Indy 500 Pace car ...

snaggeltooth · 03-03-2009, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiquidZ

Let me ask you this, if the Mustang is such a paltry competitor, then why is Ford not on the verge of bankruptcy? It works.

The Mustang has had no competitor since 2002 or whenever the Camaro croaked. There wouldn't even be a new Camaro if it wasn't for the S197's success. That is the reason why the 4.6 lasted as long as it did, because there was no need to upgrade.

Now with GM's LS3 that they seem to throw into everything, Ford is bringing back the 5.0. Don't even pretend that its not going to be a reality. Just do some research.

Plus, look at the new 2010 mustang test from Motor Trend. The car stops in 108 ft, pulls 0.95g on the skidpad, and accelerates to 60 in 4.9 sec. It even does a 13.5 quarter with this archaic engine that you talk about. This all with $1495 track pack. That will only improve when the new, LIGHTER, 5.0 comes out. If a 5.0 is not your thing, then you have the 3.5L Ecoboost producing 365hp. Talk about a tuner's dream with all forged internals and direct injection to boot. This engine will be even lighter than the 4.6L

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but there is a reason why the Mustang has never ceased production. Its fast, fun, and affordable. Now

sorta agree... the thing that keeps the Mustang alive is V6 cars not the GTs... but the 3.5l ... that should be 'very interestin'...

MightyBobo · 03-04-2009, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiquidZ

Let me ask you this, if the Mustang is such a paltry competitor, then why is Ford not on the verge of bankruptcy? It works.

The Mustang has had no competitor since 2002 or whenever the Camaro croaked. There wouldn't even be a new Camaro if it wasn't for the S197's success. That is the reason why the 4.6 lasted as long as it did, because there was no need to upgrade.

Now with GM's LS3 that they seem to throw into everything, Ford is bringing back the 5.0. Don't even pretend that its not going to be a reality. Just do some research.

Plus, look at the new 2010 mustang test from Motor Trend. The car stops in 108 ft, pulls 0.95g on the skidpad, and accelerates to 60 in 4.9 sec. It even does a 13.5 quarter with this archaic engine that you talk about. This all with $1495 track pack. That will only improve when the new, LIGHTER, 5.0 comes out. If a 5.0 is not your thing, then you have the 3.5L Ecoboost producing 365hp. Talk about a tuner's dream with all forged internals and direct injection to boot. This engine will be even lighter than the 4.6L

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but there is a reason why the Mustang has never ceased production. Its fast, fun, and affordable. Now

You must be delusional...the others are correct. Ford was successful because of the V6 one, not the V8. It had nothing to do with the performance at all - it had EVERYTHING to do that it was cheaper.

But, lets not even discuss price here, lets stick to performance. In which case, I will say that F-bodies were able to run high 12's in the quarter mile with a good driver and stock tires. The vast majority, however, ran really low 13's with a decent driver/track.

Fun and affordable, sure I wont argue that. Thats what kept it alive: the fact that they are cheap.

But fast? Don't lie to yourself - until the 5.0 comes out, a 13.5 in the quarter is something that F-bodies did back in 1998 with a shitty *** driver. Just like Crash said, Mustangs have been dominated by anything LSX (or even LT1) powered since its inception. The ONLY reason its still around, is because its so cheap. If GM brought the price of their F-bodies down to about the price of the Mustangs, name one PERFORMANCE reason to choose the Mustang over the F-body? And luckily, thanks to ever-predictable GM depreciation, you can get a used F-body for cheaper than an equivalent Mustang, all thanks to how popular the Mustang is.

The people who come on here thinking a 13.5 quarter mile is FAST, are the same people who finally moved out of the "under body neons with NAWZ" phase of their life.

LiquidZ · 03-04-2009, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MightyBobo

You must be delusional...the others are correct. Ford was successful because of the V6 one, not the V8. It had nothing to do with the performance at all - it had EVERYTHING to do that it was cheaper.

But, lets not even discuss price here, lets stick to performance. In which case, I will say that F-bodies were able to run high 12's in the quarter mile with a good driver and stock tires. The vast majority, however, ran really low 13's with a decent driver/track.

Fun and affordable, sure I wont argue that. Thats what kept it alive: the fact that they are cheap.

But fast? Don't lie to yourself - until the 5.0 comes out, a 13.5 in the quarter is something that F-bodies did back in 1998 with a shitty *** driver. Just like Crash said, Mustangs have been dominated by anything LSX (or even LT1) powered since its inception. The ONLY reason its still around, is because its so cheap. If GM brought the price of their F-bodies down to about the price of the Mustangs, name one PERFORMANCE reason to choose the Mustang over the F-body? And luckily, thanks to ever-predictable GM depreciation, you can get a used F-body for cheaper than an equivalent Mustang, all thanks to how popular the Mustang is.

The people who come on here thinking a 13.5 quarter mile is FAST, are the same people who finally moved out of the "under body neons with NAWZ" phase of their life.

The Mustang isn't fast? I'm delusional? It is fast. Maybe not as fast as others, but it is a fast car.

Crash · 03-03-2009, 03:36 AM

The GTOs were made well. I'll give them that. I have a few friends with GTOs. But you're right, they suck for handling, they're heavy, and the small tires are pretty lame. One of my friends has 275's on the back and Nitto NT-01s all around. Of course, they still break loose like crazy, especially since he's running twin turbos. But aside from that, it wasn't a bad car.

(Although it was stupid to have 2 3rd eye brake lights. LOL)

shumby · 03-03-2009, 10:36 AM

^^^ agreed

Crash · 03-03-2009, 02:49 PM

I somewhat agree too. Affordable is the key word. A GT is 20K and 300HP right now. The V6 not too far behind. Ford produces so many mustangs that anyone can afford one and drive off the lot with one same day instead of having to order it. That's what makes them so popular. If GM or Dodge did the same thing, they'd have been in good shape. GM couldn't sell enough F-Bodies so they killed it. If they'd mass produced the Firebirds and Camaros like Ford did with the Mustangs, the F-Bodies would have been cheaper and the more people would have bought the F-Bodies too. But a lot of people couldn't afford the 35K price tag on a Trans Am, 25K on the Firebirds and instead went and bought the "bang for the buck" American car. GM couldn't compete with the Mustang sales.

See, Ford gambles and wins because they do. They produce a LOT of the same vehicle to drive the cost down. GM refuses to gamble and instead they play it safe building the cars on demand which keeps the price up. They screw themselves every time too. The LS1 powered cars were FAR superior to any Mustang ever produced up until this 2010 Mustang. That's a 12 year domination by LS1s. Before that, the LT1 was kicking the Mustang's butt for 7 years. So, GM dominated the muscle car market (when it comes to stock performance) for 19 years, and Ford dominated the muscle car market (when it comes to sales) for about 30 years. All that being said, the Mustang has a much bigger cult following because the Mustang sold more by the thousands than the GM F-bodies.

03-03-2009, 03:36 AM	#4 (permalink)
Crash A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,853 Drives: 02 Corvette Z06 Rep Power: 590	The GTOs were made well. I'll give them that. I have a few friends with GTOs. But you're right, they suck for handling, they're heavy, and the small tires are pretty lame. One of my friends has 275's on the back and Nitto NT-01s all around. Of course, they still break loose like crazy, especially since he's running twin turbos. But aside from that, it wasn't a bad car. (Although it was stupid to have 2 3rd eye brake lights. LOL) __________________ 2002 Corvette Z06 - Totaled 2003 Corvette Z06 50th Anniversary

03-03-2009, 10:36 AM	#5 (permalink)
shumby Captin Canuck Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: with your mom Age: 45 Posts: 6,288 Drives: your sister Rep Power: 237	^^^ agreed __________________ Originally Posted by SAM@GTM Engine detonation is not normal and it should never never happen, and whoever told that need to do something else for living . Sam

03-03-2009, 02:49 PM	#6 (permalink)
Crash A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,853 Drives: 02 Corvette Z06 Rep Power: 590	I somewhat agree too. Affordable is the key word. A GT is 20K and 300HP right now. The V6 not too far behind. Ford produces so many mustangs that anyone can afford one and drive off the lot with one same day instead of having to order it. That's what makes them so popular. If GM or Dodge did the same thing, they'd have been in good shape. GM couldn't sell enough F-Bodies so they killed it. If they'd mass produced the Firebirds and Camaros like Ford did with the Mustangs, the F-Bodies would have been cheaper and the more people would have bought the F-Bodies too. But a lot of people couldn't afford the 35K price tag on a Trans Am, 25K on the Firebirds and instead went and bought the "bang for the buck" American car. GM couldn't compete with the Mustang sales. See, Ford gambles and wins because they do. They produce a LOT of the same vehicle to drive the cost down. GM refuses to gamble and instead they play it safe building the cars on demand which keeps the price up. They screw themselves every time too. The LS1 powered cars were FAR superior to any Mustang ever produced up until this 2010 Mustang. That's a 12 year domination by LS1s. Before that, the LT1 was kicking the Mustang's butt for 7 years. So, GM dominated the muscle car market (when it comes to stock performance) for 19 years, and Ford dominated the muscle car market (when it comes to sales) for about 30 years. All that being said, the Mustang has a much bigger cult following because the Mustang sold more by the thousands than the GM F-bodies. __________________ 2002 Corvette Z06 - Totaled 2003 Corvette Z06 50th Anniversary