Was insulted today !

An '05 or an '06 Mustang is not the same category as the '64 muscle cars we started to comment about. I think they do appreciate the newer ballsy cars. I said the youngsters don't lust over the old iron, and that has been my experience. Nor do they have the do-rei-mi to purchase one. I can only state my experience, maybe it's a regional thing, maybe not. Not one 18-29 year old has looked at my CB and shown the least amount of interest. But it draws a crowd with the over-40 set.
 
ClassicVW_imp said:
An '05 or an '06 Mustang is not the same category as the '64 muscle cars we started to comment about. I think they do appreciate the newer ballsy cars. I said the youngsters don't lust over the old iron, and that has been my experience. Nor do they have the do-rei-mi to purchase one. I can only state my experience, maybe it's a regional thing, maybe not. Not one 18-29 year old has looked at my CB and shown the least amount of interest. But it draws a crowd with the over-40 set.
Classic,

Certainly can't argue with your experience and in your area perhaps that's true. But the gentleman pictured below has been a good friend of mine for a decade now, has expended hundreds of thousands of dollars researching this exact issue coast to coast, and according to the Ford Motor Company, your experience doesn't correspond to their market research. His name is Jamal Hameedi, Ford Motor Company executive officer and head of Ford SVT (Special Vehicle Team), the performance division of Ford, and he was introduced to me in 2005 while managing SVT's Ford GT program (I am the Moderator of the Ford GT Forum).

I don't know what you mean when you state that an '05 or '06 Mustang is not in the same category as the '64 muscle cars we started to comment about, when the 1965 Mustang GT350 is the car that sat in the design studio when the clay mockups of that new '05 Mustang were put together. Ford was specifically using that 1965 Mustang because market research showed that it appealed to young and old alike. And after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars doing focus group research that included high school kids, that's not just an opinion, that's a fact. You have probably never allowed your son to drive a finely restored 1965 289 Mustang to his high school when his new 2012 Mustang was in the shop, but I have. That 1965 Mustang drew 10 times the kids to oohhh and ahhh over it than his brand new Mustang did. My teenage son told me he felt like a rock star that day driving a 50-year-old Mustang. And the fact that most kids couldn't afford one is completely irrelevant as every young man, rich and poor alike, would love to own a new or vintage Ferrari even though none of them can afford one. The fact that they can't afford one does not diminish their desire one bit. According to Jamal, when young men in the 18 to 29-year-old demographic are shown photographs of Mustangs spanning that models half-century of production, the three models that those young kids like the best are the 1965, 1967, and 1969 Mustang fastbacks. Again, according to extensive market research that is not an opinion, that's a fact. It is for this reason that the 1965 Mustang fastback GT350 was used as the styling basis for the '05 and '06 Mustangs.

When the Ford GT was re-created for two model years in 2005 and 2006, a 1965 Ford GT sat in the design studio and was copied as closely as possible by Ford GT chief stylist Camillo Pardo, who is also a good friend of mine. According to Camillo, that 1965 Ford GT scored higher with focus groups in every demographic including 18 to 29-year-olds, than any other Ford that has ever been tested.

When Chevrolet was doing their market research prior to reintroducing the Camaro, every single previous Camaro was shown to countless focus groups. It wasn't even close. In the young demographic of 18 to 29-year-olds that you tell us do not lust after old cars, the most popular body style by far was the 1969 Camaro. A 1969 Camaro sat in the design studio when those clay mockups were taking shape and the stylists were told to copy that 1969 design as closely as modern regulations would allow.

There are a lot of young kids today who don't lust after any cars. They like iPads and iPhones and computers. For most young boys and girls, having any type of car is a fantasy. And perhaps to them, looking at a vintage muscle car, a Ferrari, or a modern recreation of those designs as we see in the new Camaro, Mustang, Ford GT, and Dodge Challenger would be frustrating if they can't afford them. But the parking lot at my son's high school is filled with brand-new cars and the kids didn't need to be able to afford them because their parents bought them. At age 18 my son was one of the last of his friends to get a brand-new car, but he looks for any opportunity to leave that brand new Mustang in the garage when he can drive my 40 year-old Jeep CJ-5, or my 50-year-old 1965 Mustang. That's my experience. All the best.

Chip

 
I have driven both the 60's classics and modern Camaro and Mustang. The newer models are very nice but are not close to the original 60's models. They are much more soft ( or plush) to there counter part, completely different ride. The motor and cam profile give you a completely different feel when driving not to mention the weight of the two.

The 1969 ZL1 or the sleeper car because it came through with no fancy emblems or wheels. Chevy manufactured 69 vehicles 50 which where sold to Gibb Chevrolet ( a high performance dealer who railed Chevy to make this car.) This had a 427 and ran low 13's stock and with very little modifications would turn low 11's.

Last year my son was in the market for a ZL1, wasn't sure to wait for the new Z-28 with more track appeal and less power, decided on the straight line fast ZL1 with more creature comforts. At 12.3 1/4 stock from the factory, not to shabby.
 
Meh. I lived through that era, lusted after the Mustangs just a bit - prefer the 1969 and 71-73 models. Then the Dark Ages started with the '74. Bleh. Not many good looking American cars were produced for many many years.

Newer Mustangs look better today. But I bought a F150 instead. The need to haul things far exceeds the need to haul a**. :)
 
Rboe_imp said:
Meh. I lived through that era, lusted after the Mustangs just a bit - prefer the 1969 and 71-73 models. Then the Dark Ages started with the '74. Bleh. Not many good looking American cars were produced for many many years.

Newer Mustangs look better today. But I bought a F150 instead. The need to haul things far exceeds the need to haul a**. :)
Me as well. I was fortunate in that my first car was a 65 Fastback 289 4 speed, and my third car was a 72 Fastback 351 (limited edition Sprint). So, my love for Mustangs was sealed early on. My favorite body style, by far, is the 69 Fastback.
 
Like I said, my experience. Not just with my motorcycles, but with many kids in their 20s in my town and my general area. A lot of them certainly do like the new Camaro, but that was not the target of my comment. YMMV. Cheers!
 
In high school, my older brother owned a '68 Mustang with a 289 engine. It was pale yellow and the front passenger side floorboard was rusted completely through. There was hole the size of a basketball that you could watch the road pass under you. It smelled of gasoline and burnt oil. I thought it was the coolest car I had ever sat in. The smell, the shake, the rumble, all coming together to overwhelm my highly impressionable 14 year old senses. He eventually sold it but not before I was allowed to drive it. The seed was planted.

Fast forward to the 2005 International Auto Show. Up on a pedestal was the new Mustang GT. It stole the show for me. I left vowing to own that car one day. A few years later, I made it happen. I bought a used '05 GT convertible. It lacked the shake and the smell but every time I fired it up, that rumble brought back great memories and a smile to my face. I eventually traded it in for something more practical but am glad I had it for a few years. I got thumbs up and "nice car" comments routinely in the Mustang. Once, while stuck in downtown traffic with the top down, a woman in her late 20s/early 30s who was with her friend in a car ahead of me, got out and walked up to me, smiled and handed me a business card. I had no idea what to say (I have zero game plus I'm married - pure luck on my part). I smiled and took the card. She was the manager at a downtown gym. Either she was suggesting I needed to work out or she was flirting and wanted me to call her. The look on her face said it was the latter. Talk about an ego boost. I have no doubt the car contributed to that experience. I just don't think that would have happened if I had been stuck in traffic in a Ford Escape. I couldn't wait to get home and tell my wife about it. The novelty and excitement of the experience quickly dissolved when my wife asked me to go through it again and started asking for greater details. The robot in the back of my head started announcing, "Danger Will Robinson! Danger!" I survived and learned a valuable lesson - you don't have to share EVERYTHING that happens to you with your spouse, especially if it involves an unknown, attractive woman who owns a gym.

My experience with the CB lacks the thrill the Mustang brought on that one afternoon (so far). But the one time I rode with my wife to a nearby restaurant for lunch, a guy who appeared to be in his early 20s crossed the street and made a bee line to where my CB was parked on the side of the road. He took out his cell phone and snapped a couple photos of the CB. Within 15 minutes, another guy, although in his 40s, did the same. My boys, both in their early 20s, who have seen me on different kinds of bikes (cruiser, naked, sport, standard, sport-tourer), both agree that the CB is the "coolest" one I've owned. That includes the Monster Energy, special edition, lime green Kawasaki ZX6R that I had until it was stolen and my Anniversary Edition red, white and blue VFR800 that I still own.
 
There are certain vehicles, be they scooters, cars, motorcycles, boats or planes that are just timeless in their design when compared to their counterparts, and can overwhelmingly be appreciated by young and old alike. The best of the best when it comes to design. Every once in awhile a designer and manufacturer gets lucky, and their work will be looked upon favorably forever.

The new Bonneville, the MG V7, the CB1100 look close enough to those timeless designs to draw praise where ever they go by all age groups.
 
I get a lot of thumbs ups and comments on my CB. Sunday it was a guy in his late 30's driving a Turbo 911 the pulled up along side me and gave me the thumbs up. Monday a guy in his 50's commenting on it after he saw it in the parking lot. Apparently the mailman that delivers at work eyes it pretty hard on his delivery runs. My boss was poking at it today.
 
The ferret_imp said:
There are certain vehicles, be they scooters, cars, motorcycles, boats or planes that are just timeless in their design when compared to their counterparts, and can overwhelmingly be appreciated by young and old alike. The best of the best when it comes to design. Every once in awhile a designer and manufacturer gets lucky, and their work will be looked upon favorably forever.

The new Bonneville, the MG V7, the CB1100 look close enough to those timeless designs to draw praise where ever they go by all age groups.
You forgot to mention the W800, cause it is not sold in the USA?
In my opinion it's the most timeless of all.:rolleyes:
Of course besides the CB. But it comes first.
Not a good statement in a CB Forum, I know......

Wisedrum
 
I'm with you, Wisedrum. I think the W800, and the W650 before it are beautiful retro bikes.
 
Yep, all great. That Kawi looks sweet, though I like the performance of the CB. I've already done a 2200 mile trip and I'll be going to our CB Rally in May, probably rack up another 2200 there. I can tour all day long on the CB. Not so sure (but would like to try!) if I'd be as comfortable on the Kawi.
 
Didn't mean to leave the Kawi out , but we here in the US had very little exposure to the W650 and none to the W800. I have never seen one in the wild. I would say that the W/series Kaw and the New Bonnie share the same design ( that of the British Verticle Twin) in the eyes of most and only the dedicated would know the difference at first glance.
 
ff01d86749b2c489736d882430d853a7.jpg


f18613d05544f22091be347158f0501a.jpg


For the record, I'm not trading the CB in for one.
 
Motogeezer1949_imp said:
Yep, all great. That Kawi looks sweet, though I like the performance of the CB. I've already done a 2200 mile trip and I'll be going to our CB Rally in May, probably rack up another 2200 there. I can tour all day long on the CB. Not so sure (but would like to try!) if I'd be as comfortable on the Kawi.
The same with the W. Comfortable in a different way. It's a bit easier to handle
due to the smaller weight. The riding position feels sort of being more relaxed.
The engine has a good portion of torque too, but of course not as much the CB.
The CB is a more stable bike, you will notice it riding in higher speed.

First Bonnie and W may look the same. They really don't.

Strangely enough Kawa copied the old Twins up to a greater degree than Triumph does it by itself. The W is well rounded out,
designed after their english predecessors. The new triumph looks too corny, not well portioned. That's the way, they appear to me.

The blackened out Kawas are no good examples of for how well they can look, too ratbikesh. I prefer the shinier ones.

There should be no need, to sell one for the other.
Better, if you can afford the luxury, own both motorcycles being a fan of new retro charm.

Unluckily I can't understand the Kawa economy politics, why they don`t offer the W in America. Their would be some interest
in it and bikers, who would like to buy one.

Wisedrum
 
IMO the Kawi would not sell well in this market, because although it has the look us old farts like, Americans look at the bottom line (horsepower) and the Kawi lacks it in spades. According to dyno charts I have seen and as stated by Kawasaki itself, the W800 has only 47 horsepower. It may be a perfectly good ride, and all the power one realistically needs, but it's 10 horsepower down on the Triumph Bonneville which everyone complains about being underpowered, and nearly 40 horsepower down on the CB 1100. Over here people question if the CB has enough horsepower and there are laments on this board about the lack of power of the CB. I remember well when it was introduced here in 2012 the " why doesn't it have 100 horsepower? and the comments on why the "83 1100F had 105 horsepower, why would Honda put out a bike 40 years later with 30 less horsepower?"

Read the comments section from Motorcycle Daily when the bike was introduced

2013 Honda CB1100: MD Ride Review « MotorcycleDaily.com – Motorcycle News, Editorials, Product Reviews and Bike Reviews

You may think the new Bonneville looks " clownish" but that is because you are more knowledgable than the average citizen or motorcyclist even. I can't begin to tell you when I had my Bonnie how many hundreds of people came up and said " beautiful old Bonnie, what year is it?" And the absolute look of astonishment on their faces when I would tell them it was brand new. The same thing with a CB 1100. I would never confuse it for a 69-83 Honda 4 ( because I am more knowledgable than the average) but I have only had 2 people out of maybe 50 that have approached me that said " is that the new CB?" Most assume it is a restored early edition, with the same comments I got from the Bonnie " nice old Honda, what year is it?".

My favorite comment wasn't made to me but to forum member RandyB when someone approached him and said " What year is it?" to which Randy replied "2013" and the guy says " no, I know what year it is.... what year is your bike?"



.
 
Back
Top