Got handed by a Hemi Dodge Charger.

[RazoE]

Yeah that price is a little off. My dad bought one brand new off the showroom floor in 1989 for like 27,000. Yes that was a little pricey back then but when I said what I said I was talking about price of how much you pay for an MKIII today vs. a charger or challenger today. I was talking about actual cost.

That's the dumbest comparisson I've ever heard. You're comparing a used 24 year old car, and a brand new car and dumping on the new car for costing more.

By your logic, a theif can sell me a stolen, modified 1000hp Honda Civic that just needs tank of gas for $3.50 , and I can say it's better because the total cost was less than your Supra.

 

[destrux]

I think the point he's trying to make is that it's smarter to buy a less expensive older car rather than paying full price for a new car that performs the same. A very well modded MKIII for ~$10K is a much better buy than $30,000+ for a stock Hemi Charger in the eyes of most people here (I would hope).

BUT... if you consider it new vs new... that's different.

My sticker on my 87 said $25,900, which corrects to about $57,000 in 2011 dollars if you use the national average wage index as a guide to inflation, which is what is usually used when comparing old car prices vs new car prices. That is how Motor Trend did it in their 60's vs new muscle car comparison a few months ago. Here's a link to the govt site. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html

So if you compare the value of the MKIII in 1987 to a new Charger in 2011... the Charger is a MUCH better deal. You get alot more power and features for the money. A Hemi Charger starts at $30K, not $40K btw. Check out the Dodge website.

That said I still would prefer my MKIII. Those Chargers just scream "midlife crisis" to me. The Challengers are nicer, but still... meh.

 

[92ma71]

Yep destrux, that is exactly what I was trying to say. LOL. It is all personal opinion. I definately agree if you look at inflation cost ect that the charger is a better deal. All I was saying with a few thousand dollars and a 24 year old car, you can hand a charger its own ass and most vehicles you run into on the road.

 

[IJ.]

I think the point he's trying to make is that it's smarter to buy a less expensive older car rather than paying full price for a new car that performs the same. A very well modded MKIII for ~$10K is a much better buy than $30,000+ for a stock Hemi Charger in the eyes of most people here (I would hope).

BUT... if you consider it new vs new... that's different.

My sticker on my 87 said $25,900, which corrects to about $57,000 in 2011 dollars if you use the national average wage index as a guide to inflation, which is what is usually used when comparing old car prices vs new car prices. That is how Motor Trend did it in their 60's vs new muscle car comparison a few months ago. Here's a link to the govt site. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html

So if you compare the value of the MKIII in 1987 to a new Charger in 2011... the Charger is a MUCH better deal. You get alot more power and features for the money. A Hemi Charger starts at $30K, not $40K btw. Check out the Dodge website.

That said I still would prefer my MKIII. Those Chargers just scream "midlife crisis" to me. The Challengers are nicer, but still... meh.

You say that like it's a Bad thing

 

[dubsupra209]

hemi chargers are heavy i. Messed with a 300hemi and i was at 267hp and 284 tq we were close until i got in 5th a pulled on him i was basically stock expect for exhaust and 57trim and 9 psi

 

[destrux]

I actually bought my supra as a midlife crisis car, I figured I should get it 10 years early so people won't call it that.

 

[te72]

You say that like it's a Bad thing

It's just a poor choice for one... you can get C6 Vettes for the same price these days.

I actually bought my supra as a midlife crisis car, I figured I should get it 10 years early so people won't call it that.

By the time I finish mine, it might as well be a midlife crisis car.

 

[Supra0089]

+1