"Nicholas Anthony" > wrote:

>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> They've got no fallback. The original Camaros didn't look
>> as good as the Barracudas or Challengers and not nearly as
>> interesting as the Mustangs. They had no choice but to
>> do a modern (sort of) look. IMO, they should look for inspiration
>> from their early 1970s (1973 or later) models.
>
> Actually they did have a more aggressive look to them and I was happy
> to see the Stang follow up in '69-70 with something more agressive
> stance as well. If I were Chevy make the car low frills affordable,
> mimick the '67 and then some 5 years later mimick the '70's style. I
> would love to see the Mustang do something similar and eventually make
> ammends for the '74-78.

Sorry.. I dont agree on that... didnt then, dont now.
A Muscle Car is one thing, a hot pony car, another... the 72-73 "Mach's"
were muscle cars!
Bet you liked the Daytona Aero's and Superbee's too. THEY DIDNT SELL!

Those of us with TASTE loathed the bloated Mach styles. Over weight
behemoths.. and the ONLY reasons the Mustang II's are an abomination, is
the combination of market reading for economy, Over Smogging for effect,
and the curious styling blend of lead-sled and pony. Not to
mention..LANDAU ROOF! Gag!

To prove my point... take a side view shot of a M II "Cobra{jr}" and
have someone photoshop radiused wheel wells on it!

Freakin' WHOLE different perspective! If you hadnt already had a 'bad
taste' in your mouth you might think it was pretty cool!

But then the 68 - 81 Vettes leave me cold, too.
--
Yeh, I'm a Krusty old Geezer..DEAL with it!