 for the 86 v8 was probably wrong. Still a C&D article from 86 has the price under 10k. Don't know exact options.
A 16 is over 7k premium for the 5.0. I understand bigger brakes maybe sway bars etc. Just keep in mind the 5.0 in a f150 is a 1500 buck option.
Another edit $7200 for the 86 v8 was probably wrong. Still a C&D article from 86 has the price under 10k. Don't know exact options.
Last edited by bh6247; 9/19/16 at 05:35 PM.
11/4/16, 11:14 AM
#111
TMS Editor
Join Date: July 1, 2014
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Front page news with a poll!
Excellent thread, thought the front page would appreciate as well.
https://themustangsource.com/s197-mu...-better-19046/
https://themustangsource.com/s197-mu...-better-19046/
11/4/16, 12:34 PM
#112
I Have No Life
Thread Starter
Excellent thread, thought the front page would appreciate as well.
https://themustangsource.com/s197-mu...-better-19046/
https://themustangsource.com/s197-mu...-better-19046/
Yeah, I keep seeing these camaros more and more everyday. Buddy of mine just bought one here locally. I haven't gotten a ride yet, but I sat in it. Quality has gotten better in interior, but it still screams GM plastics in some areas. Not saying our Mustangs are any better, but... I do like the shape though, and it's very chiseled.
11/4/16, 12:49 PM
#113
All I gotta say is 47k. If you want the car don't get married and especially don't have kids. I would give it a look but there is no point with that kind of sticker. It used to be stangs and camaros were the cheap v8 a young man could afford. And many can, but I think more can not. I guess the reality is most are left with the v6 option or used. The technology has changed and the v6 cars are faster than the v8's from not that long ago. It is still not a v8. I'm not complaining but a fifty grand car is only a dream for most.
More on topic, would still rather have your S197 over the new Camaro. GM has done a much better job then where they started and I don't hate this new one but its still a bit fugly from certain angles
Last edited by vistablue mustang; 11/4/16 at 01:08 PM.
11/4/16, 01:39 PM
#114
I Have No Life
Thread Starter
Glad I'm not the only one thinking/feeling this way, when I first joined this site I was about 24 and owing a GT Stang was really not so out of the question, all told I got my 2007 GT for around 29K with leather, upgraded rims and Shaker 500, when I sold her for a 2012 GT again with leather shaker 500 (rims were too pricey) I walked out paying about 35K. Now being in my 30's, married with a house and other bills I almost **** when I priced out a new GT and it came to around 45K, hence why I have the V6. Down the line I would love another GT but at these prices used is the only affordable route and finding a good GT used aint easy as people tend to beat them to hell.
More on topic, would still rather have your S197 over the new Camaro. GM has done a much better job then where they started and I don't hate this new one but its still a bit fugly from certain angles
More on topic, would still rather have your S197 over the new Camaro. GM has done a much better job then where they started and I don't hate this new one but its still a bit fugly from certain angles
Marilyn would fit neither of those categories
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Diode Dynamics
Vendor Showcase
7
5/23/18 02:22 PM