a3chau@math.uwaterloo.ca

I am looking at an 89 GT "Cobra" here in Ontario; 160, 000km,
8000.00$CAN. I went to look at it, and I noticed cobra badges on the
sides where "ordinarily" there would be a 5.0L badge. Now I know that
the GT's of this time were indeed called GT "Cobra's" here in Canada,
but did these also have side Cobra badges instead of the 5.0L (or was
this a factory option at the time perhaps)?

thanks guys..

None

No, they all had 5.0 badges on them so these were replaced at some point in
it's past.

<a3chau@math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:1136143857.230661.311320@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I am looking at an 89 GT "Cobra" here in Ontario; 160, 000km,
> 8000.00$CAN. I went to look at it, and I noticed cobra badges on the
> sides where "ordinarily" there would be a 5.0L badge. Now I know that
> the GT's of this time were indeed called GT "Cobra's" here in Canada,
> but did these also have side Cobra badges instead of the 5.0L (or was
> this a factory option at the time perhaps)?
>
> thanks guys..
>

BradandBrooks

Nope... They didn't... The '89 Cobra was just a name plate on the rear deck
lid, no different than any other GT, and came with the 5.0 badges...

And since I wasn't asked... $8K sounds a little high for a car with 160km
on the clock. I mean, maybe the car is mint, I dunno, so then, okay... but
if it's "average" I wouldn't go much over $5 or 6. Check Edmunds for a total
lowball estimate - you can show this to the guy and watch him crap his pants
(betcha it doesn't come in higher than $4K.) Try
collectorcartraderonline.com for a real world estimate.

Brad

<a3chau@math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:1136143857.230661.311320@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I am looking at an 89 GT "Cobra" here in Ontario; 160, 000km,
> 8000.00$CAN. I went to look at it, and I noticed cobra badges on the
> sides where "ordinarily" there would be a 5.0L badge. Now I know that
> the GT's of this time were indeed called GT "Cobra's" here in Canada,
> but did these also have side Cobra badges instead of the 5.0L (or was
> this a factory option at the time perhaps)?
>
> thanks guys..
>