Subject:
|
Re: MOC 1966 Chevelle
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Thu, 29 Mar 2001 22:51:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
258 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Ronald Vallenduuk writes:
> "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
> news:GAxG1H.HCz@lugnet.com...
> <snip>
> although eurosupercars are cool, '60s american muscle is cooler.... Safer,
> (felt) faster, way cheaper, way easier to work on, and way more
> rugged/reliable.
> </snip>
>
> You mean: bigger, heavier, noisier and burning lots more fuel in their
> ridiculously big V8's?
Yep.
The cash difference between 5000 USD for a reasonably good example of mid
60's muscle and 50,000 USD for a reasonably good example of a mid 60's
eurosupercar (and I am being optimistic) will buy you a heck of a lot of
gasoline...
So ya. American Muscle rocks, hard. Ask me what an M1A1 gets for gas
mileage... :-)
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: MOC 1966 Chevelle
|
| (...) Hehe. Once back many years ago, I looked up to see if tanks got miles per gallon or gallons per mile. I forget which tank I actually looked up, but it still got miles per gallon, but just barely... :-) (24 years ago, 30-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: MOC 1966 Chevelle
|
| "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:GAxG1H.HCz@lugnet.com... <snip> although eurosupercars are cool, '60s american muscle is cooler.... Safer, (felt) faster, way cheaper, way easier to work on, and way more (...) (24 years ago, 29-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
16 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
