ss with only 1065 miles..for sale

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

11-14-2007, 01:18 PM

#61

helicoil

9 Second Club

iTrader: (104)

Join Date: Aug 2006

Posts: 1,840

Likes: 26

Received 289 Likes on 109 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rowin Gearz

I think you have a more emotional attachment to the Chevelle than the Camaro. As such, you accept it's nuances and prefer the feeling that this car embodies. It's like a memory, over time that memory gets fuzzier, but the emotion associated with it grows. Having owned a 70 Chevelle SS, I respectfully disagree with your assessed superiority over the 4th gen. f-body. I too enjoyed my Chevelle, but it had many shortcomings. The car did not handle well, was speed limited by the gearing, did not stop well by todays standards, was not a car I could guarantee would start when I needed it too, among many others. The thing I remember most about the car was it's attitude, the swagger it had. In my opinion, the 4th gens. have every bit as much attitude. They too have their quirks, but they handle, brake, accelerate, and look wicked! Not only that, but our cars are in many ways similar to classic GM iron.

My emotional attachment with the car is what with the car is worth, have you looked at what these bring lately? Do an EBAY search.

I didn't go as far to say 'superiority' but a Gen III F-body is a by-product of today's, or 1998-2002's, automobile manufacturing goals, which were not based on quality, as much as quantity. Sourcing product from the cheapest bidder, inferior parts (example - your power window motor), etc, etc. Remember engineering advancments are one thing, something all together different, doesn't mean it adds value to something - as seen in most cases, (cars no different) it lessens it. Maybe value is the wrong word, something like worth maybe a better choice.

I have had my car almost completely apart and put it back together and all I can say is CHEAP, CHEAP, CHEAP, although I work on alot this late model junk so maybe my opinion is biased.

With all that said I still like the car for the pleasure it brings, the reason I own it.

Last edited by helicoil; 11-14-2007 at 01:26 PM.

Reply Like

11-14-2007, 02:08 PM

#62

AronZ28

TECH Fanatic

iTrader: (2)

Join Date: Feb 2005

Location: Murfreesboro TN

Posts: 1,678

Likes: 0

Received 1 Like on 1 Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by helicoil

They did the same thing back in the 70's with the A-body line. In fact it was way more about quanity back then, GM made hundreds of thousands of abody's every year(wouldn't suprise me if they made over a million a year). Fitting cars with drum brakes standard, totally inadequate 6 cylinder motors, misaligned trim, no rust proofing, totally goofy steering racks(european cars of the same vintage had much better handling/steering feel, so it wasn't an engineering problem, it was a penny pincher problem)

Reply Like

11-14-2007, 06:51 PM

#63

RPM WS6

LS1Tech Administrator

iTrader: (3)

Join Date: Nov 2001

Location: Schiller Park, IL Member: #317

Posts: 32,370

Likes: 0

Received 1,800 Likes on 1,282 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by helicoil

It is only to be expected the car will perform and feel all together different from a car prodcued in the 60's or 70's, which stands to reason why a car produced in 2037 will do all of the same things you mentioned.

Agreed. That's why I feel that the latest Camaro wasn't any less of a car in it's day than a 1st gen Camaro was in it's day. And in general, as technology improves, so does a car that's comparable in modern times to an older counterpart from a previous era. However, with "improvement" usually comes more complexity. Of course, this could be good or bad depending on your goals for the car and personal preferance, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by helicoil

Technology isn't worth money and probably won't be in 30 years either because it will be old technology then.
Bottom line - A Car is and will be worth what someone is willing to pay for it, now or then.

Agreed. Technology alone isn't worth much, because it's always improving.

Quote:

Originally Posted by helicoil

My emotional attachment with the car is what with the car is worth, have you looked at what these bring lately? Do an EBAY search.

And this is the very reason why the 4th gens have every bit as much chance of being worth "something" as they age. Most people that owned these cars when young (or dreamed about it) will eventually sell them and move on to family life. 30 years later when their kids are grown & moved out, and they have the financial means, they will look for a pristine example to bring them back to their youth. THAT's when prices start going though the roof. Granted, the lack of rarely optioned 4th gens means that few will equal the inflation-adjusted price of an LS6 Chevelle today, but nonetheless, there will be people paying good money for ultra low mileage or fully restored 4th gen LS1 cars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by helicoil

I didn't go as far to say 'superiority' but a Gen III F-body is a by-product of today's, or 1998-2002's, automobile manufacturing goals, which were not based on quality, as much as quantity. Sourcing product from the cheapest bidder, inferior parts (example - your power window motor), etc, etc. Remember engineering advancments are one thing, something all together different, doesn't mean it adds value to something - as seen in most cases, (cars no different) it lessens it. Maybe value is the wrong word, something like worth maybe a better choice.

I have had my car almost completely apart and put it back together and all I can say is CHEAP, CHEAP, CHEAP, although I work on alot this late model junk so maybe my opinion is biased.

Not sure if I agree there. Sure, there's some stuff on a 4th gen that's built cheaper than it could be, but think of the price range when new. My '98 was $24,000 when new, and of that about $3000 was in options (T-tops, traction control, chrome wheels, Z-rated tires, Monsoon CD player, and some others). So the car could have been had for about $21.5k-$22k. What else could you get brand new in 1998 that was more affordable, looked as good, made as much power, was as fun to drive or had as much potential as an LS1 Camaro for that price, and offered any better quality? That's why I don't see these cars as poorly/cheaply built, because to say that would suggest that there was a better performance car out there, brand new at the same time, in the same price range..... and frankly that's just not the case. In general these are pretty nice cars for the money; assuming you enjoy a fun, powerful, aggressive looking car for an affordable price.

I had lots of stuff apart on my '71 Cutlass, and let me tell you that car wasn't built of gold either. Plenty of stuff seemed cheap on that car, minus the drivetrain. But that's what muscle cars are about - affordable performance & fun, without the cost & weight of high-end luxury type quality or options.

Reply Like

11-15-2007, 12:52 AM

#64

AronZ28

TECH Fanatic

iTrader: (2)

Join Date: Feb 2005

Location: Murfreesboro TN

Posts: 1,678

Likes: 0

Received 1 Like on 1 Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPM WS6

But that's what muscle cars are about - affordable performance & fun, without the cost & weight of high-end luxury type quality or options.

I agree. That statement is as true in 1967 as it is in 2007.

Reply Like

11-15-2007, 06:25 PM

#65

Summer

TECH Resident

iTrader: (9)

Join Date: Nov 2004

Location: Gulf Coast

Posts: 804

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

there was an 01 red ss on there like 2 days ago that had 75 miles on it..yes you heard me right..75 miles on it. It was at the dealer and never been sold.. i think it was going for 24k or something...how crazy is that? still had the window sticker on it and everything