Muscle cars = luxury cars

$30,000 for a Camaro SS does not even include the del'y charge. The comparable price for a Mustang GT Premium is $32,845; or, for a vanilla Mustang GT, it is $30,495.

I agree that $30,000 for a Camaro SS ain't bad, but the pricing for a Mustang GT ain't bad either. For my money (if only I had it), I'd get the Mustang to replace my '98 GT.

Same old, same old. Must I remind you again that it's now 2010?

Remember when the U.S. decided to go off of the gold standard? Remember that prices on everything started to change from year to year?

Some folks never got over that and refuse to deal with changing numbers.

My first full-time job as a store assistant manager in 1974 grossed $135.00/week. The store manager's base salary was $150. Given that, those new Mustangs of the day were well out of reach.

(Our 1978 Mustang II hatchback came out the door at $5,000! Monthly payments were $110.00, and there were plenty of months that we were hard-pressed to come up with even that.)

dwight

"dwight" wrote in news:i821cn$81l$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

Exactly. Yet the Lincoln Town Car isn't $70k, is it?

How about apples to apples? You use the base price for the new Town Car, but the Mustang GT price is inflated. Let's start with the base price there, too - $29,645.

Using that number, the thought that strikes me is not that the Mustang is now overpriced, but that the new Town Car is a steal.

dwight

"dwight" wrote in news:i8abdd$qj7$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

So then the Lincoln (when compared to the 1960's price) should be about $60,000. It's not.

In the 60s, the Lincoln was AT LEAST twice as big as the Mustang.... Today... not so much....

It would be nice if one or two of your posts had any logical reasoning.

Do you wnat to buy a Mustang? Do you want to buy a Lincoln? Are you about to buy anything? Do you like to go on usenet and see that some of us depraved people actually read your dreary messages?