despisethesun-old
despisethesun
despisethesun-old

@Jon: Insurance was definitely mandatory back then. It's often cited as one of the reasons for the end of the musclecar era.

There's no way I would spend over $5000 on anything from that era, save for Corvettes and such. It looks pretty clean, and I'd consider it at the top of that price range, but not at $6900. A '76 anything is a project car, not a daily driver, and I'd want to save as much as I could on the purchase price to dump into

1. NTFS-3G is included in pretty much every modern distro or at the very least, easily installed through the package manager. It includes read/write and it is pretty damned solid.

@d★nger the pirate: I find it amusing that you are so ready to criticise the FF setup that Lifehacker presents but deflect criticism about your setup.

@RagtagOperation: Look, you're over thinking this. Just make some comment about how Obama's a communist and the US is becoming the Soviet Union and be done with it. It doesn't matter why you're making that comment, because only "stupid libruls" could possibly disagree with such an obvious statement.

@Steve Neill: The truncated comment on the front page made me think that I was going to get to shit on the new Transformers movie, and then I saw it was mostly crybaby bullshit. Your girlfriend not being a virgin is only a problem if she hasn't fucked enough to get good at it. Sluts are way better in bed than virgins.

@Alfisted: It doesn't require an engine swap. It has a 4.6L DOHC, basically the same as the Mach 1 of the same years. The layout under the hood means that not all Mustang engine parts will fit out of the box, but many will and those that don't can be made to fit. I'd take the DOHC in the Marauder over the SOHC in the

@LucidRalphWiley: $2000 is not a whole lot of money when talking about buying a vehicle. And again, that $2000 extra buys you a truck that outperforms the Ranger in every way, and will hold its resale value better. And the Tacoma is not some giant 4x4 we're talking about. Seriously, you keep moving the target to keep

@LucidRalphWiley: No minivan did back in the day. It's a relatively recent addition.

@Deartháir: We don't get the diesels any more. A model year or two back they started selling the crappy gasoline models.

@LucidRalphWiley: Wrong. There's no market for a plain simple truck priced the same as trucks with more power, better fuel economy, and more cargo and seating space. The Ranger either needed to be brought up to spec or have the price slashed mercilessly.

@jodark: Until Chrysler does 1, 2 doesn't matter that much.

@pauljones: In fairness, there are a lot of factors that cause European cars to be so expensive. Taxes are much worse there, for starters. And there's nothing saying that GM has to build the cars over there and ship them here. GM still has manufacturing facilities here, they may as well put them to use.

@MaxSmart32: I agree. These cars failed on this side of the pond because they were Saturns, not because they were bad cars. Sell them as Chevys and they'd probably do all right.

@Tyson: But it's still probably a good idea.

@LucidRalphWiley: People did buy the Ranger in fairly large numbers until the platform was left to stagnate and Toyota beat the pants off them. I like the Ranger, but it's just not competitive with the other small trucks for the money, unless you buy a barebones, no option model, which nobody does.

You guys know that Chrysler doesn't need to take that government money, right? They could have just continued doing what they were doing, seeing as how that was working so well for them.

@Deartháir: I was thinking about the Ranger, too, until I saw what Nissan and Toyota were offering for roughly the same price (before incentives and all that, of course.) A Tacoma or Frontier makes more sense to me for the money, especially since I can get them with four doors instead of the useless extended cab that