oh, no. joe, joe, joe...
not a sports car? now I love my '64 spit. and it's true that my '68
mustang gt convertable didn't have the spit's wonderful front end, nor
even its disc brakes (when I bought it). but to say it's not a sports
car... them's fightin' words. I'd take the mustang on any twisty track
just as readily as the spit, ugly suspension and all. maybe more so,
surely you've seen the old c&d picture of the early spit jacking up in a
sharp turn on its rear end?
I never thought I'd be taking up the torch for old american street iron,
but with most cars of that era, there's so much 'wrong' design-wise that
it ends up much more with the driver, rather than the car. anybody
vintage track racing that can back me up with lap times?
scott
On Sun, 14 Mar 1999, Joe Curry wrote:
>
>
>
> Andrew Mace wrote:
>
> >
> > But it was still a pretty clever thing, that original Mustang of April
> > 1964. I'll take one!
> >
>
> Yeah but only because they are "cute" or valuable, not because they are
> a true Sports Car. "Car and Driver" magazine did not rate it very
> highly in their first report on the car! 8^)
>
> Joe
>
> --
> "If you can't excel with talent, triumph with effort."
> -- Dave Weinbaum in National Enquirer
>
|