Man i didn't relise how ugly VS commy's interor was.

Compared to what?!
Name another domestic vehicle being sold in '96 that was quicker???

230kw Supercharged EL, the gold one. on dedicated gas. Not sure how many were made though.

the car is/was alright, and served its purpose as being special in its day. Its actually one a very few cars that dont look toooo bad with a large wing.

I personally wouldnt pay that money, but no doubt it will be a collectors item in 20 years to a few willing to part with the cash

One.
It was a showcar, and you are just guessing that it was quicker.

the 215kw GTS-R did 14.8 which is pretty s**t, an stock EL XR6 can pull low-mid 15's and they have 164kw. 230kw I6 would pull a 14 flat i would say. lol i no im just geussin but yeah, i hate that GTS-R.

You might be right that there wasn't any brand new car sold in 96 that was quicker, but you could buy older domestic cars that are...

The Chrysler Charger R/T E49 is older and was quicker with 2 cylinders less - Wheels in November 1972 got 14.4 seconds down the quarter mile in a new stock one. And there's the E38 which I believe was faster than the GTHO down the quarter, lower top speed due to a 3 speed gearbox though.

Cars are meant to get better, this Commodore was made almost 25 years later, has 2 extra cylinders, at the time latest technology carbon fiber, made in limited numbers, big a** wing and yet was still slower. So yes, in that respect downinj's comments are very accurate.

I no its not about the GTS-R but do people remember the AU Falcon 300+.

http://www.trueblueford.com/AU2_300plus_Coupe.html

I didn't relise how quick they went, 4.6sec 0-100 and 12.6sec quarter mile.

Since when does quicker = better?
You saying a VN SS is a better car then an EL GT?
Intrusion bars in doors, ABS, stiffer chassis', airbags, power assisted disc brakes, powersteering, air conditioning.
All those things add weight
We could bring bikes into this too if you want, how s**t does 14.4 look when you can buy a sports bike for less money that does 11s off the showroom floor?
It makes about as much sense as your comparison.

Nah mate, comparing one specific car with another specific car will always be far more logical than comparing a specific car with some other form of transport. The Valiant is far closer a product to that of the Commodore than any motorbike - just to point out some major similairities incase your havn't realised - 4 wheels on the ground, abilitiy to seat 5 people, large engine in the front, roof, windows - generally bikes lack all of these...

Now the items that you mention that the Commodore has over the valiant - ac, airbags, ps, power disc brakes - yes, you are correct the Commodore does have them when the Valiant doesn't, but none of these are overly special, by 1996, these were mostly industry standards (possibly not on base model vehicles, but were on the higher spec cars) - so to do a fair comparison, you would have to compare the 2 cars in light on the dates they were built, considering the Commodore has almost 25 years in youth, it would be stupid to expect the Val to have them.
So in doing a fair comparison based on the time the particular vehicles were built, what Holden have presented is a slower vehicle.

You've also focused on how these developments have added weight to the vehicle, but you have failed to consider how some of the developments have also reduced weight - e.g. the use of carbon fiber in the vehicle, plastic front and rear bumpers, new ways of working with metal etc.

Quicker does not necessarily equal better. But, many people do judge a vehicle by it's power output and performance down the 1/4. It certainly seems reasonable to be disappointed by a car that 25 years new is slower.

Well anyone that judges a car solely by it's 1/4 mile time and/or power is a f**k idiot.
By that logic, I could say an S class Merc is a disappointing car because a cheaper FG F6 is quicker then it.

Its the total package. And in 1996 this was the best car built in Australia. It doesn't matter if its got racing pedigree. FFS no ford or Holden had racing pedigree. the xr6 was quicker round a track than the xr8 but nothing we had could touch the GTS-R. 6 months ago this car would have been worth the 80k asking price but now with this credit crisis its probably worth 60k.

Don't know if I want to get into this little cat fight or not...

But to answer your question Steady; No, in 96 there was not a production Ford Falcon that was as quick in a straight line than the GTS-R. This doesn't mean that the GTS-R was / is quick - even back in 96.

Let's quickly look at 90's performance cars shall we?
The 90's "muscle cars" were slower than their predecessors (and much, much slower than todays available "muscle") - less power, more weight and (here's the interesting part) more tech (think about that one for a moment). They were, and let's be honest here, pretty ordinary when it came to straight line performance. I mean, look at the jump in straight line performance from VT to VTII or from AU to BA - massive! And it's put us back to being able to purchase cars with performance comparable to the old 70's muscle.

Now, the fact that the old VS GTS-R was arguably the most advanced, quickest local car of it's time doesn't mean that it wasn't still pretty ordinary then and even more so now, even if they didn't really know it back then.

Is it worth what the seller is asking? Only if there's someone with far too much cash out there willing to pay what I feel is a ridiculously high price for what I believe is a s**t-box!

As for the vehicle retaining or increasing it's value - it'd want to be a mighty accurate crystal baller that predicts this thing will hold or increase in value. Personally, I don't think it will for reasons mentioned previously.

Quick side-bar; wasn't the MY96 WRX just as quick but for much less dosh?

I don't get your point on 70s muscle cars being quicker?
You mention them like they are viable alternative to a mid 90s car?
They aren't, they are boxes of s**t to drive around every day.
They don't brake, they don't handle, and they don't protect their occupants in a crash.
They guzzle fuel, and the fuel they run on isn't even available anymore.


So basically what you are saying is, cars get improved upon, and hindsight can be cruel?
What a revelation!

Look, you can argue all you want about how you think it sits in the scheme of aussie muscle cars and what it's worth.
The absolute fact is, people pay good money for them.
Whether you like it or not, they are a popular car, and they are worth cash.

As for MY96 WRXs, yeah they did 14s stock, 5 times, then you needed a new gearbox.

Chill out cobber.
None of it really bothers me.
If some toss-pot wants to pay an absurde amount of cash for what I consider to be a s**t box with next to no "muscle car" credibility or desireability, that's fine by me.

To put it into Falcon context; how much do you think an EB/EL GT is worth?

It's a question that only the buyer can answer.

As for Subie; lovely call!