Corvette Forum Archive (38 950 posts)
|
  
 
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--
Last "Cars" Post on Wordpress:
Title: Volkswagen Golf R
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:36:24 +0000
Author: symo
Primo: bisogna trovare una vera erede mk6 della sempreverde R32. Secondo: non è possibile che la Ford Focus RS sia sempre cosi avanti anni luce da tutte le altre (o quasi), bisogna trovare un modo di avvicinarsi alla concorrenza. Probabilmente questa può essere la volta buona, in Volkswagen sembra abbiano pensato davvero a tutto nella creazione di questa Gof R.
Dal punto di vista meccanico la R è mossa dall’ormai famoso TSI 2.0 litri 4 cilindri che abbiamo già visto su Audi S3, TTS o Scirocco R. Questo motore permette di erogare la bellezza di 270 CV a 6 mila giri/min e una coppia massima di 350 Nm in un range di 2500 giri/min (da 2500 a 5000 per la precisione).
Le prestazioni sono di assoluto rilievo: la massima è limitata a 250 km/h e l’accelerazione 0-100 varia di 2 decimi di secondo in base all’adozione del cambio manuale (5,7 secondi) o automatico DSG (5,5 secondi). More on: http://wrongpassword.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/volkswagen-golf-r/
____________________________________________
Title: Worth a whole post Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 00:28:44 +0000 Author: cwylie27 Okay watch this video in a new tab http://forzamotorsport.net/en-us/media/videos/default.htm#/video/2355/
Watch it, I’ll still be here when you’re done.
Done? hopefully you watched it more then once. Okay those were actual people playing forza 3 Don’t you want to learn so badly how to do that? I know and it sucks we have to wait until Oct. 27 for it…… at least we have FM2……..
BTW the 370z was the best
CWylie
http://cwylie.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/worth-a-whole-post/
| 
