[DeTomaso] Autoweek online Mention
LS
lashdeep at yahoo.com
Sat Feb 8 20:18:51 EST 2014
John,
I am humiliating newer Lambos, Ferraris and Maseratis now with totally stock suspension, braking and cooling systems.
What am I doing wrong?
LS
central
wines-spirits est 1934
625 e street nw
washington, dc 20004
centralwines.com
facebook.com/CentralLiquors
202-737-2800
________________________________
From: John Taphorn <jtaphorn at kingwoodcable.com>
To: cengles at cox.net; lashdeep at yahoo.com
Cc: detomaso at poca.com
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2014 7:14 PM
Subject: Re: [DeTomaso] Autoweek online Mention
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
>
>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 to take home a 1974 example of the increasingly desirable Pantera. At Barrett-Jackson, a 1971 car would have set you back $48,400. 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
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
>
>DeTomaso mailing list
>DeTomaso at 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/20140208/9794ae1c/attachment.html>
More information about the DeTomaso
mailing list