That may be but, and I haven't priced them at all so I could be wrong about this, the idea behind the muscle cars of the late '60's was to put as much engine into as an affordable package as available so that just about anybody could afford one. It wasn't until well into the '70's thanks to emissions and insurance regulations that the muscle cars became slow, bloated, option laden and expensive shadows of their former selves.Inverarity wrote:Sure, I'm with you on the Fit. That car is lame ass.Brian wrote:I just don't see my kids thirty or forty years down the road saying, "Oh man, a Honda Fit! We used have one and it was AWESOME!"
I highly doubt that an average 20 something of today could afford a GT-R or LFA.
That's a big part of why people today are paying huge dollars for the cars from that era, they were raised in those cars and drove them themselves back in the day and the nostalgia factor drives the price. I don't see that happening with any of the vehicles of today.
Regarding the cars you mentioned, and I don't mean to step on toes here because everybody has their own tastes, but I find them to be bleh. All the "sporty" import cars today look the same to me and their looks do pretty much nothing for me.
Also, we have a Fit. While not a sports car I wouldn't exactly call it lame ass. It was the best car we could afford with the features we were looking for and we rather enjoy it. Sure, it's no LFA but at $15,000 it is also one of the cheaper cars on the market that sits at pretty much the exact price point (adjusted for modern $ values) that the muscle cars sat in during their day. So back then for the same (adjusted) value one could get a balls to the wall, pavement peeling ground pounder where today it gets you an econo-box.
Again, everything is subjective and I certainly wouldn't begrudge anybody their "Leno Garage" choices. There are a few cars in the actual Jay Leno garage that make me go, "Why the hell?"