Mazda could go right in making a 1990 Miata. Mine was (I think) about 16k or so. That works out to about 26 today. I'd pay 26 grand for a a brand new (not a time capsule!) 1990 Miata...
Joey
Mazda could go right in making a 1990 Miata. Mine was (I think) about 16k or so. That works out to about 26 today. I'd pay 26 grand for a a brand new (not a time capsule!) 1990 Miata...
Joey
Christ-all-Friday, you guys fawn over some pretty weak-assed cars. Can't say I've ever yearned for a "new" old Miata, Nissan mini-truck, Civic or Corolla.
Now, a spankin' new Omni GLHS-that's what I'm talking about. 
^ Amen hell Id settle for a new SRT4.
The 9-4x was held off because for the first time ever GM decided it only needed 3 mediocre vehicles in exactly the same segment
joey48442 wrote: Mazda could go right in making a 1990 Miata. Mine was (I think) about 16k or so. That works out to about 26 today. I'd pay 26 grand for a a brand new (not a time capsule!) 1990 Miata... Joey
Gotta love development. I got my '99 for 19k, brand spaking new. Close to 26k today.
Interesting that you can STILL get a brand new Miata, with better emissions, more power, cleaner, safer, etc, for roughly the same amount of relative money.
How cars don't follow inflation is beyond me.
A new Fiesta has a version where the MSRP is $13.2k. Which is about $7500 in 1990. I suppose you could settle for a 1990 Civic base for $6300. With less than half the power.
I would like to see a new Classic saab 900
alfadriver wrote:mad_machine wrote: it's a shame. Saab has potential.. but I think the damage done to them by GM might be terminalJaguar was a collosal waste of good money.
Maybe for Ford, but Tata seems to be doing much better with it since they actually invested something into new platforms, cars, and designs...
B 13 Sentra is called a Tsuro in Mexico, they still made new ones last year, and there are about 19 million used as taxis.
I''m trying to figure out how to buy a modern nose for my 94 without breaking the bank- I can't imagine you'd be able to get one from a wrecker down there, since I'm sure the taxis would use them all up.
As to the Saab question- They are dead. Its only a matter of time. It took me 6 weeks to get a water valve for the heater on a 9-5 recently. I told the guy to firesale it, and he did. Only problem is, He insists on weird E36 M3, so he went and found himself a Subaru SVX as a replacement.
Weird guy.
alfadriver wrote: Lot harder to sell cars than it appears, yes?
I don't know, it seems that when someone is in charge who genuinely knows and loves the industry they are involved in, things can be a bit better.
A CEO and management team that pays attention to their customers and the industry can be very successful if they are willing to stick to a common vision and take some risks to make that vision a reality.
Going into a brand purchase half-hearted just leads to the destruction of that brand and damage to the company making the purchase. Ford didn't seem to have any idea of what to do with the mess that was Jaguar. A clear vision that is shared with everyone involved would have helped, provided that it is a two-way discussion as it should be.
BMW clearly knew what they wanted from BL and they got it and they have a pretty decent product out of it.
Interesting to see Toyota faultering on what to do with Scion, much like GM did with Saturn. Both companies have allowed their experiments to drift away from the original purpose and are falling prey to scope creep as the people in charge are trying to justify their existence.
Javelin wrote:alfadriver wrote:Maybe for Ford, but Tata seems to be doing much better with it since they actually invested something into new platforms, cars, and designs...mad_machine wrote: it's a shame. Saab has potential.. but I think the damage done to them by GM might be terminalJaguar was a collosal waste of good money.
??? Pretty much everything but one car was an new design. The S was a new platform with a new engine that got shared with the big 2 seater, etc.
Billions were invested. And Jag got their own way- I kid you not- every decision was biased toward Jaguar, and it being unique. Yet they NEVER made money. I would be stunned if Tata makes any money with Jag. Especially anywhere close to what Jag thinks they will.
turboswede wrote:alfadriver wrote: Lot harder to sell cars than it appears, yes?I don't know, it seems that when someone is in charge who genuinely knows and loves the industry they are involved in, things can be a bit better. A CEO and management team that pays attention to their customers and the industry can be very successful if they are willing to stick to a common vision and take some risks to make that vision a reality.
That's kind of my point- it's a LOT harder to manage both the supply side and the delivery side so that you make any decent money. It takes $100B of stuff to sell $130B of stuff. Get that wrong, and you are out a whole lot of money.
Going into a brand purchase half-hearted just leads to the destruction of that brand and damage to the company making the purchase. Ford didn't seem to have any idea of what to do with the mess that was Jaguar. A clear vision that is shared with everyone involved would have helped, provided that it is a two-way discussion as it should be.
Can't argue that much, but I will say with my experience with Jag, their view was very much a kid in a candy store- give me what I want, even if we have no idea if the customer wants or needs is.
BMW clearly knew what they wanted from BL and they got it and they have a pretty decent product out of it. Interesting to see Toyota faultering on what to do with Scion, much like GM did with Saturn. Both companies have allowed their experiments to drift away from the original purpose and are falling prey to scope creep as the people in charge are trying to justify their existence.
Right, BMW took Mini, the brand, and got rid of the rest. Expensive to make a small car, but when you emulate a "legend", it appears that the market will allow you some leeway in terms of how really good the car needs to be.
I'm not all that interested in Toyota right now- they have some major cash and spending issues for their volumes.
But relative to the Mini- the Fiat 500 will be interesting to see if they can do anything REALLY significant with it.
Back to Saab- based on how people post here, Spyker entered it much like a lot of "enthusiests" want to make cars, and seemed to get in WAAAY over their heads. Can they recover? I doubt Spyker can, but I bet some Chinese company will swoop in and take the remnants, much like what happened to Rover and the rest of BL. So it will be a Saab much like the current F1 Lotus is a Lotus- in name only.
Turboswede wrote,
" don't know, it seems that when someone is in charge who genuinely knows and loves the industry they are involved in, things can be a bit better."
THERE"S your problem--and doesn't lookl at it as "some sort of means" to make monies. Morgan, for example. OK, apples and oranges with volume, but, look how long they've been producing cars, and there's a waiting list!
integraguy wrote: Finally, the latest issue of the British mag CAR (hit the U.S. newsstands in the past week) tests a new Saab 94x. According to the story, this car/SUV is closely related to the Acadia/Traverse but for some reason GM decided to holdoff on marketting it. The tester thought the 94x was a pretty good vehicle...just not great, when perhaps Saab really needs great cars. The Acadia/Traverse/Enclave/Outlook are all Lambda platform. The share little to nothing with Theta-Epsilon.
The 94x is the sister car to the new Cadillac SRX. They are both built on the Theta-Epsilon platform. The reason the 94x had no marketing in the U.S. is it wasn't slated to go into production until the end of '09 early '10. Of course we all know that the isht hit the fan before that could happen.
Still in production. The Beetle lasted until 2008 IIRC.
Javelin wrote: I like that idea! Wonder what the defunct G8 and Solstice tooling would cost from GM?
The G8 tooling is pretty much still in use in Australia. That and the CTS is basically the same platform, more or less. I'm afraid to ask what GM would want for the Solstice/Sky stuff.
Too bad for Saab, maybe they can hold on, we need more of the non-cookie-cutter cars.
Spyker has never made money as far as I know. I really hope SAAB is able to get things going again, like someone else said we need more cars that are "not just like the others".
racinginc215 wrote:pinchvalve wrote:Watercooled? wonder how hard it would be to sneak one of those in and build a Westy out of it
I am afraid to ask where the radiator is.. on the Air cooled version, there is not a lot of room between the seats and the front of the bus
SAAB and Volvo were both in trouble when they were bought by GM and Ford. Stale products, no development or marketing dollars, low volumes, increasing costs. Ford at least tried to do something with Volvo before giving up and almost killing the make. SAAB never fit into GM, I think it was purchased because the other guy was buying foreign brands. Volvo was the only brand in the "Premier Group" that made money steadily until the recession. Spyker buying SAAB was just a sad joke for a brand that used to have some pretty interesting cars. It's a huge jump for a niche manufacturer to try to go mainstream, and it's showing. As Robin Williams once said "It's not the end of civilization, but you can see it from here."
Corporations have to publicly disclose financials.
BWAAHAhahhahahahhhahahahahahhaha.
Vigo wrote:Corporations have to publicly disclose financials.BWAAHAhahhahahahhhahahahahahhaha.
Oh please. 
Regale us with your thoughts oh great and wise MBA holder and/or corporation owner. Us filthy, unwashed masses must know what you think you know.
152 page financial document on Spyker in 2010:
http://www.spykercars.nl/download/artikel/JV2011SpykerSaab.pdf
car39 wrote: SAAB never fit into GM, I think it was purchased because the other guy was buying foreign brands.
Saab was bought for the chassis under the 9000. GM tried to buy Alfa for it, but the Italian government all but gave Alfa to Fiat.. seeing as Fiat, Alfa, Lancia, and Saab all used that chassis.. they went for the next best thing..
From above link:
" Spyker needs cash," Muller says. "It needs euro 25 million (about $36 million) to keep going. "We can get that by issuing new stock in the company but that would dilute existing shareholders by 22 per cent.
"That is unjustified. The only solution was to split Spyker and Saab." Saab and its parent Spyker will now go on different roads with a change of the board of directors. They will, however, be linked. Muller, for example, is to remain chairman of both companies. But the divorce allows each to concentrate on their specific paths. "
They are both in trouble.
Well yeah, they spent all of Spyker's reserve cash on buying SAAB, which is why I think they are idiots. Now both will probably fail. Which sucks honestly as I like Spyker's aeroplane-themed cars and I really like SSAB's, even though I haven't owned one yet.
VW ended production of the Citi Golf (MKI) in 2009. It was still being produced and sold in South Africa.
racinginc215 wrote:Javelin wrote: 152 page financial document on Spyker in 2010: http://www.spykercars.nl/download/artikel/JV2011SpykerSaab.pdfWho was that prepared by? I assume some sort of outside company with no interest in Saab or Spyker I'm sure they did if for free as a courtesy to show just how solvent Spyker is, I mean there is no way a corporation would would lie about their financial well being. that just does not happen, I mean if it did banks would collapse and auto manufactures would go bankrupt and that never happens. Vigo you just need to admit Mr Javelin is way smarter about the world then anyone else here.
Well when they lie outright they usually go to jail. Nobody claimed companies don't use creative accounting, but the financials are there for the investors to see. If you believe otherwise you're a freaking idiot. Do you really believe every corporation is lying through it's teeth?
You'll need to log in to post.
