|
|
  
 
Subject:
Re: I dont get the c3 vs c4 values
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 $$ boost.
I don`t view the C3 (or C4) as a proper weapon for our tight mountain
roads--the C5 (and most likely the C6) is the better "driving
instrument" for that job.
C4s do a lot of jobs much better than C3s but in each of those qualities
they are overshadowed by the C5 -- Dad might say, "eclipsed." This
factor will probably keep C4 prices depressed and most C4s will follow a
faster path to salvage than will C3s. Left will be a few collector`s
C4s. With some low mileage C5s approching $20K I`m getting very "tempted."
Mike
`89 Coupe owner, occasional C5 rentor
From: "Dad" <knockers(at)fish.net>
Subject: Re: I dont get the c3 vs c4 values
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 21:00:08 -0500
Lines: 35
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.201.40.70
________________________________________________
"Mike Ellison" <mikeellison3(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41A14583.1020403(at)yahoo.com...
> Bob has the advantage of everyday comparisons that a fine stable of iron
> provides but he is searching for the descriptor I call, "raw automobile."
>
> There will always be a market for good-looking raw automobiles--we call
> these "classics." They are great on the street and on sweeping back
> roads. Gov. Arnold has signed the bill that lifts smog regs from early &
> mid C3s and that will give these cars a further $$ 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
>
I`d never say "eclipsed", my `72 has an entirely different reason to drive
it, the C5 and now the C6 is a traveling car that you can race when you want
to. I do agree, the C4 was just an OK Corvette, if you like the style and
can stand the shake, they`re great. On the other hand I tolerate the 72`s
awkwardness because I like to drive it, and love it`s looks.
--
Dad
05 C6 Silver/Red 6spd Z51
72 Shark Black/Black/4spd
From: RicSeyler <ricseyler(at)SPAMgulf.net>
Subject: Re: I dont get the c3 vs c4 values
boundary="------------020902050508040703020404"
Lines: 69
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:05:32 -0600
________________________________________________
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------020902050508040703020404
LOLOLOLOL
Dad wrote:
>
>>
>>
>Hard to take isn`t it dave, something being "blown" without you being
>involved.
>
>
--
Ric Seyler
Online Racing: RicSeyler
GPL Handicap 6.35
ricseyler(at)SPAMgulf.net
http://www.pcola.gulf.net/~ricseyler
remove -SPAM- from email address
--------------------------------------
"Homer no function beer well without."
- H.J. Simpson
--------------020902050508040703020404
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
LOLOLOLOL<br>
<br>
Dad wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="midoNedndOYS5QBtDzcRVn-pA(at)bright.net"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->Hard to take isn`t it dave, something being "blown" without you being
involved.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="85">--
Ric Seyler
Online Racing: RicSeyler
GPL Handicap 6.35
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ricseyler(at)SPAMgulf.net">ricseyler(at)SPAMgulf.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.pcola.gulf.net/~ricseyler">http://www.pcola.gulf.net/~ricseyler</a>
remove –SPAM- from email address
--------------------------------------
"Homer no function beer well without."
- H.J. Simpson
</pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------020902050508040703020404--
NEXT POSTS:
| | |
