Mustang vs. 350Z

Started by SVT666, April 02, 2007, 09:32:42 AM

Which would you buy?

Shelby GT
26 (57.8%)
350Z
19 (42.2%)

Total Members Voted: 39

FordSVT

Quote from: HEMI666 on April 03, 2007, 10:07:31 AM
I turn 30 next month, I grew up in the 80s and 90s too. :rolleyes:

I grew up in the 80s and 90s too, was born in the mid 70s.  If one went strictly by the cars that were available at the time, people our age should have TERRIBLE taste in cars. The 70s, 80s and even early 90s for most brands were practically the dark ages of cars. Boxes, boxes, EVERYWHERE.
-FordSVT-

SVT666

Quote from: FordSVT on April 04, 2007, 07:47:24 AM
I grew up in the 80s and 90s too, was born in the mid 70s.? If one went strictly by the cars that were available at the time, people our age should have TERRIBLE taste in cars. The 70s, 80s and even early 90s for most brands were practically the dark ages of cars. Boxes, boxes, EVERYWHERE.
-FordSVT-
Exactly.  As it turns out I was not around when muscle cars were roaming the streets, but that happens to be the automotive generation I love the most.  If I ever win this fucking lottery, I will buy acreage and build massive garages so that I can house all of the muscle cars I would buy. :rockon:

omicron

Quote from: HEMI666 on April 04, 2007, 07:51:03 AM
Exactly. As it turns out I was not around when muscle cars were roaming the streets, but that happens to be the automotive generation I love the most. If I ever win this fucking lottery, I will buy acreage and build massive garages so that I can house all of the muscle cars I would buy. :rockon:

You buy Canadian wilderness; I'll buy Australian outback, and we'll find a contractor who can do a nice deal on two vast garages.

SVT666

Quote from: omicron on April 04, 2007, 07:55:30 AM
You buy Canadian wilderness; I'll buy Australian outback, and we'll find a contractor who can do a nice deal on two vast garages.
A contractor that will build on both sides of the planet?  :lol:

Nethead

Quote from: NACar on April 03, 2007, 09:42:17 AM
I liked it when Ford Tempos, Escorts, and 5.0 Mustangs all looked the same. They were functional. The GT was a bit ugly though.

The only think I really dislike about the new Mustang is all of the styling. I absolutely hate retro-styled new cars. It goes against what new Mustangs used to be; that is, new. The new one is just new-old look. Sure, it's good for business because most people absolutely drool over the things, but that doesn't mean I have to like it!

You know what I liked? The last GTO. It wasn't trying to be something else, it was what it was and it was good, even if people didn't realize it. The Magnum/Charger and even the new Challenger are more reasonable, even if they are going for some retro cues themselves. You know what I will like? The G8, even the styling is slightly Pontiac-esque (which I also hate), it's not an overstated pile of retro crap.

NACar:  NahDude, the sentences I bolded above are, well, sorta WTF...You say that the GTO "...wasn't trying to be something else...", but it was a Monaro after all--an alleged GTO that wasn't built by Pontiac and was an import to boot! :confused:   All Pontiac did was "engineer" some badges, some interior stitching, and a GTO emblem on the steering wheel.   Staples would say "That was easy"...
A Solstice :praise: is a real Pontiac, a Monaro :( is not.

Read the July, 2006 Motor Trend test of the three heirs to the musclecar era (actually, the two heirs now that the GTO has gone extinct twice).  After you've read that article on pages 48 thru 57 and seen how the three heirs--the GTO, the Charger SRT8, and the Shelby GT500--tested out against each other on the same day at the same location with the same drivers, refresh our memories as to what exactly was it that people "didn't realize" about a musclecar with insufficient muscle to beat a 500 pounds heavier four-door automatic in handling and braking???  With a 500 pound weight advantage, the GTO did outaccelerate the SRT8 handily--by the time the GTO and the SRT8 both reached 100 MPH, the GTO was ahead of the SRT8 by almost thirty yards.  And that would be admirable, I guess, except that by the time the GTO and the GT500 both hit 100 MPH, the GT500 was ahead of the GTO by the length of an effin' football field...

When discussing cars, being "a good car" is fine for Camrys, Accords, Fusions, yada yada yada...But when discussing the heirs to the musclecars, just being "a good car" is not even close to good enough.  Most customers DID realize this, and that's why you can't buy new GTOs anymore...
So many stairs...so little time...

Eye of the Tiger

Quote from: Nethead on April 04, 2007, 08:32:34 AM
NACar:? NahDude, the sentences I bolded above are, well, sorta WTF...You say that the GTO "...wasn't trying to be something else...", but it was a Monaro after all--an alleged GTO that wasn't built by Pontiac and was an import to boot! :confused:? ?All Pontiac did was "engineer" some badges, some interior stitching, and a GTO emblem on the steering wheel.? ?Staples would say "That was easy"...
A Solstice :praise: is a real Pontiac, a Monaro :( is not.

Read the July, 2006 Motor Trend test of the three heirs to the musclecar era (actually, the two heirs now that the GTO has gone extinct twice).? After you've read that article on pages 48 thru 57 and seen how the three heirs--the GTO, the Charger SRT8, and the Shelby GT500--tested out against each other on the same day at the same location with the same drivers, refresh our memories as to what exactly was it that people "didn't realize" about a musclecar with insufficient muscle to beat a 500 pounds heavier four-door automatic in handling and braking???? With a 500 pound weight advantage, the GTO did outaccelerate the SRT8 handily--by the time the GTO and the SRT8 both reached 100 MPH, the GTO was ahead of the SRT8 by almost thirty yards.? And that would be admirable, I guess, except that by the time the GTO and the GT500 both hit 100 MPH, the GT500 was ahead of the GTO by the length of an effin' football field...

When discussing cars, being "a good car" is fine for Camrys, Accords, Fusions, yada yada yada...But when discussing the heirs to the musclecars, just being "a good car" is not even close to good enough.? Most customers DID realize this, and that's why you can't buy new GTOs anymore...


Well Mr. Nethead, you're just talking about semantics now. That I used to word "good"  to describe the GTO is irrelavent. Also irrelavent in this case, is that Pontiac chose to use the name "GTO" rather inappropriately. If they had named it a Pontiac Monaro, you would have nothing to complain about there. Then you start talking about how the GT500 (which came out a full 4 years after the GTO was introduced) was a bit faster to 100mph. So now you're attempting to define how great a car is simply by how fast it accelerates? In that case, we should all be driving top-fuel dragsters. You know as well as I do the main reason GTO didn't catch on. It didn't have a styling gimmick, so it was never acknowledged by the general public, and that is exactly why the new Mustang is doing so well (aside from the fact that the Mustang has always done well).
2024 Mitsubishi Mirage ES

Nethead

#126
Quote from: NACar on April 04, 2007, 08:43:19 AM
Well Mr. Nethead, you're just talking about semantics now. That I used to word "good"? to describe the GTO is irrelavent. Also irrelavent in this case, is that Pontiac chose to use the name "GTO" rather inappropriately. If they had named it a Pontiac Monaro, you would have nothing to complain about there. Then you start talking about how the GT500 (which came out a full 4 years after the GTO was introduced) was a bit faster to 100mph. So now you're attempting to define how great a car is simply by how fast it accelerates? In that case, we should all be driving top-fuel dragsters. You know as well as I do the main reason GTO didn't catch on. It didn't have a styling gimmick, so it was never acknowledged by the general public, and that is exactly why the new Mustang is doing so well (aside from the fact that the Mustang has always done well).

NACar: Read the article--The GT500 out-slalomed, out-figure-eighted, outbraked, out-0-60'd, out-0-100'd, and out-quarter-miled the GTO and the SRT8 as well, but I wasn't trying to rub it in.? There were six performance tests, and the GT500 swept all six.? The SRT8 achieved three seconds and three thirds, as did the GTO.?

Finishing last in the slalom, the figure-eight, and the 60-0 braking test was NOT the GT500 and was NOT the SRT8.? Hint: it was a three-vehicle comparo.......OK, here's another hint: the loser is an import.? Got it yet?? No?? Well, here's another hint:? The loser had a 489 pound weight advantage over the vehicle that took second place in those three categories and a 213 pound weight advantage over the vehicle that took first place in those three categories.? Still stumped, huh?? Let's see, what've we got left:? the vehicle that took second place in those three categories is a four-door with an automatic and the vehicle that took first place in those three categories has a lowly live-axle in back.

NACar, where do you get your info--Leblowski?? The resurrected GTO came out when the 2004 models were introduced in late 2003.? The GT500 came out when the 2006 models were introduced in late 2005.? I ain't Einstein, but that ain't no four years even on a Polish calendar...And in fact the GT500 is based on the S197 Mustang, which was introduced when the 2005 models were introduced in late 2004.

And the GT500 is "...a BIT faster to 100 MPH"????? Where I come from, being ahead by the length of a football field by the time both vehicles reach 100 MPH is considered more than a "bit", and I know it is where you come from, too...In fact, it's a KILL!

I was about to submit that lunacy as the stupidest statement ever posted on carspin.net, but then you did yourself one better with this sheer idiocy "It (the rebadged Monaro posing as a GTO) didn't have a styling gimmick, so it was never acknowledged by the general public, and that is exactly why the new Mustang is doing so well."? Are you Leblowski using another username???? A "styling gimmick"--forty-three years of continuous production is a "styling gimmick"???? I could park a 2007 Mustang beside a 1964 Mustang anywhere on Earth and everyone who sees the two will know they're both Mustangs!? And speaking of "anywhere on Earth", the Mustang is the second-most-recognized manufactured product on Earth--Coca-Cola is number one, the Mustang is number two, and the Avtomat Kalashnikov Sorok Sem' (the AK-47 assault rifle) is number three.? The product recognition of the Mustang is so high that Ford does not have to put "Mustang" emblems or "Ford" emblems anywhere on their exteriors!? And since you brought up semantics, the universally-accepted term for all the extinct Mustang imitations is "ponycars"--can you figure out why?? It ain't "firebirdcars" or "camarocars" or "challengercars" or "barracudacars" or "cougarcars" or "javelincars", now is it?

But I gotta be fair, your last parenthetical expression in that posting is correct: "(aside from the fact that the Mustang has always done well)."? It has, because it is a well-built, practical vehicle that still looks young at forty-three--and the current model is the roomiest, solidest (a torsional body/frame rigidity of nearly 7500 pounds per inch of deflection), most advanced Mustang ever built--and it cranks out 300 HP on regular unleaded as well.? There are even two full-race versions if you ain't got a staffed machine shop to build your own!? The New Mustang Nation ain't a phenomenon--it's a Movement.? Just ask SEMA--they found the Mustang to be the most modified vehicle on Earth, surpassing even the '32 Ford flathead V8--the car that started the hotrod industry three-quarters of a century ago...Mustangs have the most repeat buyers of any vehicle model sold in America, and that ain't just a domestic models statement.

motortrend.com may have that comparo online still, else you can get the July, 2006 issue from a library.? The article is on pages 48 thru 57 and is titled "Thunder Road".

So many stairs...so little time...

Eye of the Tiger

Quote from: Nethead on April 04, 2007, 10:23:18 AM
NACar: Read the article--The GT500 out-slalomed, out-figure-eighted, outbraked, out-0-60'd, out-0-100'd, and out-quarter-miled the GTO and the SRT8 as well, but I wasn't trying to rub it in.

Well, if you love the Mustang so much, why dont you marry it!
2024 Mitsubishi Mirage ES

Nethead

Quote from: NACar on April 04, 2007, 01:22:41 PM
Well, if you love the Mustang so much, why dont you marry it!

NACar:  Hmmmm...that goes a long way in explaining why you chose the picture you did for your nuts...
So many stairs...so little time...

omicron

Quote from: Nethead on April 04, 2007, 01:41:32 PM
NACar: Hmmmm...that goes a long way in explaining why you chose the picture you did for your nuts...

He has nice nuts, thankyouverymuch :nono:

Eye of the Tiger

Quote from: Nethead on April 04, 2007, 10:23:18 AM
Yada yada yada, the Mustang is the best car ever, yada yada yada, NACar is a lunatic and just made the stupidest statement ever posted on carspin, yada yada yada.


Thanks for the personal attacks, insults, and all that bullshit. I suppose you are feeling very definsive right now, perhaps because I have hit a button. I guess this is a touchy subject for certain people, that for whatever reason, find themselvevs constantly lusting toward the new Mustang, yet cannot seem to justify it. While I do understand where you're coming from, it seems that you do not care to consider my point of view. Now let me say again: the only thing I don't like about the current Mustang is the overwhelmingly retro styling. Now I understand Motortrend did a comparison test (which I cannot find), but that doesn't mean jack.? The GTO/Monaro is not a direct competitor to the Mustang. And comparing a base-model GTO to a GT500 isn't fair either. If you took a GTO and put as many upgrades on it as it took to go from a Mustang GT to a GT500, do you seriously think the GT500 will still be ahead? And you cannot seriously rely on a comparison to a Charger SRT8 to further backup your claim the the GT500 is the greatest car on the face of the planet, they simply are not in the same class.

So let me do a little Q&A session with myself, just for you:

Do I like how the Mustang looks? Not really.
Are a car's looks that important to me? Not really.
Have I bought cars that I thought were ugly, but had other redeeming qualities that outweighed that negative? Yes. Some good examples would be a Neon SRT-4 and Focus ZX3
Does the Mustang have enough of these qualities to outweigh it's ugliness? Yes
So, would I buy a new Mustang? I sure would, but there's no way I'd pay over sticker for one
And would I like it better if it wasn't so damn focused on looking like itself from 40 years ago? Yes.
2024 Mitsubishi Mirage ES

Eye of the Tiger

If, as your ramblings have led me to infer, the Mustang is such an incredible car of which the styling plays an integral part then answer me this:

Why doesn't Ford make a Mustang into a shooting brake? A true hatchback on the Mustang would be so very practical, and the sacrifice to aerodynamcis and weight would most likely be very minimal.

Why don't they save some money and weight by shortening that ridiculously long hood, that needlessly hangs over the front grille, while surely taking away from what could have been a shape that could have cut through the wind, instead of one that has to grab it by the throat and try to push it out of the way?

And seriously, the fake hood scoops only add cost and complexity, while surely creating a significant aerodynamic penalty as well.

Why must they use a font on the gauges that is so ridiculously hard to read? It's like they're straght out of the 1960's. Oh, but that's retro; form over function, right?

Why the hell do they need so many names for it!? It's a Mustang, it's a GT500, but it's also a Shelby, but wait, there's Cobra snakes all over it, and just to top it off, it's got some emblems from the supposedly dead SVT. Well, if people didn't buy into all those names, then Ford would have a real problem on their hands!

My Esteem looks better than that Mustang. But yeah, I know it's a little slower to 100mph, but that's beside the point.

Oh and BTW, when the new Camaro finally comes out, it will kick the Mustangs's ass, just like it always has.  :praise:
2024 Mitsubishi Mirage ES

goldenlover1101

Quote from: NACar on April 04, 2007, 07:38:56 PM
Oh and BTW, when the new Camaro finally comes out, it will kick the Mustangs's ass, just like it always has.? :praise:
:clap: :clap: :clap:

Oh, Nethead, its not really fair to compare the departed GTO to a GT500, the prices are significantly different. Its like comparing a Base GT with a Vette. Not fair at all. Comparing the GTO to the new Shelby GT would be a much more fair comparison. No magazine will do this though because the GTO is out of production (or soon to be). The new Camaro SS will be a much more direct comparison and I will side with ole' Chevy. Sorry

"The more people I meet the more I like my dog."

the Teuton

Nick, I agree with you for the most part.  The 350Z is a better package.  I voted for the Mustang because it looked nicer.  It's the car that you'd want to be seen in compared to the kinda plain 350Z.  But you are right.

If you're shopping for function over form, the Mustang is a ridiculous exercise.  Speaking that most of them are bought with automatics anyway, it might be better to get a Magnum or Charger for about the same amount of money and get a more practical car.  Either that or wait for the G8 and have a better looking car to boot.

I also think that some members on this thread aren't just Mustang trolls.  They're being Mustang whores about this whole thing.  Ford intentionally made a new car based off a new platform just to use older than dirt technology.  Sure, it works fine, but isn't it cheating the consumer a little bit?  My 1993 POS is more advance than the Mustang...and it will be quicker than the last gen V6 after it gets fixed. 

So in short, quit knocking Nick for thinking it's the inferior vehicle in this competition because it is.  It just happens to look better than the Z, that's all.
2. 1995 Saturn SL2 5-speed, 126,500 miles. 5,000 miles in two and a half months. That works out to 24,000 miles per year if I can keep up the pace.

Quote from: CJ on April 06, 2010, 10:48:54 PM
I don't care about all that shit.  I'll be going to college to get an education at a cost to my parents.  I'm not going to fool around.
Quote from: MrH on January 14, 2011, 01:13:53 PM
She'll hate diesel passenger cars, all things Ford, and fiat currency.  They will masturbate to old interviews of Ayn Rand an youtube together.
You can take the troll out of the Subaru, but you can't take the Subaru out of the troll!

omicron

Only reasons I chose the Mustang are because I can have a V8 GT/CS one, and it looks nicer without a roof than a 350Z.

LonghornTX

Quote from: the Teuton on April 04, 2007, 08:18:12 PM
So in short, quit knocking Nick for thinking it's the inferior vehicle in this competition because it is.? It just happens to look better than the Z, that's all.
And that statement right there is probably the reason why people are argueing.  What defines inferior?  Exactly.....  :rolleyes:.
Difficult takes a day, impossible takes a week.

850CSi

#136
Quote from: the Teuton on April 04, 2007, 08:18:12 PM
So in short, quit knocking Nick for thinking it's the inferior vehicle in this competition because it is.? It just happens to look better than the Z, that's all.

:confused:

To me, it's far from being inferior. IMO the Z is ass-ugly inside and out, and in this case I'm always going to choose a V8 over a V6 for the same money.

There is no accounting for taste, it's hard to call a car 'inferior' to the other.

SVT666

Quote from: NACar on April 04, 2007, 07:38:56 PM
Why the hell do they need so many names for it!? It's a Mustang, it's a GT500, but it's also a Shelby, but wait, there's Cobra snakes all over it, and just to top it off, it's got some emblems from the supposedly dead SVT. Well, if people didn't buy into all those names, then Ford would have a real problem on their hands!
This paragraph shows why you have absolutely no credibility when it comes to talking about the Mustang.  If you knew even a little bit about the history of the Mustang you would never have typed this.

Raza

Quote from: the Teuton on April 04, 2007, 08:18:12 PM
Nick, I agree with you for the most part.  The 350Z is a better package.  I voted for the Mustang because it looked nicer.  It's the car that you'd want to be seen in compared to the kinda plain 350Z.  But you are right.

If you're shopping for function over form, the Mustang is a ridiculous exercise.  Speaking that most of them are bought with automatics anyway, it might be better to get a Magnum or Charger for about the same amount of money and get a more practical car.  Either that or wait for the G8 and have a better looking car to boot.

I also think that some members on this thread aren't just Mustang trolls.  They're being Mustang whores about this whole thing.  Ford intentionally made a new car based off a new platform just to use older than dirt technology.  Sure, it works fine, but isn't it cheating the consumer a little bit?  My 1993 POS is more advance than the Mustang...and it will be quicker than the last gen V6 after it gets fixed. 

So in short, quit knocking Nick for thinking it's the inferior vehicle in this competition because it is.  It just happens to look better than the Z, that's all.

"Driving enjoyment"
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
If you can read this, you're too close


2006 BMW Z4 3.0i
http://accelerationtherapy.squarespace.com/   @accelerationdoc
Quote from: the Teuton on October 05, 2009, 03:53:18 PMIt's impossible to argue with Raza. He wins. Period. End of discussion.

Eye of the Tiger

Quote from: HEMI666 on April 04, 2007, 10:57:43 PM
This paragraph shows why you have absolutely no credibility when it comes to talking about the Mustang.? If you knew even a little bit about the history of the Mustang you would never have typed this.

Mustang whore  :rolleyes:
2024 Mitsubishi Mirage ES

SVT666

Quote from: NACar on April 05, 2007, 08:18:55 AM
Mustang whore? :rolleyes:
By making the comments you made, you proved to everyone on this board that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.  I don't even want to waste the energy in educating you about Shelby, the Cobra emblem, all the special editions, SVT (which is alive and well), and how they all fit together.  Try picking up a book on the history of the Mustang and do a little reading before you make one more stupid comment about something you know nothing about.  You might not make a fool of yourself next time.

TBR

SVT is alive and well? Surely you don't even believe that.

SVT666

Quote from: NACar on April 04, 2007, 07:38:56 PM
If, as your ramblings have led me to infer, the Mustang is such an incredible car of which the styling plays an integral part then answer me this:

Why doesn't Ford make a Mustang into a shooting brake? A true hatchback on the Mustang would be so very practical, and the sacrifice to aerodynamcis and weight would most likely be very minimal.
Wow.  All I can say is wow.  Words can't describe what is going through my head right now.

QuoteWhy don't they save some money and weight by shortening that ridiculously long hood, that needlessly hangs over the front grille, while surely taking away from what could have been a shape that could have cut through the wind, instead of one that has to grab it by the throat and try to push it out of the way?
This keeps getting weirder.  I can't even answer this one.

QuoteAnd seriously, the fake hood scoops only add cost and complexity, while surely creating a significant aerodynamic penalty as well.
I'm speechless.

QuoteWhy must they use a font on the gauges that is so ridiculously hard to read? It's like they're straght out of the 1960's. Oh, but that's retro; form over function, right?
Really, once you get used to them, they aren't hard to read at all.

QuoteWhy the hell do they need so many names for it!? It's a Mustang, it's a GT500, but it's also a Shelby, but wait, there's Cobra snakes all over it, and just to top it off, it's got some emblems from the supposedly dead SVT. Well, if people didn't buy into all those names, then Ford would have a real problem on their hands!
See previous posts.

QuoteMy Esteem looks better than that Mustang. But yeah, I know it's a little slower to 100mph, but that's beside the point.
That one made me laugh.  Thank you.

QuoteOh and BTW, when the new Camaro finally comes out, it will kick the Mustangs's ass, just like it always has.? :praise:
Yeah, because you've driven a car that isn't even out yet so you would know.  The Camaro and Mustang switched places in the ass kicking department for 35 years.  The Mustang is the only one still in existence and Chevy saw the success of the current Mustang and decided that it was a brilliant idea to copy Ford and come out with a retro Camaro of their own.  You complain about retro styling and long hoods, but the Camaro is just as retro and has a longer hood.

SVT666

Quote from: TBR on April 05, 2007, 09:32:54 AM
SVT is alive and well? Surely you don't even believe that.
Who do you think developed the GT500 and the GT500KR?  Who do you think developed the Ford GT?  SVT may not be pumping out cars like they did in the late 90s with the Cobra, Lightning, Focus, and Contour, but it will get back there again.  I've heard rumblings about SVT developing a Fusion when the current one gets a mid-life makeover.

TBR

Ford GT is gone, for the first time in 10 years there is no compact SVT, and the Lightning isn't coming back. All they have left is the Mustang, SVT might be alive, but they aren't well.

Raghavan

I thought they were renaming SVT...

SVT666


SVT666

#147
Quote from: TBR on April 05, 2007, 09:59:50 AM
Ford GT is gone, for the first time in 10 years there is no compact SVT, and the Lightning isn't coming back. All they have left is the Mustang, SVT might be alive, but they aren't well.
They are well if they are developing more cars which is rumoured.? A Fusion and a Lincoln model are candidates from what I hear.  The reason everyone thinks they aren't healthy is because the Ford GT took so much of their engineering and budget, they didn't have any resources left for developing additional cars which is why the GT500 didn't come out for 2 years after the new Mustang was released.  Their resources and engineering staff are available for more projects now and from what I hear, that's what they are doing.

Eye of the Tiger

Quote from: HEMI666 on April 05, 2007, 09:34:18 AM
Wow.? All I can say is wow.? Words can't describe what is going through my head right now.
This keeps getting weirder.? I can't even answer this one.
I'm speechless.
Really, once you get used to them, they aren't hard to read at all.
See previous posts.
That one made me laugh.? Thank you.
Yeah, because you've driven a car that isn't even out yet so you would know.? The Camaro and Mustang switched places in the ass kicking department for 35 years.? The Mustang is the only one still in existence and Chevy saw the success of the current Mustang and decided that it was a brilliant idea to copy Ford and come out with a retro Camaro of their own.? You complain about retro styling and long hoods, but the Camaro is just as retro and has a longer hood.

And you just proved my point.
2024 Mitsubishi Mirage ES

Nethead

Quote from: NACar on April 04, 2007, 07:38:56 PM
If, as your ramblings have led me to infer, the Mustang is such an incredible car of which the styling plays an integral part then answer me this:

Why doesn't Ford make a Mustang into a shooting brake? A true hatchback on the Mustang would be so very practical, and the sacrifice to aerodynamcis and weight would most likely be very minimal.

Why don't they save some money and weight by shortening that ridiculously long hood, that needlessly hangs over the front grille, while surely taking away from what could have been a shape that could have cut through the wind, instead of one that has to grab it by the throat and try to push it out of the way?

And seriously, the fake hood scoops only add cost and complexity, while surely creating a significant aerodynamic penalty as well.

Why must they use a font on the gauges that is so ridiculously hard to read? It's like they're straght out of the 1960's. Oh, but that's retro; form over function, right?

Why the hell do they need so many names for it!? It's a Mustang, it's a GT500, but it's also a Shelby, but wait, there's Cobra snakes all over it, and just to top it off, it's got some emblems from the supposedly dead SVT. Well, if people didn't buy into all those names, then Ford would have a real problem on their hands!

My Esteem looks better than that Mustang. But yeah, I know it's a little slower to 100mph, but that's beside the point.

Oh and BTW, when the new Camaro finally comes out, it will kick the Mustangs's ass, just like it always has.? :praise:

NACar:  Dude, catch me out if anything I've posted isn't true.  I'm not necessarily attacking you personally, just some of the comically stupid statements you've made in your postings--whether others judge you by your statements is out of my control...

Let's look at your most recent stuff:

"Oh and BTW, when the new Camaro finally comes out, it will kick the Mustangs's ass, just like it always has.  :praise:"

Errr, ummmm, how long has it been since customers bought enough Camaros to keep them in production???  Were you in middle school then?  Did you know that the insurance industry's study of vehicular death records found that more occupants of Camaros were killed in them than the occupants of any other model of vehicle sold in the US?  More occupants were killed in Camaros than in any pickup, SUV, sedan, sportscar, ponycar, musclecar, econobox, minivan, crossover, full-size van, fartcanner, exotic, yada yada yada....Now that Camaros are, well, extinct, that worthy title has been ably assumed by the S10 and its derivatives (Trailblazers, yada yada yada). 

Shooting brake Mustangs...the demand just isn't there, nor was it there when Pontiac considered a shooting brake Firebird some decades ago or even when several shooting brake Mustang concepts were shown in the 'Sixties.   Once upon a time there were hatchback Mustangs of course--just as aerodynamic as the non-hatchback versions of the same model, but not as rigid and certainly not as light.  And the hatchback Mustangs didn't offer more room because of the fastback roofline, yet they had the drawback that all fastback hatchbacks have--every time you need to get into the trunk when it's cold or wet or both, the passengers in the back seat get cold or wet or both.  Hatchbacks are more amenable to station wagon/SUV profiles.  There probably is a critical roof angle at which to go more "fastback" with a hatchback is to turn customers away because of the cold/wet considerations--and this critical angle is probably rather upright.  Customers haven't expressed much interest in a Mustang with an SUV profile, hence no shooting brake Firebird, no shooting brake Mustang, and no Nomad.  They seemed efficient, practical, and desirable--but the paying customers went with more serious station wagons and SUVs with a hatchback AND four doors.  The Kammback--a Chevy Vega shooting brake that did make production, sold poorly compared to other models of Vegas--and poorly compared to the sales of compact four-door wagons like Dart wagons, Falcon wagons, Chevy II wagons, Comet wagons, yada yada yada.  Not that any of them wowed many customers--how many Darts, Falcons, Chevy IIs, Comets, Pintos, or Vegas are being produced today?  Hatchbacks supposedly are making a comeback, and you will know they have arrived when the Civic trades in its trunk for a hatchback like the original Civics.

The new Mustangs, like the previous editions, have long hoods so that all the various V8s and popular accessories will fit in the car with the floorshift still in a practical, usually comfortable location.  It is not an accident that the new Mustang can fit a supercharged 5.4, as you know.  What's less known is that the engine compartment underneath those long hoods can readily accommodate a SOHC 427, a Cobra 427, a Boss 429 with headers, any version of the V10 found in Ford trucks, the coming Hurricane/Boss/Whatever, and even the 6.0 liter Aston Martin V12--with no Sawzalling of the firewall nor bashing of the wheelwells being necessary!  If you've got a hoist, you can drop any of these engines right in.  Check out wmsracing.com to see how right-at-home the Aston Martin Vanquish V12 looks in the engine compartment--and the sale of Aston Marin to ProDrive removes any legal or ethical restrictions from Ford doing just that...

Actually, since you like short-hooded, hatchbacked, shooting brakes, why aren't you over in a Euro or some Oriental vehicle thread since the Mustang and the 350Z haven't ever been and aren't ever gonna be short-hooded, hatchedbacked, shooting brakes???  There are bound to be threads more attuned to your preferences.   

Mustangs have so many names because they come in so many versions.  They have Cobra heritage--something you ain't gonna get in no bowtie imitation, that's for sure!
After all, they've been around a lot longer than the musclecars and all the rest of the Mustang imitations--like the Camaro, for instance.  And SVT is hardly dead (Have you checked lately to make sure you aren't Leblowski?), they've been busy with the GT500 and with the 540 HP or so GT500KR, and before that they were producing Ford GTs.  Any questions?  Meanwhile, Dodge and Chevrolet are still talking the talk but not walking the walk with any hardware in the dealerships...I'll bet you loved the now-extinct Monte Carlo SS, which Lutz assured us was Chevy's answer to the Mustang--just like Pete Estes, I think it was, assured us that the Corvair was Chevy's answer to the original Mustang...Smirk!  Hell, SMIRK OUT LOUD!!!

Look, NACar, this is a Mustang/350Z thread--not hatchbacks, not shooting brakes, not whatever.  The specs and the styles of both those vehicles are well-known.  If you want to talk about cars that these two vehicles definitely AREN'T, there are other threads where your preferences more closely match the vehicles discussed there, and you'd find more satisfaction discussing vehicles that offer the features you prefer instead of your incessant rambling and bitching because Ford and Nissan aren't going to change their icons to suit your preferences.  It's about choice--else we'd all be driving just one make & model of vehicle.  You probably could contribute a lot to those threads, but your limited knowledge of Mustangs makes you sound--ummmm, welllll--let's just say "uninformed".  Unless you have Mustang facts or 350Z facts, this ain't a good place to be demonstrating your lack of knowledge thereof.  I apologize for being hard on you--but I won't accept falsehoods, unfounded speculation, or just plain bullshit. And in a thread where you're knowledgeable, you wouldn't either.  / :partyon: 
So many stairs...so little time...