L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> You wrote, "basically the same cars for most of their history"
> which tells me you weren't even born when they rolled off the assembly
> line. Just open any auto repair book. And just in case you see the
> Firebird 400", it's not the Chevy small block.

And you wrote: "GM shares nothing between their Cadillac, Buick,
Oldsmobile, Pontiac and Chevrolet divisions" Which is dead wrong unless
you meant this statement to apply only to the muscle car era. If that's
what you meant then... well you're still wrong. When it comes to the two
cars we're talking about, every generation of the f-bodies share some
parts.

"GM shares nothing" tells me that you don't know what you're talking
about, and would rather make bold incorrect statements and imply that
I'm too young to know anything; than do a little actual learning on the
subject yourself.

 

I was talking about what I thought everyone else was, American
steel, before the Japanese invasion and gas shortage that forced the
plastic f-body of the early eighties. The days when many show room cars
could do zero to a hundred and back to zero in thirteen seconds.
How old are you?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Simon Juncal wrote:
>
> And you wrote: "GM shares nothing between their Cadillac, Buick,
> Oldsmobile, Pontiac and Chevrolet divisions" Which is dead wrong unless
> you meant this statement to apply only to the muscle car era. If that's
> what you meant then... well you're still wrong. When it comes to the two
> cars we're talking about, every generation of the f-bodies share some
> parts.
>
> "GM shares nothing" tells me that you don't know what you're talking
> about, and would rather make bold incorrect statements and imply that
> I'm too young to know anything; than do a little actual learning on the
> subject yourself.

 

I was talking about what I thought everyone else was, American
steel, before the Japanese invasion and gas shortage that forced the
plastic f-body of the early eighties. The days when many show room cars
could do zero to a hundred and back to zero in thirteen seconds.
How old are you?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Simon Juncal wrote:
>
> And you wrote: "GM shares nothing between their Cadillac, Buick,
> Oldsmobile, Pontiac and Chevrolet divisions" Which is dead wrong unless
> you meant this statement to apply only to the muscle car era. If that's
> what you meant then... well you're still wrong. When it comes to the two
> cars we're talking about, every generation of the f-bodies share some
> parts.
>
> "GM shares nothing" tells me that you don't know what you're talking
> about, and would rather make bold incorrect statements and imply that
> I'm too young to know anything; than do a little actual learning on the
> subject yourself.

 

I'm happy to say that my other car is a 1995 Formula

before that
1988 T/A GTA

before that
1986 Firebird


-Mark
89YJ

_____
,[_____],¯|\
-©|||||||©--|¯¯|¯¯|
(_( ¯¯¯ (_()¯¯ (_()

 

I'm happy to say that my other car is a 1995 Formula

before that
1988 T/A GTA

before that
1986 Firebird


-Mark
89YJ

_____
,[_____],¯|\
-©|||||||©--|¯¯|¯¯|
(_( ¯¯¯ (_()¯¯ (_()

 

L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> I was talking about what I thought everyone else was, American
> steel, before the Japanese invasion and gas shortage that forced the
> plastic f-body of the early eighties. The days when many show room cars
> could do zero to a hundred and back to zero in thirteen seconds.
> How old are you?

I made a basically correct generalization about f-bodies (Camaro's
Firebirds and TA's) that they've shared parts for most of their history.
In reply to Dave Milne's remark: "Pontiac Transam to which the Camaro
seems suspiciously related .. or is it the other way round, who knows."

To nit pick, all of those cars along with the Mustang are "pony" cars
not muscle cars. The original post that got the thread started was
talking about an 85 TA. The third gen f-bodies shared mostly chevy
motors (with some exceptions). For the last ten years the cars have
shared the LS1 engine among many other things. So from 82 to 2002 that's
20 years of a 35 year old brand history.

Just in case you're wondering the first gen f-bodies shared their
chassis and most of their sheet metal, the engines were all brand
specific however. The 2nd Gen only really shared the chassis... So
during the sports car dark ages they were the least alike. They have
ALWAYS been based on the same platform, and for 20 years they shared GM
motors... The majority of them chevy.

And I don't see why it matters but I'm 33...

 

L.W.(ßill) ------ III wrote:
> I was talking about what I thought everyone else was, American
> steel, before the Japanese invasion and gas shortage that forced the
> plastic f-body of the early eighties. The days when many show room cars
> could do zero to a hundred and back to zero in thirteen seconds.
> How old are you?

I made a basically correct generalization about f-bodies (Camaro's
Firebirds and TA's) that they've shared parts for most of their history.
In reply to Dave Milne's remark: "Pontiac Transam to which the Camaro
seems suspiciously related .. or is it the other way round, who knows."

To nit pick, all of those cars along with the Mustang are "pony" cars
not muscle cars. The original post that got the thread started was
talking about an 85 TA. The third gen f-bodies shared mostly chevy
motors (with some exceptions). For the last ten years the cars have
shared the LS1 engine among many other things. So from 82 to 2002 that's
20 years of a 35 year old brand history.

Just in case you're wondering the first gen f-bodies shared their
chassis and most of their sheet metal, the engines were all brand
specific however. The 2nd Gen only really shared the chassis... So
during the sports car dark ages they were the least alike. They have
ALWAYS been based on the same platform, and for 20 years they shared GM
motors... The majority of them chevy.

And I don't see why it matters but I'm 33...

 

Mark12211 wrote:
> I'm happy to say that my other car is a 1995 Formula

I'm happy with my 95 Mustang GT vert

Before that was a 65 Fastback

If things work out my next might just be an 05 Shelby Mustang (I realize
that statement might need some explaining for people who don't keep up
with auto news).

Anyway I guess an 02 will be your last? To bad about that, it's not the
same now that there's only one pony car left.

 

Mark12211 wrote:
> I'm happy to say that my other car is a 1995 Formula

I'm happy with my 95 Mustang GT vert

Before that was a 65 Fastback

If things work out my next might just be an 05 Shelby Mustang (I realize
that statement might need some explaining for people who don't keep up
with auto news).

Anyway I guess an 02 will be your last? To bad about that, it's not the
same now that there's only one pony car left.

 

twaldron wrote:
> I knew they were coming out with a Mach 1 but not a Shelby. Kind of
> loses it's impact when the old man isn't around anymore to design
> anything, doesn't it?

Shelby just got back together with Ford, there's nothing confirmed model
wise; Except that he was already involved in the new GT (as in GT40
exotic not Mustang) but they'd have to be stupid not to put out a Shelby
variation... Especially considering the redesign for 04 has all kinds of
retro look and some retro Shelby additions would suit it perfectly.