[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Period performance (different perspective)

Subject: Re: Period performance (different perspective)
From: "David Breneman" <>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 13:05:13 -0700 (PDT) SEZ -
(With deletions...)

>                                    The GT version Mustang had tighter 
> steering and suspension, but the point is that aside from the Corvette, the 
> Mustang and Camaro were the two sportiest cars available from this side of 
> the Atlantic, and they had some ways to go to match the handling of a mid-60s 
> MG. 

Well, the Mustang was built on the Ford Falcon chassis, and what
was a Camaro?  A Chevy Nova?  Chevelle?  Anyway, that's not exactly
what you'd call a sporting haritage.  I don't think the US has produced
a real sports car since maybe the early Corvettes or Thunderbirds
in the 50s, and even those were "American style" sports cars.
I've always considered a sports car to be a roadster (anything
with a hard top is a GT car) with a good balance of of performance.
Handling, power, etc., are complimentary and well proportioned.
It's also a fairly basic car.  I have a hard time thinking of
something with automatic transmission, electric windows, air
conditioning, automatic top, heated mirrors, 8-speaker stereo,
etc., as a sports car, even if it is a roadster (ie, the Corvette).

David Breneman                   |  "Advice is somethin' the
Distributed Systems S/W Analyst  |   other feller can't use,
Airborne Express, Inc.           |   so he gives it to you."      |                    - Cal Stewart

///  or try
///  Archives at

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>