Has she ever driven an old car? Technology has come a long way. There may be a large gap between the idea and the reality of a 60's Mustang.
Has she ever driven an old car? Technology has come a long way. There may be a large gap between the idea and the reality of a 60's Mustang.
Keep in mind this is a woman, in my personal experience they'll put up with what would be ridiculous situations for what they love. (high heels, childbirth.... etc.)
Your points do ring true for me.
I second Woody.
A couple of years ago, I bought a '65 2+2, 289 4 speed. No rust to speak of, but a poor aesthetic floor repair. Exactly the car I wanted. I added front disc brakes. I drove the car maybe 5 times. Total crap. Any modern econobox has better handling and almost as much power. I remember these cars as being great fun, but that was relative to the other cars of the day. Compared to a 2012 GT it is junk. Not to mention totally lacking basic safety engineering.
Like that chick you thought was hot in high school. Check her out today, not so much...
PS. Unless she's now your wife... Then never mind.
Also, I don't think that they got collapsible steering columns until 67 or 68, so you and your lap belt have a spear pointed at your chest. So you have that going for you...
I've never driven that ere of Mustang. How do they compare to say a GM F-body of the same era?
I have driven a couple of those and while they are much less capable of newer cars I find the driving experience much more rewarding than anything built in the last 35 years or so. I know the brakes are poor and they wallow and meander all over the place but I still prefer driving cars from the 60's-late 70's than modern cars.
In reply to Nick (Not-Stig) Comstock:
Compared to a 67-69 f-body (3 data points: two big block camaros, and a 400 firebird) they ride and stop better. Feel some cheaper and more flimsy, but a better driving car. Very similar to the mopar a-bodies of the day.
You'll need to log in to post.
