NICE LOOKS

Discussion in '1991 Detomaso Pantera 2' started by FORDFORD, Jan 21, 2003.

  1. all it needs is a turbo or supercharged and she'll have looks backed up with power!
     
  2. Re: NICE LOOKS

    All she needs is a Real powerplant, NOn-ford or American engine and she'll fly!lol
     
  3. Re: NICE LOOKS

    Audi or Maserati engine.
    Ford is ashame. Lowtech.
     
  4. Re: NICE LOOKS

    shit ***** it aint sportin no 20 yall so this shit int nothin, oh and a for shizzle my nizzzle. war in, peace out
     
  5. Re: NICE LOOKS

    “all it needs is a turbo or supercharged and she'll have looks backed up with power!”

    “All she needs is a Real powerplant, NOn-ford or American engine and she'll fly!lol”

    “Ford is ashame. Lowtech.”

    Etc.., etc.., etc..,....

    The really sad part is, at least half of the negative comments I've read in the forum about Pantera come from people who would be cheering it on, and defending it tooth and nail if it was wearing a Ferrari or Lamborghini badge. (The fact that someone had the gall to compare the Pantera to, what by comparison is a budget GT-a Supra, proves this. If anyone had had the audacity to compare a supercharged, 390hp Mustang Cobra to a Ferrari 288GTO, the elitist cast would have had a stroke, and leapt to the Ferrari’s aid, indignant about the Italian being compared to an underling!).

    It sticks in the anti-American & the anti-Ford guys craws that Ford was a co-conspirator in the redesign of the Mangusta to produce the more palatable Pantera, that it was powered by a Ford motor, and that Ford was responsible for bringing it to the American market.

    As to the endless comparisons of whether Pantera is/isn't good "because of" and "compared to" etc, etc..
    What Motor Trend said of Pantera in the 1970's remained true until the last was made.
    Pantera may not be/have been "the best in any one category" but that it offered/offers a "balance" and a "blend of driving characteristics" matched by few, and still ranked/ranks among the "fastest cars in the world", for less money than most. (For some reason, the specs here say it was a 146 mph car, when 1980's Pantera's were good for 170 - 180mph.)
    For those of us in North America, it offers guts made here, that don't require an extended hotel stay to wait for parts every time something needs replacing.
    Even with the post 1974 cars being quite a bit more expensive than the originals due to their more extravagant trappings, they still went for much less than the other mid-ship Euro-exotics (compare the $115,000 quoted in many of the auto trades at the time for a 1991 Pantera II GTS to the asking price of the likes of F40 or Countach or Diablo)

    As to the “who’s faster” (read-“who THINKS they have the biggest dick”) line of rating the worth of a car-
    The Pantera is a car that many appreciate on the basis of its overall satisfying appeal and driving characteristics. Yet, even car lovers obsessed with speed have now found out why the car has been successfully campaigned in different types of racing.
    Being designed and built as a midship GT, it has as much performance potential as any contender, and (as I have already mentioned in the Pantera vs Supra thread) many a Pantera guy/gal has proven that one can customize a Pantera into a world-beater for much less than the asking price of many more hyped supercars.

    Is a stock Pantera the fastest car in the world? No, and never has been. But with good original/well restored first generation models being had in recent years for as little as $25,000, on up to $80,000 - $150,000 for the later more "deluxe" models, it is hardly the most expensive exotic, either.
    Someone said, "Speed is money. How FAST can you afford to go?"
    If you can afford the $250,000 you'd pay for a Diablo (or HOW much for an Enzo?), subtract the $25,000 - $35,000 you'd need for a nice Pantera, and about $60,000 for all the upgrades you'll ever need to kick all the others to the curb, you STILL have enough left over to go on hell of a vacation with.

    theHammer
     
  6. Re: NICE LOOKS

    no wonder you only have 30 posts ......
     
  7. Re: NICE LOOKS

    lol, tru tru!
     

Share This Page