[DeTomaso] supercharger questions

[michael@michaelshortt.com]

Well made point Jeff, the same holds true for XKE's, they were "affordable
sports cars" and were therefore purchased by folks who could perhaps afford
the car,
but not maybe the required service to keep it in tip top shape . Affordable
being somewhat relative when you consider that the lowly sum of 10-11,000
back then would have also purchased 2 Corvettes, a fully dressed out Lincoln
or Cadillac with enough left over for either a Pinto/Maverick or a Vega.  If
you look up the prices of other cars available when the Pantera was new, it
puts the car in another light, a Ferrari Dino 246 Sypder was 12,500 and a
Daytona 365GTS was 16,500.
Panteras while "affordable' were still not cheap, a Boss 351 Mustang in 1971
was about 3,800- 4,200.00.

Michael Shortt



My Mom bought a house in 1971 for $29,500, 3 bedrooms, 2 baths in a "nice
neighoorbood".  All brick, real hardwood floors, on a 1/2 acre.



On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:50 AM, <JJD1010 at aol.com> wrote:

> In a message dated 1/4/2010 12:30:06 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> boyd411 at gmail.com writes:
>
> If you want to enjoy having a car that you can drive with out  worrying
> about getting stuck
>
>
> I'm not sure that this sort of thinking needs to be  treated as an absolute
> truth. In fact we may be doing ourselves a disservice  by thinking this
> way. I bought a new 74L and drove it daily  back and forth to work in
> Chicago
> traffic in rain, snow or shine for  three years. It was my only car. And it
> never broke or left me stuck  somewhere. That's not to say that it was
> great
> in the snow or rain but it did  run. So it seems to me that a properly
> updated and maintained Pantera should  be reasonably reliable.
>
> My two cents worth is that a lot of these cars  were never maintained well
> by their owners and this is why they seem to have  "problems" today.
> Consider that they were early 70s vintage exotics  and as such, appropriate
> costs
> would have to be spent to maintain them,  including the cost of fixing the
> rust issues. Unfortunately, they were  sort of the bastard child of the car
> world and they didn't hold their  value well so owners couldn't or wouldn't
> spend money to keep them up to snuff. "Couldn't" because they were cheap
> buys
>  and some owners bought them because they were cheap and treated them as
> such  or didn't have the money to keep them maintained well. "Wouldn't"
> because they  were a depreciating asset that didn't seem to hold its value
> well so
> they  couldn't justify spending the money to keep them in top notch shape.
>
> I see no reason why we have to keep berating the cars.  Fortunately, there
> were a number of Pantera enthusiasts who kept  the marque going and have
> made the car what it is today. But the  cars are in need of some serious
> costs
> to restore them. We should all  hope that the car goes up in value so we
> can
> justify spending the appropriate  money to update them well. And then they
> will be dependable. For an early 70s vintage exotic, I'd say they can't be
> beat. We should make that our message.
>
> Jeff
> 6559
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
>
> Archive Search Engine Now Available at http://www.realbig.com/detomaso/
>
> DeTomaso mailing list
> DeTomaso at list.realbig.com
> http://list.realbig.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso
>



-- 







Michael L. Shortt
Savannah, Georgia
www.michaelshortt.com
michael at michaelshortt.com
912-232-9390


This email is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2510-2521, is confidential and may be legally
privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited.  Please reply to the sender that you
have received this message in error, then delete it.  Thank you