>> LONG LIVE THE CAMARO
>>
>> alt.autos.camaro
>
>A dying breed.

Dying? Last time I checked it was a DEAD breed! Just try to go out and
buy a brand new '05 Camaro and you'll see just how dead that breed
became.

At leas the new Pony Wars have much better cars: Evolution Vs. STi

 

DragonRider wrote:
>
> >> LONG LIVE THE CAMARO
> >>
> >> alt.autos.camaro
> >
> >A dying breed.
>
> Dying? Last time I checked it was a DEAD breed! Just try to go out and
> buy a brand new '05 Camaro and you'll see just how dead that breed
> became.
>
> At leas the new Pony Wars have much better cars: Evolution Vs. STi



I would take issue in that the original Camaro was a better
designed/built vehicle than the Mustang. I just could have not a bit of
respect for any vehicle that incorporated the trunk floor as the top of
the gas tank...

<shudder>



--
JT

Just tooling through cyberspace in my ancient G4

 

DragonRider wrote:
>
> >> LONG LIVE THE CAMARO
> >>
> >> alt.autos.camaro
> >
> >A dying breed.
>
> Dying? Last time I checked it was a DEAD breed! Just try to go out and
> buy a brand new '05 Camaro and you'll see just how dead that breed
> became.
>
> At leas the new Pony Wars have much better cars: Evolution Vs. STi



I would take issue in that the original Camaro was a better
designed/built vehicle than the Mustang. I just could have not a bit of
respect for any vehicle that incorporated the trunk floor as the top of
the gas tank...

<shudder>



--
JT

Just tooling through cyberspace in my ancient G4

 

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:35:50 GMT, Grumpy au Contraire
<Grumpy@doofis.FAKEcom> wrote:


>I would take issue in that the original Camaro was a better
>designed/built vehicle than the Mustang. I just could have not a bit of
>respect for any vehicle that incorporated the trunk floor as the top of
>the gas tank...

I figure there were a number of reasons the Mustang beat it. These
included ease of getting in and out as well as outward visibility. The
smaller overall size (real or imagined) and real storage area. One
might recall that the majority of Mustangs were V6's and that of those
the bulk went to ladies as owners and the rest to rental fleets. The
Camaro may have been faster, and it may have done some things better,
but in day to day use it fell short and the lack of sales reflected
that.

 

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:35:50 GMT, Grumpy au Contraire
<Grumpy@doofis.FAKEcom> wrote:


>I would take issue in that the original Camaro was a better
>designed/built vehicle than the Mustang. I just could have not a bit of
>respect for any vehicle that incorporated the trunk floor as the top of
>the gas tank...

I figure there were a number of reasons the Mustang beat it. These
included ease of getting in and out as well as outward visibility. The
smaller overall size (real or imagined) and real storage area. One
might recall that the majority of Mustangs were V6's and that of those
the bulk went to ladies as owners and the rest to rental fleets. The
Camaro may have been faster, and it may have done some things better,
but in day to day use it fell short and the lack of sales reflected
that.

 

DragonRider wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:35:50 GMT, Grumpy au Contraire
> <Grumpy@doofis.FAKEcom> wrote:
>
> >I would take issue in that the original Camaro was a better
> >designed/built vehicle than the Mustang. I just could have not a bit of
> >respect for any vehicle that incorporated the trunk floor as the top of
> >the gas tank...
>
> I figure there were a number of reasons the Mustang beat it. These
> included ease of getting in and out as well as outward visibility. The
> smaller overall size (real or imagined) and real storage area. One
> might recall that the majority of Mustangs were V6's and that of those
> the bulk went to ladies as owners and the rest to rental fleets. The
> Camaro may have been faster, and it may have done some things better,
> but in day to day use it fell short and the lack of sales reflected
> that.



Uh, I don't think that V6's were a factor in the 1960's or a good
portion of the 1970's for that matter...



--
JT

Just tooling through cyberspace in my ancient G4

 

DragonRider wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:35:50 GMT, Grumpy au Contraire
> <Grumpy@doofis.FAKEcom> wrote:
>
> >I would take issue in that the original Camaro was a better
> >designed/built vehicle than the Mustang. I just could have not a bit of
> >respect for any vehicle that incorporated the trunk floor as the top of
> >the gas tank...
>
> I figure there were a number of reasons the Mustang beat it. These
> included ease of getting in and out as well as outward visibility. The
> smaller overall size (real or imagined) and real storage area. One
> might recall that the majority of Mustangs were V6's and that of those
> the bulk went to ladies as owners and the rest to rental fleets. The
> Camaro may have been faster, and it may have done some things better,
> but in day to day use it fell short and the lack of sales reflected
> that.



Uh, I don't think that V6's were a factor in the 1960's or a good
portion of the 1970's for that matter...



--
JT

Just tooling through cyberspace in my ancient G4

 

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 00:04:24 GMT, Grumpy au Contraire
<Grumpy@doofis.FAKEcom> wrote:

>
>
>DragonRider wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:35:50 GMT, Grumpy au Contraire
>> <Grumpy@doofis.FAKEcom> wrote:
>>
>> >I would take issue in that the original Camaro was a better
>> >designed/built vehicle than the Mustang. I just could have not a bit of
>> >respect for any vehicle that incorporated the trunk floor as the top of
>> >the gas tank...
>>
>> I figure there were a number of reasons the Mustang beat it. These
>> included ease of getting in and out as well as outward visibility. The
>> smaller overall size (real or imagined) and real storage area. One
>> might recall that the majority of Mustangs were V6's and that of those
>> the bulk went to ladies as owners and the rest to rental fleets. The
>> Camaro may have been faster, and it may have done some things better,
>> but in day to day use it fell short and the lack of sales reflected
>> that.
>
>
>
>Uh, I don't think that V6's were a factor in the 1960's or a good
>portion of the 1970's for that matter...

In the 60's and 70's there were still Camaro's.. In the '60's there
were still Camaro's worth buying!

 

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 00:04:24 GMT, Grumpy au Contraire
<Grumpy@doofis.FAKEcom> wrote:

>
>
>DragonRider wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:35:50 GMT, Grumpy au Contraire
>> <Grumpy@doofis.FAKEcom> wrote:
>>
>> >I would take issue in that the original Camaro was a better
>> >designed/built vehicle than the Mustang. I just could have not a bit of
>> >respect for any vehicle that incorporated the trunk floor as the top of
>> >the gas tank...
>>
>> I figure there were a number of reasons the Mustang beat it. These
>> included ease of getting in and out as well as outward visibility. The
>> smaller overall size (real or imagined) and real storage area. One
>> might recall that the majority of Mustangs were V6's and that of those
>> the bulk went to ladies as owners and the rest to rental fleets. The
>> Camaro may have been faster, and it may have done some things better,
>> but in day to day use it fell short and the lack of sales reflected
>> that.
>
>
>
>Uh, I don't think that V6's were a factor in the 1960's or a good
>portion of the 1970's for that matter...

In the 60's and 70's there were still Camaro's.. In the '60's there
were still Camaro's worth buying!

 

WHAT...they don't run on rice???



"lamont1" <lamont@lamont.com> wrote in message
news:rBadd.7063$n81.1502@trnddc08...
> i saw a civic beat a dodge viper in a race once.
> I would also like to say that calling honda's rice cars is racist.
>
>

 

WHAT...they don't run on rice???



"lamont1" <lamont@lamont.com> wrote in message
news:rBadd.7063$n81.1502@trnddc08...
> i saw a civic beat a dodge viper in a race once.
> I would also like to say that calling honda's rice cars is racist.
>
>

 

"DragonRider" <DragonRider1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:rtean01i9iegad96ml50a9rjetbqojioma@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 02:04:32 -0500, icruzn@webtv.net (98' Camaro)
> wrote:
>
> >What is the deal with you Honda owners trying to take on and burn a
> >Camaro? Do you think you will actually burn one with your wimpy
> >4-cylinders, as compared to a V-6 or V-8 Camaro?
>
> When an Accord comes with 240hp and the V6 camaro around 200... Hmm..
> Wait, the V8 only has another 40hp or so over that.. <rofl>
>
> >LONG LIVE THE CAMARO
>
> Uhmm.. Dipshit troll person? The Camaro lost the pony wars and is
> belly up. That's right. It's gone. Just run right out there and try to
> buy a new one. A few leftover V6 rental cars but that's it. When's the
> last time you saw a Honda in a rental fleet? They don't do that.
> <rofl>
>

HUmmm, that would be 2001.....Honda Accord.....I do belive it was
Alamo.............but can't be sure about that.......I was rather amazed
that they offered Hondas. But I guess that's what they mean by "or similar"

 

"DragonRider" <DragonRider1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:rtean01i9iegad96ml50a9rjetbqojioma@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 02:04:32 -0500, icruzn@webtv.net (98' Camaro)
> wrote:
>
> >What is the deal with you Honda owners trying to take on and burn a
> >Camaro? Do you think you will actually burn one with your wimpy
> >4-cylinders, as compared to a V-6 or V-8 Camaro?
>
> When an Accord comes with 240hp and the V6 camaro around 200... Hmm..
> Wait, the V8 only has another 40hp or so over that.. <rofl>
>
> >LONG LIVE THE CAMARO
>
> Uhmm.. Dipshit troll person? The Camaro lost the pony wars and is
> belly up. That's right. It's gone. Just run right out there and try to
> buy a new one. A few leftover V6 rental cars but that's it. When's the
> last time you saw a Honda in a rental fleet? They don't do that.
> <rofl>
>

HUmmm, that would be 2001.....Honda Accord.....I do belive it was
Alamo.............but can't be sure about that.......I was rather amazed
that they offered Hondas. But I guess that's what they mean by "or similar"

 

Hate to bust your bubble, ph3w1, but I know a guy who juiced up his "wimpy"
4-cylinder Honda Civic to where it was putting out 300hp AT THE WHEELS!
Last time I checked, a 1998 Camaro Z28 only had about 285-300hp, AT THE
ENGINE. Then, you factor in the HUGE difference of the power-to-weight
ratio, and I'm sure that 300hp Civic could dust any Camaro, anytime, any
place. Also, as noted by another poster in this NG, Camaros are NOT known
for their reliability. They tend to fall apart around 80,000 miles, if not
less. My 1990 Civic has 190,000 miles, purrs like a kitten, uses almost no
oil, and is still going strong, even though I drive it very aggressively.
I've never seen, or even heard of a Camaro reaching that many miles without
having to have a complete overhaul on virtually all major parts, even under
NORMAL driving conditions. (Engine, transmission, clutch, etc.) I'm sure
you and everyone knows what FORD stands for (Fixed Or Repaired Daily; Found
On Road Dead, etc) but let me tell you what CHEVROLET stands for:

Cracked Head Every Valve Rattles Oil Leaks Every Time

If you want a REAL race car, buy an Acura NSX and witness the
awesome power of Honda muscle...that is, if you can afford it after wasting
all your money on trying to keep your precious piece-o-crap Camaro from
falling apart.

An Acura NSX possesses a 3.2L V6 that pumps out 290hp WITHOUT turbo or
supercharging. Has Chevy ever done that with a V6? NOPE. Why? Because
their engines SUCK @$$ compared to Honda's engines.

Do yourself a favor and get lost while your Camaro still actually runs...

<scroll to bottom>

"98' Camaro" <icruzn@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:24278-4174BC80-301@storefull-3178.bay.webtv.net...
> What is the deal with you Honda owners trying to take on and burn a
> Camaro? Do you think you will actually burn one with your wimpy
> 4-cylinders, as compared to a V-6 or V-8 Camaro? You guys must like
> getting burned- and what is the deal with reving your little 4-cylinder
> engines at stop lights? Are trying to sound impressive or are you just
> trying to keep your engine running? By the way, just in case, you DIDN'T
> know, adding some stickers and a spoiler to your car DOESN'T qualify as
> a "performance upgrade" in any way- all it REALLY does, however, is give
> everyone a good laugh whenever they see your joke of a car on the
> street.


>
> LONG LIVE THE CAMARO
>

You might as well say, "LONG LIVE THE TERMINALLY ILL" Both statements are
complete oxymorons.

 

Hate to bust your bubble, ph3w1, but I know a guy who juiced up his "wimpy"
4-cylinder Honda Civic to where it was putting out 300hp AT THE WHEELS!
Last time I checked, a 1998 Camaro Z28 only had about 285-300hp, AT THE
ENGINE. Then, you factor in the HUGE difference of the power-to-weight
ratio, and I'm sure that 300hp Civic could dust any Camaro, anytime, any
place. Also, as noted by another poster in this NG, Camaros are NOT known
for their reliability. They tend to fall apart around 80,000 miles, if not
less. My 1990 Civic has 190,000 miles, purrs like a kitten, uses almost no
oil, and is still going strong, even though I drive it very aggressively.
I've never seen, or even heard of a Camaro reaching that many miles without
having to have a complete overhaul on virtually all major parts, even under
NORMAL driving conditions. (Engine, transmission, clutch, etc.) I'm sure
you and everyone knows what FORD stands for (Fixed Or Repaired Daily; Found
On Road Dead, etc) but let me tell you what CHEVROLET stands for:

Cracked Head Every Valve Rattles Oil Leaks Every Time

If you want a REAL race car, buy an Acura NSX and witness the
awesome power of Honda muscle...that is, if you can afford it after wasting
all your money on trying to keep your precious piece-o-crap Camaro from
falling apart.

An Acura NSX possesses a 3.2L V6 that pumps out 290hp WITHOUT turbo or
supercharging. Has Chevy ever done that with a V6? NOPE. Why? Because
their engines SUCK @$$ compared to Honda's engines.

Do yourself a favor and get lost while your Camaro still actually runs...

<scroll to bottom>

"98' Camaro" <icruzn@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:24278-4174BC80-301@storefull-3178.bay.webtv.net...
> What is the deal with you Honda owners trying to take on and burn a
> Camaro? Do you think you will actually burn one with your wimpy
> 4-cylinders, as compared to a V-6 or V-8 Camaro? You guys must like
> getting burned- and what is the deal with reving your little 4-cylinder
> engines at stop lights? Are trying to sound impressive or are you just
> trying to keep your engine running? By the way, just in case, you DIDN'T
> know, adding some stickers and a spoiler to your car DOESN'T qualify as
> a "performance upgrade" in any way- all it REALLY does, however, is give
> everyone a good laugh whenever they see your joke of a car on the
> street.


>
> LONG LIVE THE CAMARO
>

You might as well say, "LONG LIVE THE TERMINALLY ILL" Both statements are
complete oxymorons.