DMC Houston Deloren As Daily Driver

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Roger Blake wrote:
>
>
>>>If you're going to drive a 20-30 year old car, it better have some very
>>>good features.
>
>
>>Cars that age in good condition are perfectly capable of providing
>>good, reliable transportation. My 1975 Hornet has front disc brakes,
>>automatic tranny, power steering, A/C, individual reclining seats,
>>transistorized ignition, electric windshield wipers, etc.
>
>
> My '71 164 has all those features, too. And so does my '62 Lancer, except
> for the reclining seats. The OP on this subtopic is clueless.

ObPedantry: your Lancer has electronic ignition and front disc brakes?
Been doing a little upgrading have we? <G>

Of course, a '63 Studebaker could have had all of those stock, had the
purchaser checked the right boxes on the order form, so your point still
stands. (I wouldn't have checked the automatic transmission box though,
as the 3-speed with overdrive is a much better cruising/daily driving
setup, and the 4-speed is so much more fun for hard driving... WHY did
they put second-gear-start slushboxes in otherwise nice driving cars?
but I digress...)

>
>
>>"Improvements" are frequently in the eye of the beholder.
>
>
> Amen. *clink*
>

*clink* indeed.

nate



--
go dry to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:27:15 -0600, Steve >

>Mike Helm wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 18:24:50 -0600, Steve >
>>
>>
>>>Mike Helm wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>My neighbor has one for his daily driver. I guess it's cool if you
>>>>really want to drive a 20 year old car.
>>>
>>>So? I drive a 30 year old car. What does age have to do with the appeal
>>>or "coolness" of a car, other than increase it? :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> If you're going to drive a 20-30 year old car, it better have some very
>> good features.
>
>No feature is required beyond "I like it."

I'll agree with that - it's your choice. My choice is that I'm not
interested in driving most cars made in the '80s.

> I have 4 cars, the newest of
>which is 32 years old. One of them has many outstanding features and is
>very collectible, but the one I drive every day is just a 4-door
>American sedan with a small v8. Its most outstanding feature is brutal
>reliability with very low repair costs on the rare occasions when
>something does break. A third one falls between the first two, and the
>fourth is over 50 years old and just for amusement.
>
>
>> The logic that any car that is 25 years old is a "classic" is laughable.
>
>Agreed. My 4-door 400k mile daily driven 73 Plymouth will never be a
>classic by any stretch of any imagination. But it will ALWAYS be more
>interesting than a modern generic transportation device. My wife has one
>of those. I drive it when we go on vacation.
>
>
>

Mike Helm wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:27:15 -0600, Steve >
>
>
>>Mike Helm wrote:

>>>
>>>If you're going to drive a 20-30 year old car, it better have some very
>>>good features.
>>
>>No feature is required beyond "I like it."
>
>
> I'll agree with that - it's your choice. My choice is that I'm not
> interested in driving most cars made in the '80s.
>

Me either, but the 1960 thru about '75... now that's a different matter
than the 80s entirely :-)

|>My neighbor's DeLorean looks like it's 25 years old and I bet it lacks
|>"that new car smell".

Those of us with chemical sensitivites can do without the "new car smell",
thank you.
Rex in Fort Worth

dizzy > wrote:

> On 6 Jan 2004 19:02:44 -0800, (Arctic Hound)
> wrote:
>
> >One: I have information on the Houston DMC. They bought all the parts
> >from DeLorean when he went out of business.
>
> Sounds to me like you're a spammer trying to drum up business for your
> crappy DeLoreans.

Sounds like me like you are a limp wristed dip**** who is trying to sound macho.