Yeah, I know m4a1 - I read the reviews and just about every one of them rang the same tune: "For having a live axle, you aren't going to find a better handling car" was the general statement.

Like I said, I'm a Chevy guy, but kudos to Ford for making what looks to be a very solid entry here for 2011.

Unfortunately, I'm too damn stubborn to let the bench racers rule the world, and I shall continue to fight the good fight.

I am just a car enthusiast in general... I have no brand allegiances. And likewise, I am too stubborn to back away from the bench racing drivel. I always have to jump in and at least make it known that their words are nothing more than hate of a certain brand thinly veiled by their misinterpretation of their own understanding of how anything actually works.

:stirthepot:

I have been waiting for this for a long, long time. I might have to check out down the line.

People seriously need to stop bashing the live axle. I tracked my S197 Mustang, and I had nothing short of an excellent experience with it.

Yes, high power might help play catch up on the straights and may help keep up with weaker but better handling cars. But tighter more technical tracks may negate this advantage. Regardless, taking corners is more fun, and requires better engineering and driving skill than simply going fast in a straight line.

Again, if it was all about a car meeting daily driver needs and nothing more, then no car would come with more than 250 hp, no car would have a top speed greater than 120 km/h, no car would come with high performance summer tires, or big brakes and calipers. In fact, we'd all be driving minivans and crossover suv.


And where does this drivel about mustangs being a good bang for the buck come from? Over here, the 2010 gt mustang with the v8 4.6 engine that makes a measly 315 hp, FIVE speed manual, and the optional track package has msrp of about 41000. The 370z touring with about 15 hp more out of a v6 with almost 1 litre less displacement, SIX speed manual with SRM, independent suspension, and the sport package has an MSRP of 45500. Hardly a bargain considering the z is faster, better quality, better fit and finish, better reliability, better image, and better resale value.

Car making should be about innovation, about new technology. That's why they have engineers, and an R and D budget. Their objective should be coming up with something new, refreshing and updating their product, and push themselves to their limits, not just recycling stale outdated products just because people keep buying them. Look at nissan, they created innovative new technology with the vvel, synchrorev, and in the future possibly direct injection. did they have to do that? no. would people buy nissans if they didn't? for sure.

Speaking of innovation, i heard that nascar has recently taken a very bold and innovative step and will begin experimenting with fuel injection :rofl2::bowrofl:

Correct.
And as I was told, Ford even asked Mustang owners, projected buyers, etc. right before the 2005 new body style came our on what they wanted, IRS or solid rear axle? Guess which one won?

While I am a huge fan or IRS and do agree that the solid rear axle is a dated technology, and probably would own a Mustang if it had IRS. The fact still remains that Ford has taken this dated technology and made it work great in the real world. You had the track package, which is a factory addition, and the Mustang can take corners very well against cars with IRS. Given it has the horsepower and torque to back it up, it becomes a very heavy track contender.

Also, guess what car won GT1 this year at the SCCA National Championship? Ford Mustang

In a perfect world, we'd all be "car enthusiasts" here...but sadly, there are too many "370Z-or-nothing enthusiasts", and not enough "car enthusiasts".

I can respect any brand btw, but just like being in the military...we may be one big team, but a little friendly rivalry never hurt anyone :)

You really do not think the new 5.0L is innovation? The American muscle car pretty much died in the 70/80 era because of very strict environmental law changes. We are finally see a return to what American power cars are about, no not your 80,000USD Corvette, but your average American can own power (Mustang/Camaro/G8 GXP/etc.).

The bold part of your quote, I would say it takes more driving skill to handle a Mustang around a track than a 370z.
Nascar has very strict rules on what the competitors can alter in their cars, guess what, it is like that in every race league. Yes, some are a bit more R&D into modern technology, but Nascar has found its niche and attempts to keep its viewers happy.

Yeah -- if you want technical innovation in racing watch something else. NASCAR is oriented towards close competition (though tour one of the top teams shops and you will be surprised at the F1-level technologies they use to perfect the very old school tech that's actually in the cars).

There has been a lot of pressure to modernize the cars -- their main worry was being able to keep tight control over everything, but with standardized ECUs ala F1 there is no reason not to proceed with bringing in the direct-injected V8s that have been in the works for a while.

VW also wants in, but they are hesitant to join if they can't easily justify using NASCAR to help sell their cars. Given the state of GM and Chrysler, the only two strong manufacturers in NASCAR right now are Ford and Toyota, so making changes to attract other makes is a smart business decision.

It's also a hedge against future "green" attacks that Congress will mount against NASCAR's carburetor engines.

It's all very simple. If you cloud your thought with hate, however, comprehension just flies over the top of your head. :shakes head:

I wouldn't choose a Mustang over a Z unless it was a Terminator. But the difference in handling between the current Mustang and the Z is about the same as the Z vs the S2K; significant, but nothing catastrophic.

To me it seems like Pharmacist had a friend he really looked up to and aspired to be like, and that friend didn't like LRAs. So ever since, he has clung pathetically to the idea that live-axles are the bane of society, and he must at all cost insult them, despite a vast ignorance, lack of track time in any aforementioned vehicle, or a firm foundation at all, just to affirm that his friends opinion is correct, as to remain in that friends good graces.

But that's just what it seems like.

Pharmacist = troll

why not just be happy that these cars will beautify our streets, rather than seeing the sea of compact econo cars

i actually considered waiting for the 11' stang over the Z, but after test driving the Z there was no reason to wait.

I love ford, i have a 67' fastback in the garage thats kind of on the backburner as far as restoration but even so i considered the Z to be more a drivers car, the mustang will be nice, and this is 1 more reason to hurry up and get TT's for my z. but i strongly believe the Z is and will continue to be more track oriented

+1 rep.

Camaro will be made in Canada?? If so... That's nice lol



Muscle Cars look nice & sound awesome but they suck in handling and will always suck in handling for some reason.

This talks reminded me of Top Gear's V10 R8 vs. Vette ZR1

Technically speaking, the ZR1 outperforms the R8 in the handling department, thing is you need a talented one behind the steering wheel to get it out of the ZR1. Similarly, inspite of the Mustang having a LRA I still believe it can do well on a track if the driver is competent. Otherwise he'll be just wasting tires.

:wtf2:

You know the new mustang outperfoms a 2008 350Z in both slalom and skidpad tests? No wait, it's a piece-o-crap so how could that be? :rolleyes:

I didn't really read into it much but what is the projected price difference gonna be? man in 2011 we are gonna see these things everywhere! pretty cool that ford is bringing an affordable 400 hp range car into their line like chevy an dodge did. Nissan's turn... :excited:

I love Ford, I've owned a half dozen of them and will take a look at the new Mustang when it arrives. The lack of an IRS will stop me but I'm glad to see it's getting a real 6 speed finally. I'd also need that ridiculous mast antenna removed.

My biggest dislike of the mustang is the sudo retro interiors. They need to keep the weight down, something Chrysler and Chevy have failed miserably at.

I can take it or leave it, I think the Mustang does retro a hell of a lot better than the Camaro did. The Camaro interior is awful.

I don't like how they make the v6 look uglier than the GT.

I WANNA GO FAST!!! and to the guy that thinks one car is faster than the other i say it depends on who's driving. i had a mustang in the past, most fun i had sideways. :happydance: and as for the Z i love it but me personally i could use another 80hp :tup:

I came "this close" to buying a '67 fastback in 1984, but instead bought an Alfa Romeo GTV-6. Stupid choice although the Alfa was a blast to drive it was a money pit. That Stang was black on black with a 428 side-oiler dropped into it.

ya that stang sounds niice, ill post pics of mine once i get home

its quiet a project though, i have ordered a couple parts already though

carpet/door handles/decklid/and locking kit for the ignition and trunk

Howz the rust? :icon14:

:rolleyes: you just posted your own fail right there. Evo are some of the fastest cars out there, with some of the latest technology, double clutch tranny, advanced awd, and a turbo 4-banger that can easily push in excess of 400 hp. It would easily run circles around your precious fintstone mustang.
good to see the soccer mon inside you come out.
:rofl2::icon18: you really believe one of the world's greatest cars to be ever made was defeated by a piece of junk ford? you're even more delusional than you appear to be. only thing that killed the f1 was the sticker price.
no it isn't. weights just about the same as other cars in its category. cayman, boxster, 135i, 911 carrera, etc...

how much does your precious mustang weigh anyway?

Sorry, I do not believe a turbo 4 banger is good at all. One reason I stepped away from the Evo in the end. Also, from the test drives I did and research, the Evo really loses power above 90MPH, the Mustang will continue into the 130 just like the Z. The Mustang 5.0L already has 400 horsepower, and the double clutch is nice but it is still slow on the shifts.

The Mustang currently is just below 3,500 pounds for the base GT, about 275 over the base 370z. Considering the other American muscle cars are in excess of 4,000 pounds I would say the Mustang is doing something right.

The Porsche line is 3,000 or less actually, the BMW is around 3,300 so it is on par with what the base 370z has. Then again the stock BMW has leather seats and other "luxury" features you only get in the Touring Z and the touring Z is above 3,300 (I believe around 3,400 actually). Nissan could have shed some weight, but cost would have increased and with the increase in safety standards it pushes weight up. Though not really sure cost would increase by 10,000USD but for a hundred pounds of weight we might pay an extra 500 or 1,000USD. I am sure many here would have been happy with that trade off.

the evo is rather fast in a straight line. good acceleration with turbos. and the awd give it a lot of traction. still, you're thinking like a typical american, only thinking about straight line performance. i'm talking about track performance. the evo is a formidable track car, and the very advanced awd system gives it remarkable cornering ability.

where do you get your weight figures for porsche? the cayman s is about 3150, and even the base cayman is over 3000 that is without the limited slip diff, bigger wheels and tires, interior luxuries and amenities etc....
a stripped down base carrera with manual gearbox is 3400. the 135i I believe is at least 3500 for a base model without options.

the 370z touring w/o sport or nav is listed as 3230 for manual and 3260 for auto on nissan website. So the z isn't really all that heavy compared to competition. it weights just about right.

Those stone age Fords, beat the pants off Ferrari, in the 1960's & 1970's!

1) The base Z is 3230, the touring Z is closer to 3300.
2) The Porsche numbers are directly from Porsche themselves, same as Nissan numbers. The Z is a great car do not get me wrong, but others have found ways to lighten their 2 seat cars. A base 135i is closer to 3400, actually 3373.
3) I am talking about track racing not straight line racing. Hate to break it to you, but I hate straight line racing. The Evo AWD is nice and will help in the corners, but the Mustang has Torque and top end that the Evo lacks for the track. Now the Evo with a few mods is very quick and opens up nicely, but it still lacks top end power.
4) Again, a 4 banger turbo is not very good in my mind. Lets slap a quality turbo on a Z or Mustang and see what happens. Plus the Evo is an econo car with a turbo.

:tup:

yes, they sure did. in the 1960's and 1970's. check your calendar. we are now in 2009:rolleyes:

:bowrofl: :roflpuke2: :inoutroflpuke: :bowrofl: :roflpuke2: :inoutroflpuke:

take a step back guys... This is too funny

also, we're in 2010 in a matter of days.. Ha

:wtf2:

Run and get your box of kleenex, that Ford would blow the doors off your Z!

Clearly you've never driven an 05+ Mustang.

:wtf2:

Why are we comparing a 5.0 V8 mustang to the Z.... Lol
compare it to the V6 model stang

Honestly, we should just abandon thread. I think we made it clear what this guy's motives are...

Nothing we do will stand up to ignorance... let's just move on.