KoshN wrote:
> On Feb 8, 4:46 am, "Victor Velazquez" <k-can...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <3e84fe48-1157-4a49-bb7a-9eefa41f9...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>> KoshN <macthevor...@[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.
>
> You think the 2005-2008 Mustang is as common as any million beige Ford
> Tauruses? Every time I come across a 2005-2008 Mustang, I notice it,
> and if it's a GT or better, I watch it for awhile. Tauruses are
> comparitively *invisible* kind of like Chevy is calling the previous
> generation Malibu. And before you label me as some kind of a Ford
> nut, while I never had a 1982 Trans AM, I *did* have a 1985 Chevy
> Camaro IROC-Z (GM F-body of the same era).
Well, not *as* common but too rounded overall to be truly eye-catching,
IMO.
Damn those aerodynamics!
>> If they wanted distinctive, why not go with the
>> GT40?
>
> I guess you mean "Ford GT" NOT a "GT40" (the latter being 40 inches in
> height, EXTREMELY rare and expensive.). Even the Ford GT, at about
> $160,000, is probably too expensive for this production. They usually
> have several of the cars for a movie or TV series, so multiply that by
> the $160,000 price.
I was thinking more like making some fiberglass replicas, not using actual
GT40s but even so, your point about cost is well made.
|
