[DeTomaso] Autoweek online Mention
Ed Pike
erjpike at gmail.com
Fri Feb 7 20:24:14 EST 2014
John,
Nicely said! !
Ed. ..
On Feb 7, 2014 7:15 PM, "John Taphorn" <jtaphorn at kingwoodcable.com> wrote:
> 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 <202-737-2800> *
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
> *From: *Stephen Nelson <steve at snclocks.com> <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<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*
> 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*
> *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*<http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com>
> <http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
>
> DeTomaso mailing listDeTomaso at poca.comhttp://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/20140207/214136e8/attachment.html>
More information about the DeTomaso
mailing list