First: Ford Mustang GT
Highs:
Lighter and tighter in every way
Good visibility
Fab 1-2-3 turn signals
King of V8 roars
Lows:
Only a five-speed
Capless fuel filler frequently spills
Smallest fuel tank
Verdict:
Yeah, we're shocked, too, but this Mustang rocks
Second: Chevrolet Camaro SS
Highs:
Fastest through the trap
Grip and zip in the gymkhana
Fresh and inventive interior
Lows:
Looks angry
Tiny trunk
Hard seats
Nose-deep-in-a-hole feeling
Verdict:
A neo-Corvette underneath the Deathmobile from Animal House
Third: Dodge Challenger R/T
Highs:
Classic bod
Smooth Controls
Big inside
Snick-snick six-speed
Lows:
Corners on custard
Too heavy
Drap cabin
Tries off the church bus
I don't agree with the results, and neither do virtually all other comparison tests. C&D just has it for the Mustang it would appear.
In before the Mustang Fanboyz descend upon this thread.
Quote from: 565 on June 03, 2009, 07:16:00 PM
In before the Mustang Fanboyz descend upon this thread.
+1
Ford needs to either up the content or drop the price on the Mustang. The base GT in particular isn't a great value, nor is the V6 Premium. IMO, the base GT should start no higher than $26.5K given its feature content (and the fact that there are no upgrade options or packages). And the GT premium should be at least a grand cheaper than it currently is. That's really the only negative thing I have to say about it.
Quote from: MX793 on June 03, 2009, 07:40:27 PM
Ford needs to either up the content or drop the price on the Mustang. The base GT in particular isn't a great value, nor is the V6 Premium. IMO, the base GT should start no higher than $26.5K given its feature content (and the fact that there are no upgrade options or packages). And the GT premium should be at least a grand cheaper than it currently is. That's really the only negative thing I have to say about it.
I have to agree... it's a great car, but perhaps a bit of the price comes with the name.
Quote from: MX793 on June 03, 2009, 07:40:27 PM
Ford needs to either up the content or drop the price on the Mustang. The base GT in particular isn't a great value, nor is the V6 Premium. IMO, the base GT should start no higher than $26.5K given its feature content (and the fact that there are no upgrade options or packages). And the GT premium should be at least a grand cheaper than it currently is. That's really the only negative thing I have to say about it.
I prefer the content route. Ford needs to step up the timing for these new engines.
New V6, that new 5.0L V8 and a six speed manual for both. Throw IRS in and keep the weight about where it is and i'd be interested in a V8 GT.
Just before They begin, let me get in that I believe the Mustang GT is a great car and a decent value, but I just don't think that it's either a better car or a better value than the Camaro SS.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on June 03, 2009, 07:48:46 PM
I prefer the content route. Ford needs to step up the timing for these new engines.
New V6, that new 5.0L V8 and a six speed manual for both. Throw IRS in and keep the weight about where it is and i'd be interested in a V8 GT.
I'd even consider suffering through a well-sorted multilink rear end, which the current car seems to have. Still, IRS would be nice.
Quote from: R-inge on June 03, 2009, 07:52:23 PM
I'd even consider suffering through a well-sorted multilink rear end, which the current car seems to have. Still, IRS would be nice.
Yes, believe it or not I would allow that to be the last and only thing not incorporated in my list. A 5.0L V8 and a six speed would be good, i'd have to drive the hell out of it(not speed wise) before i'd commit to the solid axle though.
Quote from: R-inge on June 03, 2009, 07:48:12 PM
I have to agree... it's a great car, but perhaps a bit of the price comes with the name.
I was looking at the difference between invoice and MSRP. I think Ford intentionally inflated the price so that dealers would have more wiggle room to make consumers think they were getting a bigger deal. On a base Mustang GT, the difference between MSRP and invoice is over $2200 and on the GT Premium that grows to a little over $2500. The difference between invoice and MSRP on a Genesis 3.8GT is $1675. On a Camaro 2LT, it's $1200. $1640 for a 1SS. In addition, Ford has the highest destination fee (in what world does it cost more to ship a car built in the US to a US destination than it does to ship a car made in Korea to someplace in the US?), which only further inflates the price.
What is the 1-2-3 turn signals?
---------------------------
C&D must really be crap. I disagree with the frivolous reasons on why things are where they are.
Quote from: 2o6 on June 03, 2009, 08:33:36 PM
What is the 1-2-3 turn signals?
---------------------------
C&D must really be crap. I disagree with the frivolous reasons on why things are where they are.
The tail lamps have 3 LED bulb clusters that light up sequentially when the blinker is turned on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89UiyukoQNg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89UiyukoQNg)
Quote from: 2o6 on June 03, 2009, 08:33:36 PM
What is the 1-2-3 turn signals?
---------------------------
C&D must really be crap. I disagree with the frivolous reasons on why things are where they are.
They really are pretty cool, but cool blinkers a superior car does not make.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 03, 2009, 07:05:50 PM
I don't agree with the results, and neither do virtually all other comparison tests. C&D just has it for the Mustang it would appear.
Well, the Camaro V6 beat the Hyundai Genesis in C&D by one point only through Gotta Have It. Maybe the Camaro isn't as good to drive as the Mustang. Cars are more than numbers, you know.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on June 03, 2009, 07:48:46 PM
I prefer the content route. Ford needs to step up the timing for these new engines.
New V6, that new 5.0L V8 and a six speed manual for both. Throw IRS in and keep the weight about where it is and i'd be interested in a V8 GT.
Make it a tiny bit smaller too, and fix the ugly ass rear windows. Maybe make the regular/GT/Cobra models IRS and make a Bullitt or some other BS version available with the horse wagon axle. Or make a kit. Share the rear suspension with the Explorer or something to save costs and give the Mustang some import/Euro cred. I'd be all over that like white on rice. A 99-04 Cobra is on my list of cars to possibly own when I'm settled...
Quote from: GoCougs on June 03, 2009, 07:50:25 PM
Just before They begin, let me get in that I believe the Mustang GT is a great car and a decent value, but I just don't think that it's either a better car or a better value than the Camaro SS.
Coming from someone who has never driven either car. :rolleyes:
Every review I've read (even the ones that put the Mustang 2nd...which is all of them) state the steering, handling, and grip of the Mustang are superior to that of the Camaro. In fact, one comparo even said it was a photo finish (which you discounted for some reason). Maybe, just maybe, the Camaro only won those comparos because it's the new kid on the block. I haven't driven either of these cars, so I'm only speculating, but it sounds to me like the testers all agree that the Camaro ain't as good as some think, and the Mustang is better then some think. But, that's just speculation on my part.
i was waiting for this to be posted... lolz
the camaro got rocked in the handling department
Quote from: HEMI666 on June 03, 2009, 10:12:19 PM
Coming from someone who has never driven either car. :rolleyes:
Every review I've read (even the ones that put the Mustang 2nd...which is all of them) state the steering, handling, and grip of the Mustang are superior to that of the Camaro. In fact, one comparo even said it was a photo finish (which you discounted for some reason). Maybe, just maybe, the Camaro only won those comparos because it's the new kid on the block. I haven't driven either of these cars, so I'm only speculating, but it sounds to me like the testers all agree that the Camaro ain't as good as some think, and the Mustang is better then some think. But, that's just speculation on my part.
I don't need to drive any car to levy judgment. Just maybe, the Camaro keeps winning because it embodies to a greater degree what a pony car should be; powerful, quick/fast, styling and most of all, value. Further, most every other review has criticized the harshness and road noise of the Mustang's optional Track Pack.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 04, 2009, 08:19:33 AM
I don't need to drive any car to levy judgment. Just maybe, the Camaro keeps winning because it embodies to a greater degree what a pony car should be; powerful, quick/fast, styling and most of all, value. Further, most every other review has criticized the harshness and road noise of the Mustang's optional Track Pack.
Hmmmmm, that's interesting. Care to point out where you read that? I haven't read that anywhere. I just quickly ran through the 2010 Mustang Review Thread and didn't find those comments anywhere. I also grabbed a couple of my magazines here and can't find comments to that nature. Every review I've read praises the Track Pack for still having a comfortable ride, and nowhere have I read anything about road noise. Every single review has mentioned how the new Mustang's interior is so quiet now that the exhaust noise had to piped into the cabin so you can hear it.
Quote from: r0tor on June 04, 2009, 05:40:35 AM
i was waiting for this to be posted... lolz
the camaro got rocked in the handling department
I'm not saying the Camaro isn't a good car, because it is a good car. But maybe it's not as good as you want to think it is.
Quote from: HEMI666 on June 04, 2009, 08:58:12 AM
Hmmmmm, that's interesting. Care to point out where you read that? I haven't read that anywhere. I just quickly ran through the 2010 Mustang Review Thread and didn't find those comments anywhere. I also grabbed a couple of my magazines here and can't find comments to that nature. Every review I've read praises the Track Pack for still having a comfortable ride, and nowhere have I read anything about road noise. Every single review has mentioned how the new Mustang's interior is so quiet now that the exhaust noise had to piped into the cabin so you can hear it.
MT and R&T both complained, and it's really not without seeing; IMO; tightening up a strut and live-axle machine is going to cost.
While these muscle car camparisons are fun and all, I want to see the 370Z get tossed in aswell since its in pretty much the same performance/price catagory.
Oh, and having seen a couple of Camaros on the road already, the '10 Mustang looks better, imo. The Challenger still looks the best though.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 04, 2009, 09:11:52 AM
MT and R&T both complained, and it's really not without seeing; IMO; tightening up a strut and live-axle machine is going to cost.
I can't find these complaints you speak of.
Quote from: HEMI666 on June 04, 2009, 08:12:04 PM
I can't find these complaints you speak of.
And I'm too lazy to do the work...
I wanna see how the Stang performs without the optional Track Pack.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 03, 2009, 07:04:01 PM
Second: Chevrolet Camaro SS
Lows:
Looks angry
What? :confused:
I
love how evil it looks, like its waiting for the right moment to come alive and kill people. Every muscle car should have a heavy helping of sheer, untamed menace.
Quote from: sandertheshark on June 05, 2009, 12:07:41 AM
What? :confused:
I love how evil it looks, like its waiting for the right moment to come alive and kill people. Every muscle car should have a heavy helping of sheer, untamed menace.
Yeah, I don't see how that's a negative at all.
I have to admit the high belt line pretty much ruins the Camaro for me.
Still don't know that I would take a Mustang over a Challenger though. I am sure the Mustang is the better performance car, but the Challenger is probably more comfortable and I imagine a suspension kit would put it close to par with the Mustang.
Quote from: TBR on June 05, 2009, 08:37:40 AM
I have to admit the high belt line pretty much ruins the Camaro for me.
Have you gotten to sit in one yet? It's by far the worst thing about the car.
The challenger seems to be perfect for a really stylish cruiser... not really as a hardcore performance car though except for straightlines.
The camaro is not as good as a cruiser with complete piss poor visibilty, but dominates in a straightline and improves over the Challengers sloppy handling.
The mustang combines good straightline speed with good chassis/suspension with less "look at me" styling.
really, its different strokes for different folks
Quote from: sandertheshark on June 05, 2009, 12:07:41 AM
What? :confused:
I love how evil it looks, like its waiting for the right moment to come alive and kill people. Every muscle car should have a heavy helping of sheer, untamed menace.
Except women have always made up and important if not majority buyer of pony cars. While you may like the menacing brutal look it may not trasnlate well with the fairer sex.
Quote from: gotta-qik-z28 on June 04, 2009, 10:05:07 PM
I wanna see how the Stang performs without the optional and currently unavailable Track Pack.
Ditto
Quote from: sandertheshark on June 05, 2009, 12:07:41 AM
What? :confused:
I love how evil it looks, like its waiting for the right moment to come alive and kill people. Every muscle car should have a heavy helping of sheer, untamed menace.
It looks like a cartoon.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=18838.msg1076906#msg1076906 date=1244296329
It looks like a cartoon.
It looks like a car from a kid's cartoon...like Transformers or something.
Quote from: Raza on June 06, 2009, 07:52:09 AM
It looks like a cartoon.
Have you seen one in person?
Quote from: sandertheshark on June 07, 2009, 08:07:25 PM
Have you seen one in person?
I have, and I agree with him. It looks like a caricature.
I'll have the Mustang.
Has anyone downloaded the powertrain pdf? Apparently the Mustang went 0-60mph in 11.7 seconds. That is so fast. I'm blown away. With a skilled driver I bet the new mustang could edge out my sister's Kia Rio. Oh man would that be close race.
Add:
Also, if you read what they actually said about the cars, not just the rankings, they agree with the other magazines about how the cars performed, just not about which attributes are the most important.
2nd edit:
C/D corrected the chart.
Quote from: mojammer on June 08, 2009, 09:39:54 AM
Has anyone downloaded the powertrain pdf? Apparently the Mustang went 0-6-mph in 11.7 seconds. That is so fast. I'm blown away. With a skilled driver I bet the new mustang could edge out my sister's Kia Rio. Oh man would that be close race.
Ummm, are we looking at the same chart? I see 0-60 in 4.9 for the Mustang. The only 11.7 anywhere on the chart was the average 0-100 for all 3 cars.
I guess they changed it. Here's the original I downloaded:
http://docs.google.com/gb?export=download&id=F.e71e2b92-c108-4d5b-a5dd-78c99c546db0 (http://docs.google.com/gb?export=download&id=F.e71e2b92-c108-4d5b-a5dd-78c99c546db0)
Quote from: r0tor on June 05, 2009, 09:55:14 AM
The challenger seems to be perfect for a really stylish cruiser... not really as a hardcore performance car though except for straightlines.
The camaro is not as good as a cruiser with complete piss poor visibilty, but dominates in a straightline and improves over the Challengers sloppy handling.
The mustang combines good straightline speed with good chassis/suspension with less "look at me" styling.
really, its different strokes for different folks
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=7&article_id=6839
QuoteInfineon has every sort of turn, and I couldn't find any weakness at all in the Challenger's handling. In the fast stuff you can be absolutely certain the tail isn't going to come around on you, and in the track's two hairpins the car stays neutral. You can work with the throttle in the longer, medium-speed turns to adjust your angle of attack. There's a section of track that connects two turns like a straight but is itself a long, off-camber curve, with a sort of catenary swoop down and back up, and there's a lot of weight transfer. Most cars heel over and work the outside tires to death, but the SRT stays almost level, and the shocks keep the ride from getting choppy. In the Esses, the car changes direction crisply and remains stable over the curbs...
This car possesses something rare: an equal balance of its parts. The brakes are as effective as the engine, which is as effective as the handling ? and so on, allowing the driver to maintain an even rhythm as the car transitions from one attitude to another. But perhaps best of all is the way it takes the abuse, lap after lap. No brake fade, no overheating, no tires folding under the rims. Forty years ago, only a Ferrari could be driven to the track, raced and driven home again. Now there's a whole generation of tough, fast cars, and this Challenger is one of them.
Quote from: ChrisV on June 10, 2009, 01:07:40 PM
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=7&article_id=6839
Even though that's contradictory to most reviews I've read, it's great to hear. Do you happen to know how different the RT suspension is from the SRT?
(http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/image/2008/W21/052020081721329382.jpg)
My god; all it takes is one picture and I'm head over heels again.
EDIT: The SRT8 is available with a manual? Hello!
Wait, the black with gray stripes isn't available anymore?
Quote from: ChrisV on June 10, 2009, 01:07:40 PM
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=7&article_id=6839
The SRT-8 has much much better handling then the R/T.
It'd be cool if Dodge offered some kind of "SRT Performance Handling Package" which would basically be the SRT-8's suspension and rims/tires for the R/T model, but it's not like the R/T's sticker price isn't already steep enough...
Quote from: ChrisV on June 10, 2009, 01:07:40 PM
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=7&article_id=6839
lots of cars will handle good when compared to a 30 year older model
if you read it, it was a race car they were comparing it to, and the race car was still faster around the track. The thing you were supposed to take away from the article if you had ANY reading comprehension, was that the car as a street car handed very good around the track, and didn't have any balance problems, brake fade, or any issues that made it unsuitable for that purpose in factory stock form. Nothing stood out and said, to a trained road racer, that this car sucked for handling.
but take it as you want to, since you're going to have to always have a reason to hate.
Quote from: ChrisV on June 11, 2009, 06:26:40 AM
if you read it, it was a race car they were comparing it to, and the race car was still faster around the track. The thing you were supposed to take away from the article if you had ANY reading comprehension, was that the car as a street car handed very good around the track, and didn't have any balance problems, brake fade, or any issues that made it unsuitable for that purpose in factory stock form. Nothing stood out and said, to a trained road racer, that this car sucked for handling.
but take it as you want to, since you're going to have to always have a reason to hate.
I was surprised that it was the race car, and I was even more surprised that the race car was faster. But damn, I want the Challenger, even if it is a fat pig that weighs 900 pounds more than my five seat sedan!
Quote from: ChrisV on June 11, 2009, 06:26:40 AM
if you read it, it was a race car they were comparing it to, and the race car was still faster around the track. The thing you were supposed to take away from the article if you had ANY reading comprehension, was that the car as a street car handed very good around the track, and didn't have any balance problems, brake fade, or any issues that made it unsuitable for that purpose in factory stock form. Nothing stood out and said, to a trained road racer, that this car sucked for handling.
but take it as you want to, since you're going to have to always have a reason to hate.
and yet every other comparison involving a modern competitor has it being comfortable, competant, but not being set up to be run hard through the turns with... of course nobody is ever correct as long as their opinion doesn't match yours though
Quote from: r0tor on June 11, 2009, 06:46:48 AM
and yet every other comparison involving a modern competitor has it being comfortable, competant, but not being set up to be run hard through the turns with... of course nobody is ever correct as long as their opinion doesn't match yours though
I've read that about the R/T, but not the SRT-8.
Quote from: r0tor on June 11, 2009, 06:46:48 AM
of course nobody is ever correct as long as their opinion doesn't match yours though
pot...kettle...black.
QuoteNothing flusters this big pleasure craft until the thrashing starts. Then it sways, it bobs, and it squats back and squirms at full throttle like a fat man settling onto a cold toilet seat. Dodge fits the R/T with all-season Goodyear Eagle RS-As, the same tires you might fit to your pastor?s Diplomat. Trying to corral 4140 pounds on a twisty road, they backslide into a decent impersonation of Goodyear?s long-gone Polyglas donuts.
-car and driver
:facepalm:
The R/T is commonly criticized for its handling; relative to the torsion bar, leaf spring solid-axle forbearfer it's lighter years better, but relative to most any two-door coupe or sedan, especially its immediate competition, it's the luxo-barge of the group. Is this "bad" per se? Depends; I see it more as the intent of the design to go more towards a cruiser rather than a handler, but strictly by the numbers it's not very good.
Quote from: ChrisV on June 11, 2009, 10:39:16 AM
pot...kettle...black.
That's rascist!
Seriously though, in comparison to its modern competitors, the general impression seems to be that it is more of a cruiser than the Mustang or Camaro. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just different.
I'd totally embrace the Challenger as a powerful highway cruiser if it had a fittingly stylish interior, available in another color besides the monochromatically boring black.
Quote from: Vinsanity on June 11, 2009, 04:52:18 PM
I'd totally embrace the Challenger as a powerful highway cruiser if it had a fittingly stylish interior, available in another color besides the monochromatically boring black.
I think it has the best interior of the three. I don't like interiors that try to be trendy.
Quote from: TBR on June 11, 2009, 04:56:56 PM
I think it has the best interior of the three. I don't like interiors that try to be trendy.
If the exterior is trying to be trendy, then the interior might as well be on board too.
Quote from: Vinsanity on June 11, 2009, 05:11:55 PM
If the exterior is trying to be trendy, then the interior might as well be on board too.
Well, that's true. Though, to be fair, the Challenger's exterior also doesn't try to be as trendy as the Mustang/Camaro.
The concept Challenger's interior would've been cool
(http://www.carbodydesign.com/archive/2006/01/16-dodge-challenger-concept/Dodge%20Challenger%20Concept%20Interior%202-lg.jpg)
And IMO it does look reasonably production-ready.
Quote from: Vinsanity on June 11, 2009, 05:22:23 PM
The concept Challenger's interior would've been cool
(http://www.carbodydesign.com/archive/2006/01/16-dodge-challenger-concept/Dodge%20Challenger%20Concept%20Interior%202-lg.jpg)
And IMO it does look reasonably production-ready.
Yeah, except for the horrible gauges.
Quote from: GoCougs on June 11, 2009, 11:09:42 AM
The R/T is commonly criticized for its handling; relative to the torsion bar, leaf spring solid-axle forbearfer it's lighter years better, but relative to most any two-door coupe or sedan, especially its immediate competition, it's the luxo-barge of the group. Is this "bad" per se? Depends; I see it more as the intent of the design to go more towards a cruiser rather than a handler, but strictly by the numbers it's not very good.
A good analytical summary of the Challenger's niche in the marketplace! I think this niche would have been better served--and less costly to produce--if Chrysler had gone with a two-door Charger instead--everything forward of the doors coulda been straight Charger, and the money saved coulda paid for better interior design and materials. Opportunity lost...
Chrysler's in a turbulent state right now--who knows how the Italian bosses will view their line-up. Chrysler geared up for a two-year production run of Challengers, and planned to re-assess the Challenger's market viability near the end of that run before committing to a third year. Now, Italians will likely be making that decision--the Nethead here cannot possibly predict the outcome of that.
Within the Challenger's intended market, it is oversized, overweight, and overpriced--whereas the 300 & 300C are none of those in the 300's intended market. In today's severe market, this ain't good. The intelligent decision would be to cut their losses on this one, and concentrate on the minivans, the 300s, the Chargers, the trucks, and those actions necessary to sell Fiats in North America.
Quote from: Nethead on June 12, 2009, 08:56:08 AM
A good analytical summary of the Challenger's niche in the marketplace! I think this niche would have been better served--and less costly to produce--if Chrysler had gone with a two-door Charger instead--everything forward of the doors coulda been straight Charger, and the money saved coulda paid for better interior design and materials. Opportunity lost...
Yeah except the Charger is ASS ugly. The Challenger at least makes some money for Chrysler.
Quote from: HEMI666 on June 12, 2009, 11:02:20 AM
Yeah except the Charger is ASS ugly. The Challenger at least makes some money for Chrysler.
NOT TRUE! That being said, the current Charger is waaaayy short of the glamour of the '68s. Its looks are on a par with the '66s--except the '66s were two-door coupes which settles the issue in favor of the '66s, IMO.
And
THAT being said, who knows how the Italians feel about it--and they're the 800 pound gorilla at the Chrysler offices right now...
http://www.auto123.com/en/multimedia/videos/915619?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=english&utm_campaign=email&utm_campaign=whats-new&utm_medium=email&utm_source=june-15-2009&utm_content=v3.0
there... that comparo should stoke the flames a bit :lol:
Quote from: r0tor on June 18, 2009, 11:06:22 AM
http://www.auto123.com/en/multimedia/videos/915619?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=english&utm_campaign=email&utm_campaign=whats-new&utm_medium=email&utm_source=june-15-2009&utm_content=v3.0
there... that comparo should stoke the flames a bit :lol:
No one's ever heard of auto123.
Plus it seems like the just compared whatever cars they had access to (probably because no one's ever heard of auto123).
An SRT8 against the 4 banger Hyundai and the V6 Camaro?
They might as well have thrown in the GT500 and Z51 for good measure.
Bah, they appear to be a perfectly legit reviewing team with nice videowork
Quote from: r0tor on June 18, 2009, 12:27:27 PM
Bah, they appear to be a perfectly legit reviewing team with nice videowork
Yeah but no one is gonna argue about it. Plus they didn't say anything new or controversial, they pretty much said what we all know.
someone will take umbrage to the Camaro finishing last... you wait and see :popcorn:
Quote from: r0tor on June 18, 2009, 12:39:12 PM
someone will take umbrage to the Camaro finishing last... you wait and see :popcorn:
I take umbrage with the Challenger finishing second. That porker is a dud.
Plus they're French-Canadian. Shifty folks. :lol:
Quote from: r0tor on June 18, 2009, 12:39:12 PM
someone will take umbrage to the Camaro finishing last... you wait and see :popcorn:
See now that you said that, someone's gonna do it just to prove me wrong. :rage:
Quote from: 565 on June 18, 2009, 12:45:34 PM
See now that you said that, someone's gonna do it just to prove me wrong. :rage:
:lol: :evildude:
...not to mention that car with the wheezy little aenemic 1.3L engine on a 6 year old chassis beating up on some serious machinery... :mask:
Quote from: r0tor on June 18, 2009, 12:58:58 PM
:lol: :evildude:
...not to mention that car with the wheezy little aenemic 1.3L engine on a 6 year old chassis beating up on some serious machinery... :mask:
The R3 is hawt. :wub:
I do want one.
Quote from: CALL_911 on June 18, 2009, 01:08:34 PM
The R3 is hawt. :wub:
I do want one.
...there is part of me that wants to scrap my getting a winter/commuter car idea and just trade my 8 in for a new one...
It all began with pronouncing Mazda with a sharp "a"...
Fail on all levels.
Quote from: 565 on June 18, 2009, 11:45:24 AM
No one's ever heard of auto123.
Plus it seems like the just compared whatever cars they had access to (probably because no one's ever heard of auto123).
An SRT8 against the 4 banger Hyundai and the V6 Camaro?
They might as well have thrown in the GT500 and Z51 for good measure.
Yeah seriously. No duh the Hyundai and Camaro get the last 2 places - they both had the base engine while the others had the most powerful engine available (I'm not counting the GT500)