• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

The Camaro is getting cancelled again?

Single. Best. Car. I've. Ever. Owned.
Hate to admit it, but that thing was absolutely bulletproof. Raced it in SSGT class in SCCA the first two years
I owned it and it was my only daily driver/commuter car. I beat it mercilessly every time I got in it.
It never broke

This is my exact experience with my 1990 5.0 mustang. I bought as my first drivable car for $100 as a parts runner while putting the Charger together. It ended up becoming my daily for nearly 10 years. I ran the hell out of it on the 1/8 at Iwrindale every Thursday. I may have smoked a clutch or two the first couple of years, but I was 17.

Drove a few camaros and stealths during that time, but I wouldn't have traded the fox for either.
 
Looked at a new ranger a few weeks ago

not really any bigger than my mom's 2003 quad cab Dakota

2.3L 4 cyl at 280 HP and 25 avg MPG

that's cooking for a 4 cyl

I talked to an older women about two weeks ago in a parking lot before going into the store and commented on her new Ranger. She said she loved it. She had an older ranger before this one. She said it's bigger and much more refined. I asked if she mind my asking about how much something like that might cost, just over 40!!!! I can get a new ram for that. Like my 2000 quad cab Dakota, it's just as long, just skinnier. I don't call that a small truck. By the why, my Dakota got no more than 15 mpg and had a 360 and wasn't cheap either. I'd take it back right now if I could, I loved that truck!!!
 
If you will recall the reason Chrysler wasn't making V8 cars back in the 80s they had to do away with them as part of the bailout. Plus they really didn't sell all that well. Wrong car, wrong time. 4 cyl FWD was the way to go then. Unfortunately Chrysler's QC wasn't very good then.

As for the Camaro, I never really liked any of them. A friends neighbor has one of the new ones, about a 2012 I think. 427, chipped, Flowmasters, larger diameter tires, etc. Went for a ride in it. It sits LOW, is comfortable, lousy vision. From a stoplight or 30 mph, mash the loud pedal and the thing kind of squats, hazes the tires but it flat MOVES! Doesn't get out out of shape, either. I giggled like a kid every time he nailed it.
Seems domestic auto makers don't want to compete with the foreign makers in cars at all. Doesn't make sense.
I damn sure can't afford an $80k truck.
 
Last edited:
How much?
We really never touched on that. I have however been pricing them on my own and for the same set up. between 35k and 40k. I tad more than I feel is necessary even in this day and age of auto motoring. That's why I will never buy a new vehicle again and keep searching for a good used platform instead...cr8crshr/Tuck:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::usflag::usflag::usflag:
 
the ranger I looked at was an xlt, but not a lariat

33K

the lariats were 38

they had a base model that was 28 IIRC

15 in a 5.9 Dakota is a record. I bet you had 3.55 gears.

mine had the average MPG record on the Dakota RT forum for years at 14.2 with 3.92 gears

I LOVE my Dakota too, and only death shall separate us (if it dies first, it may be resurrected)
 
...and my career Mopar parts manger friend used to say about the Dakota price point-

"for a few thousand more you can get a Ram"

...but my point was always- I don't want a Ram, I want a Dakota.

I don't want to park a Ram, and I don't want to climb into and jump out of a Ram.

although I agree there should be more of a difference unless you are comparing a loaded mid size and a stripper full size.
 
the ranger I looked at was an xlt, but not a lariat

33K

the lariats were 38

they had a base model that was 28 IIRC

15 in a 5.9 Dakota is a record. I bet you had 3.55 gears.

mine had the average MPG record on the Dakota RT forum for years at 14.2 with 3.92 gears

I LOVE my Dakota too, and only death shall separate us (if it dies first, it may be resurrected)

Actually, It got a one time 15.1 and got 14.1 to 14.8 on a daily basis. It had a tow package with 3.92 gears. I loved it!! It was a white sport, loaded. No leather seats, didn't offer it first year out, Quad cab, don't like leather anyway. The ranger this women had was LOADED. she said it had everything on it. I have to say it looked good. even had chrome tow hooks. A truck is a truck when it comes to building it, a little bit bigger only cost a little bit more. Here's a old picture of my Dakota when I was building my lake house in 2000.
PICT0204 (2).JPG
 
that's possibly even an anomaly for a heavier truck with 4WD

are we talking average or one trip highway?

mine will get 23 if I stay on 45 and 50 MPH roads for the whole trip


...but average over multiple tanks of fuel over periods of months, daily driving city and highway was 14.2
 
It's too bad that all the manufacturers totally abandoned the compact pickup market.
What killed the Dakota, namely a "compact" pickup that kept growing in size and price to the point where it made more sense to just buy the full-sized ones, is apparently lost on the Ford people.
The new Ranger is too big, WAY too expensive and too underpowered for its' size - sort of what happened with the new Jeep pickup, too.
Manufacturers have abandoned the economical, truly compact pickup market in favor of SUV's with little beds tacked on.

Oh, and while I'm busy giving opinions nobody asked for :), put me down as another who absolutely hated the late-model Camaro "Transformers" styling. You sit in one of those and outward visibility is absolutely atrocious, to the point of being downright dangerous, especially to the sides and rear.
Feels like a coffin with wheels...
I've never liked the "heartbeat" of the modern iteration of the Chevy V8, either. The louder people make 'em, the more they sound like *** to me - more an industrial engine sound than anything "performance auto". There's just something to the cadence of that engine that annoys me.
I actually like the beat of the modern hemi's as well as some of the Ford stuff (that flat plane crank sounds MENTAL at higher RPM's).
C pillar absolutely horrendous. How can anybody see around it ? I just think the styling of the camaro was just, i don't know, off?
 
...and my career Mopar parts manger friend used to say about the Dakota price point-

"for a few thousand more you can get a Ram"

...but my point was always- I don't want a Ram, I want a Dakota.

I don't want to park a Ram, and I don't want to climb into and jump out of a Ram.

although I agree there should be more of a difference unless you are comparing a loaded mid size and a stripper full size.
Here in Canada at least, the base Dakota cost $1,000 more than the base full sized Ram in its last year (2011?).
 
that's possibly even an anomaly for a heavier truck with 4WD

are we talking average or one trip highway?

mine will get 23 if I stay on 45 and 50 MPH roads for the whole trip


...but average over multiple tanks of fuel over periods of months, daily driving city and highway was 14.2

My overhead computer never got over 15.1 mpg ever! I could drive 70 mph on my way to my lake house which was 155 miles from my home and never get much over 15 mpg. I would say in town after resetting the computer it got between 12.7 and 13.2 mpg. If I never reset it it always read about 14.2 combined. It got crappie gas mileage, but I didn't care, as I said, I loved that truck. With my employees discount I paid a little over 25,000 in 2000 for it.
 
Thanks....Never had a mullet though.
 
Auto Transport Service
Back
Top