|
|
  
 
Subject:
Re: I dont get the c3 vs c4 values
From: Fast1970Vette(at)webtv.net (dave)
Subject: Re: I dont get the c3 vs c4 values
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 13:10:13 -0600
Lines: 15
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.webtv.net
________________________________________________
`After all, what sense is it to pay $65,000 for a `66 big block that any
C5 can blow away`
If you think a half-second (or so) over a quarter mile is being `blown
away`...then okay !
1/2 second is about 75 feet. 5 car lengths seems like a pretty good
definition of blown away to me.
ME: IF all youre going to do is drag race with it, then i suppose half
a second is important ; assuming that most of the time will be spent on
the street with either car.... half a second is about the blink of an
eye ---- and to that i say , so what ; on a 100 yard run from
start....you wouldnt even be able to feel the difference. Guaranteed !
From: "Dad" <knockers(at)fish.net>
Subject: Re: I dont get the c3 vs c4 values
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 18:49:40 -0500
Lines: 27
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.201.40.70
________________________________________________
"dave" <Fast1970Vette(at)webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12757-41A0E815-233(at)storefull-3238.bay.webtv.net...
> `After all, what sense is it to pay $65,000 for a `66 big block that any
> C5 can blow away`
>
> If you think a half-second (or so) over a quarter mile is being `blown
> away`...then okay !
>
> 1/2 second is about 75 feet. 5 car lengths seems like a pretty good
> definition of blown away to me.
>
> M-oronic E-mbryo: IF all youre going to do is drag race with it, then i
> suppose half
> a second is important ; assuming that most of the time will be spent on
> the street with either car.... half a second is about the blink of an
> eye ---- and to that i say , so what ; on a 100 yard run from
> start....you wouldnt even be able to feel the difference. Guaranteed !
>
Hard to take isn`t it dave, something being "blown" without you being
involved.
--
Dad
05 C6 Silver/Red 6spd Z51
72 Shark Black/Black/4spd
From: Mike Ellison <mikeellison3(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: I dont get the c3 vs c4 values
Lines: 90
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:48:51 -0800
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.6.133.237
________________________________________________
Bob G wrote:
> On 18 Nov 2004 20:23:29 -0800, rebco10(at)aol.com (Ralph) wrote:
>
>
>>I am not complaining. I just do not get it.
>>
>>I have a c4 ,my second. I love the body of a 1980-82 c3. But I do
>>not see how my car is on ebay and bidding around 17-18grand with 19000
>>documented miles and you have automatic late c3 cars for 15 grand.
>>
>>Aside from being more difficult to get in, I do not see a comparison
>>between a 81 C3 corvette with 60 - 80 thousand miles and a 1996 c4 lt4
>>6spd.
>>
>>So enlighten me...... without being insulting.
>>
>>Thanks
>
> ===========================
> I would never Insult another Corvette NUT...
>
> But I own a 95 black on black 6 sp with both tops...And I also own
> 64 72 76 & 79 Corvettes.... all were in shows this summer so they are
> all in damn good shape... The 79 is an Automatic the others are all
> Manuel...
>
> NOW.... The 95 is NOT repeat NOT the car I take out to have fun in..No
> question it gets up and goes, but it lacks any mechanical feeling...by
> which it really does not "feel" like a machine....at least when
> compared to my sharks...It also almost never turns a head...whereas
> any of my sharks turn a lot of heads...
>
> When comparing performance...well the 95 is at or near the top...when
> comparing fuel mileage it is absolutely at the top ..by a wide
> margin...BUT truthfully the 95 is nowhere near as much fun to drive
> the hell out of on the back roads....
>
> When you come to Value...well the 95 is most likely worth a little
> more then my 79 and my 76 at this time...it is depreciating...the 76
> is just starting to appreciate and the 79 is flat..holding its own...
>
> Insurance for the 64 72 76 & 79 (total of all 4) is just slightly more
> then what I pay for the 95 alone... Tags for the 95 cost me 70 bucks a
> year..(Vanity.. IO NO 1)! the other (all with Historic tags) cost me
> under 20 bucks each...
>
> Now I also turn my own wrenches....and honestly the 95 is not that
> difficult (computer not included) but all of the others are simple and
> easy cars to work on... and parts are generally cheaper also...
>
> Guess it boils down to the fact that I really enjoy being in a machine
> and not just riding ....can not explain it really.. but my excuse the
> French...ASS feels the difference and I smile a lot more driving the
> older one....BUT NONE are 1/2 the car the 95 is...and that 95 is not
> 1/2 the car a C5 is................
>
> Bob Griffiths
> 68 SS 396 Heeled
> 64 & 72 Corvette Rag tops
> 76 79 & 95 Corvette Coupes...
>
> None for sale...getting an itch to add a C5 to the fleet...which will
> fill up the garages...
Maybe this will help.
I bought my `79 in 1987 for $7,800. Sold it in 1994 for $ 4,000. Clean
today it would bring $8K to $10K. Well manicured, $ 11-14K.
Bob has the advantage of everyday comparisons that a fine stable of iron
provides but he is searching for the descriptor I call, "raw automobile."
There will always be a market for good-looking raw automobiles--we call
these "classics." They are great on the street and on sweeping back
roads. Gov. Arnold has signed the bill that lifts smog regs from early
& mid C3s and that will give these cars a further $$ boost.
I don`t view the C3 (or C4) as a proper weapon for our tight mountain
roads--the C5 (and most likely the C6) is the better "driving
instrument" for that job.
C4s do a lot of jobs much better than C3s but in each of those qualities
they are overshadowed by the C5 -- Dad might say, "eclipsed." This
factor will probably keep C4 prices depressed and most C4s will follow a
faster path to salvage than will C3s. Left will be a few collector`s
C4s. With some low mileage C5s approching $20K I`m getting very "tempted."
Mike
`89 Coupe owner, occasional C5 rentor
NEXT POSTS:
| | |
