[DeTomaso] Autoweek online Mention

Fri Feb 7 19:14:42 EST 2014

My perspective on modified Panteras is as such.

In the 80s and 90s, one could mildly modify a Pantera and be among the 
fastest production cars on the street or on at the track.  It was a 
sports car whose performance could rival or exceed almost any other 
production sports car regardless of cost.  We could humiliate more 
expensive Ferraris, Lambos and Vettes at the track. How could one not 
give into temptation.  I took pleasure believing that I had a higher 
performance car for a fraction of the cost and the pride knowing I 
contributed to making it possible. I believe that all who actually used 
their cars, modified them to enjoy a fuller capability.  As I have 
gotten older with my racing experiences behind me, I can see how older 
owners may not have been as performance motivated and more financially 
so.  It always seemed to me the stock advocates were always motivated by 
a sense of value appreciation rather than driving enjoyment.  Nothing 
wrong with that, til it becomes evangelical in their persuasion of others.

Sometime in the 2000s, new production car horsepower and handling began 
to improve demonstrably.  It takes a lot more effort and a very good 
driver to make a Pantera competitive with modern sports cars.  IMHO, 
they simply do not handle as well as modern production sportscars.  
Thus, many give up trying.

As a result, new comers to the Pantera arena wonder why people did not 
leave them stock and appreciate them for what they were.  My response is 
that "You had to be there."

JT

On 2/7/2014 8:11 AM, cengles at cox.net wrote:
> Dear Lashdeep,
>
>
>              Your points are well taken.   I would point out that the 
> passion and enthusiasm of the this group for Panteras and 
> modifications thereof, are related to the belated  market appreciation 
> of stock original Panteras.  We have modified and maintained them and 
> kept them driveable and usable.   As Charlie McCall says, "raising 
> Pantera awareness."
>
>               I own two Panteras.   Both were bone stock when I bought 
> them in twenty five years ago.  Each modification was a definite 
> incremental improvement in the car's performance.   I wouldn't go back.
>
>              On the other hand, a good friend, who owns two Diablos, 
> finally succumbed to my influence and bought a Pantera.  As he says, " 
> I have all the horsepower I want.  I want a low mileage stock 
> Pantera."   He bought a Pantera that was ever so slightly 
> misrepresented as a low mileage stock Pantera.  He has proceeded to 
> spend the last several months correcting things and restoring it back 
> to stock original.
>
>
>             So, for whatever reason, it does seem to be the "Second 
> Coming of Panteras".  They are wonderful cars.
>
>
> Warmest regards,  Chuck Engles
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 8:28 PM, LS wrote:
>
> We all have our ways of enjoying our cars and are entitled to do 
> whatever we please obviously.
>
> There is a quantitative way to measure the world's perception of our 
> beloved Detomaso cars...sales prices.
>
> Many of you equate the fixation or study of sales prices with cold 
> greed, sterile investment, or outright snobbery.
>
> It is, in actuality, the easiest way to determine what the world 
> (including us) thinks of Detomaso.
>
> A simple observation here is that cosmetically stock cars are bringing 
> strong money. It appears that even the slightest cosmetic modification 
> detracts in some way from the sales prices.
>
> Even a simple change detracts from this ultimate fact and will 
> potentially devalue the cars.
>
> I have no problem with modifications but we still need to realize  
> that we all have started with one of the most perfectly styled exotics 
> (including the original wheels) ever created.
>
> I have a suspicion that some of you long time owners don't want to 
> believe this.
>
> LS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> */central /*
> */wines-spirits est 1934 /*
>
>
>
> */625 e street nw /*
>
> */washington, dc 20004 /*
>
>
> */_centralwines.com_/* <http://centralwines.com/>
>
> */_facebook.com/CentralLiquors_/* <http://facebook.com/CentralLiquors>
>
> */202-737-2800 /*
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
> *From: *Stephen Nelson <steve at snclocks.com>
> *To: *detomaso at poca.com
> *Sent: *Thursday, January 30, 2014 1:47 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [DeTomaso] Autoweek online Mention
>
> I would think the best thing to do is acknowledge that we might not 
> get any monetary benefit to all those mods we put into the cars.  And, 
> in fact, if we start with a highly original car, we will be far less 
> likely to get any monetary benefit.  But, is that why we modify the 
> cars?  To make money?  If so, well, then we ain't all that bright.
> Flip side, given the surprisingly poor quality of many of the mods I 
> have seen on cars I looked at when finding 5332 -- including 5332 -- 
> the reality is that all too many modified cars are poorly done and 
> really don't deserve any premium -- in fact -- they deserve 
> significant devaluation.
> Do great work, and drive these great cars!
> Stephen Nelson
> ___________________________________
>
> *From: *DeTomaso [mailto:detomaso-bounces at poca.com] *On Behalf Of 
> *michael at michaelshortt.com
> *Sent: *Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:18 AM
> *To: *detomaso at poca.com
> *Subject: *[DeTomaso] Autoweek online Mention
>
>
> In a story about aJan auctions, Mecum vs BJ.
> *DeTomaso Pantera *At Mecum, _you'd have paid $49,500_ 
> <http://www.mecum.com/auctions/lot_detail.cfm?LOT_ID=FL0114-172060&entryRow=2893> to 
> take home a 1974 example of the increasingly desirable Pantera. At 
> Barrett-Jackson, a 1971 car _would have set you back $48,400_ 
> <http://www.barrett-jackson.com/application/onlinesubmission/lotdetails.aspx?ln=1650&aid=525>. 
> The difference is originality -- the early B-J car is tuned, to put it 
> mildly, with flashy five-spokes and a nitrous-oxide system. Depending 
> on your perspective, this is either a huge improvement or an 
> unacceptable desecration. Compare that to the "highly original" Mecum 
> car.
> *Winner: * We'd vote for the unmolested car at Mecum, but that's 
> personal preference at play. This one's inconclusive.
> Michael Shortt
> -- 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael L. Shortt
> Savannah, Georgia
> _www.michaelshortt.com_ <http://www.michaelshortt.com/>
> _michael at michaelshortt.com_ 
> <javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
>
> DeTomaso mailing list
> _DeTomaso at poca.com_ 
> <javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('DeTomaso at poca.com')>
> _http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com_
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
>
> DeTomaso mailing list
> _DeTomaso at poca.com_ 
> <javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('DeTomaso at poca.com')><javascript:parent.wgMail.openComposeWindow('DeTomaso at poca.com')>
> _http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com_<http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
>
> DeTomaso mailing list
> DeTomaso at poca.com
> http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://server.detomasolist.com/pipermail/detomaso/attachments/20140207/0e95c759/attachment.html>