<VV> Early vs. Late.

[Bill Elliott]

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 12:04:50 -0500, Tjs1201@aol.com wrote:

>I always enjoy the banter back and forth between early and late owners.  Since it's so much fun, I would like to recommend even more categories to 
fight over.  How about early earlies (pre 64) vs. late earlies (64)? Or don't forget early early earlies (1960) with the concave front ends. I'm sure we can 
break up the lates also if we think hard enough. :)



That's simple!

'60 is are awesome (best build quality of any)
'61 much worse (both in design and build quality), but improving quality through '64 (which is a fine car again in both terms)
'65 back to horrible build quality again but significiantly improved design
'66 back to the high quality level of '64, 
'67 back to almost the quality level of '60, best overall car when you consider design and build quality
'68 worse than a '65
'69 worst of the breed.

So early earlies and late earlies are great while midearlies are not, early lates bad, but late lates great, except for too-late lates which are abysmal. 

At least that's been my experience.

How's that to get everyone mad on both sides? ;-)

Bill Elliott