Anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article
> <3e84fe48-1157-4a49-bb7a-9eefa41f92af@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> KoshN <macthevorlon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 7, 9:11 am, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> In article <foevl9$tt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>>
>>> "Obveeus" <Obve...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> "WQ" <w...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>> --- Like, as if most people would really pick up on it or care for
>>>>> that matter.
>>>
>>>> People will care. There are still lots of loyalist Gm/Ford nuts out
>>>> there
>>>> and most of the real nuts are on the GM side. The fact that the
>>>> new Kitt is
>>>> a Ford might just be enough to cause the entire series to fail.
>>>
>>> I don't think it's the fact that it's a "Ford" as much as it's just
>>> a run of the mill car that wouldn't turn anybody's head for an
>>> instant is the problem.
>>
>> That's a load of bull. The current Mustang is one of the most
>> striking designs out there right now, and you know that the Knight
>> Rider one is NOT going to be any ol' run of the mill V6 automatic.
>> At the very least it's going to be Shelby GT500 level in power.
>> Also, the Knight Rider Trans Am looked like any base level black
>> Trans AM of the time, unless you looked at it's Cylon-like
>> oscillating red light up front, or the interior (dash and center
>> console). Similar mods. could *easily* be amde to *any* car, let
>> alone the Mustang.
>>
>> Anim8r, your argument makes no sense.
>
> We'll have to agree to disagree. To me, the current Mustang is no
> more distinctive than any million beige Ford Toruses.
FWIW, I completely agree. If they wanted distinctive, why not go with the
GT40?
|
