Quote Originally Posted by CRAMERIZKING View Post
Geo Metro was just an arbitrary example I picked of a car that someone could theoretically modify. I don't know why someone would, but I'm sure there's someone out there with a generally bad ass metro. Just to clarify, my actual project car is a 1989 Toyota Supra Turbo so if those cars were horse and buggies to me then mine must be the invention of the wheel.

I would say generally that I am aiming for your average tuner who modifies a car over time as opposed to the folks who pick a car up, throw a ton of money down and offload for a new car every few years. Nor would I say I'm talking about the folks who pick up a new z06 and throw money down for aftermarket parts on top of that. I think this applies to all types of cars be it american, import and so on. Basically whether or not you personally identify with the article is up to you.
idk, this comparison has been around since the beginning of the automobile...... and the answer has always been the same. Modified car > stock car, in almost every example you could possibly imagine.

For the price of a new mustang, you could build 4 fox bodies that would out perform it.

For the price of a Ferrari enzo, you could build any car you wanted and out run it.

You can put an rx7 up against pretty much any car in the world $ vs $ and the rx7 will probably win.

You would be hard pressed to come up with an example of a stock car that was the fastest option in its price range. for the purpose of performance alone, the cheaper car will almost always win. just answering the basic question put forth in your article, will new cars ever be good enough to not modify or make people stop wanting and modifying old models? the answer is a resounding NO.