Poll
Question:
Which would you buy?
Option 1: Shelby GT
votes: 26
Option 2: 350Z
votes: 19
I picked the Shelby GT to use in this poll because it is the version of the Mustang that competes with the 350Z in both price and handling performance.
(http://www.allfordmustangs.com/articles/uploads/gt101-640.jpg)
(http://newvehicleimages.mjmi.com/NISSAN/2006_350Z_SILVERSTONE.jpg)
Mustang....duh! :ohyeah:
Mustang. I like the 350Z but that Shelby GT is Hot! and nothing beats V8 power.
Easy one for me... 'Stang.
I'll have to think about this one.
On another note, why is there a Shelby GT as the Mustang picture, and a stripper, basic, boring Z as the Z picture? Bias, eh? :devil:
Whats different about the Shelby GT from a regular GT?
Stang, though the 350z actually falls pretty much between the Shelby GT and the regular GT in price.
Mustang.
Quote from: JYODER240 on April 02, 2007, 09:50:50 AM
Whats different about the Shelby GT from a regular GT?
It's basically a Mustang GT with the Ford Racing Power Pack and Handling pack installed and some Shelby styling touches. The Power Pack gives you 25 extra horsepower through a better exhaust, reprogrammed ECU, and a CAI. Also includes a shorter rearend gear and a short-throw shifter. Handling pack lowers the car, and adds stiffer shocks and anti-roll bars and a strut tower brace.
Easiest question since "are you a vegetarian?"
Mustang.
Quote from: MX793 on April 02, 2007, 10:00:22 AM
It's basically a Mustang GT with the Ford Racing Power Pack and Handling pack installed and some Shelby styling touches.? The Power Pack gives you 25 extra horsepower through a better exhaust, reprogrammed ECU, and a CAI.? Also includes a shorter rearend gear and a short-throw shifter.? Handling pack lowers the car, and adds stiffer shocks and anti-roll bars and a strut tower brace.
Thanks.
I really like my Z so I wouldn't be able to tell which I'd pick without a test drive.
Shelby GT.
Quote from: MX793 on April 02, 2007, 10:00:22 AM
It's basically a Mustang GT with the Ford Racing Power Pack and Handling pack installed and some Shelby styling touches. The Power Pack gives you 25 extra horsepower through a better exhaust, reprogrammed ECU, and a CAI. Also includes a shorter rearend gear and a short-throw shifter. Handling pack lowers the car, and adds stiffer shocks and anti-roll bars and a strut tower brace.
It's probably the best version of this new Mustang yet. You get alot of extra handling bits, and a little more power (without it overpowering the experience). I could do with new color combinations and without that little scoop, but there's no wing (Mustangs look so good without the wing; were I to buy one, I would get one with a spoiler delete) and you get everything else. As it stands, I guess I would have to go with the white/silver combo.
Quote from: ro51092 on April 02, 2007, 09:49:28 AM
I'll have to think about this one.
On another note, why is there a Shelby GT as the Mustang picture, and a stripper, basic, boring Z as the Z picture? Bias, eh? :devil:
To be honest I didn't even know the 350Z in the picture was a base model.
When does the Shelby GT go on sale?
Quote from: TBR on April 02, 2007, 09:52:19 AM
Stang, though the 350z actually falls pretty much between the Shelby GT and the regular GT in price.
It's closer in price to the Shelby then it is to the GT in the US...and where I am the 350Z is the same price as a GT500.
(http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f312/ilthumper/2love1.jpg)
There's the Grand Touring.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=8406.msg404123#msg404123 date=1175530139
It's probably the best version of this new Mustang yet.? You get alot of extra handling bits, and a little more power (without it overpowering the experience).? I could do with new color combinations and without that little scoop, but there's no wing (Mustangs look so good without the wing; were I to buy one, I would get one with a spoiler delete) and you get everything else.? As it stands, I guess I would have to go with the white/silver combo.
I love that riveted on hood scoop. It just looks so badass.
(http://z.about.com/d/cars/1/7/n/S/ag_07shelbygt_scoop.jpg)
Quote from: JYODER240 on April 02, 2007, 10:13:12 AM
When does the Shelby GT go on sale?
Apparently the cars are being shipped to dealers right now.
Ah, from the picture, it looked like one of those tack on types you see on dealer lots.
I don't like the hood scoop. Especialy since its riveted on, its looks like a cheap aftermarket mod that someone did in their driveway.
Quote from: Raza on April 02, 2007, 10:08:59 AM
It's probably the best version of this new Mustang yet. You get alot of extra handling bits, and a little more power (without it overpowering the experience). I could do with new color combinations and without that little scoop, but there's no wing (Mustangs look so good without the wing; were I to buy one, I would get one with a spoiler delete) and you get everything else. As it stands, I guess I would have to go with the white/silver combo.
I agree, this is my favorite of the current Mustang variants. I think I'd actually rather just get a base GT and add the Ford Racing packages instead of ponying up for the Shelby, though. You'd get the same performance but likely at a lower price since I'm sure they inflated the price when they added the Shelby name to it. Sure, it wouldn't be a "Shelby", but all of the Shelby-related stuff is aesthetic. While it does look pretty good, I have no complaints about how the regular GT looks.
Quote from: MX793 on April 02, 2007, 10:18:54 AM
I agree, this is my favorite of the current Mustang variants.? I think I'd actually rather just get a base GT and add the Ford Racing packages instead of ponying up for the Shelby, though.? You'd get the same performance but likely at a lower price since I'm sure they inflated the price when they added the Shelby name to it.? Sure, it wouldn't be a "Shelby", but all of the Shelby-related stuff is aesthetic.? While it does look pretty good, I have no complaints about how the regular GT looks.
I would agree, except the Shelby styling bits are really hot, and you wouldn't be able to do the performance parts and body/paint for that price. :rockon:
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 02, 2007, 10:16:28 AM
Apparently the cars are being shipped to dealers right now.
Hmmm... I might have to test drive one then.
Whats the deal with the Boss Mustang? Whats that going to be about?
Quote from: JYODER240 on April 02, 2007, 10:27:13 AM
Hmmm... I might have to test drive one then.
Whats the deal with the Boss Mustang? Whats that going to be about?
2008. 5.0L 3-valve 440-450 hp and will weigh less then a stock Mustang GT (I'm guessing 3350-3400 lbs). It will also cost a shit load because only 1000 will be built. 2008 will also see the return of the Bullit Mustang that will have 400 hp.
A Mustang for everyone. I just wish they would build more of the special edition cars so that I could actually afford one. :cry:
Those V6 California Specials should be getting pretty cheap soon...:lol:
Of course the Nethead here voted for the Mustang--any version. But a 350Z is a fine vehicle, too! I'll never forget the gorgeous first-year 240Z my neighbor waited nine months to get. Light orange with a charcoal interior--ah, young men and their dreams. But I'll never forget the only G.T. 350 my little hometown ever had, either--a Lime Gold (I believe that's "Legend Gold" today) '67 G.T. 350 with white side stripes. Or the first GTO in my hometown, a red '64 triple-deucer four-speed with a white roof and a red interior. And the only Ferrari ever in my hometown--a metalflake gold 250 GTO owned by a doctor, of course. There was even one first-year Lotus Cortina (naturally, white with green in the recessed scallop along each side), but that was hardly in a class with the Ferrari 250 GTO, the G.T. 350, the 240Z, or the '64 Pontiac GTO...
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=8406.msg404148#msg404148 date=1175531933
Those V6 California Specials should be getting pretty cheap soon...:lol:
:rolleyes:
Real Mustangs have 8 cylinders. :P
Quote from: Raza on April 02, 2007, 10:38:53 AM
Those V6 California Specials should be getting pretty cheap soon...:lol:
I think the California Special package is only available on the GT.
Quote from: Nethead on April 02, 2007, 10:52:23 AM
Of course the Nethead here voted for the Mustang--any version.? But a 350Z is a fine vehicle, too!? I'll never forget the gorgeous first-year 240Z my neighbor waited nine months to get.? Light orange with a charcoal interior--ah, young men and their dreams.?
Hmmmmmmm.....240Z. Now that's a car I love. I would love to drop a 5.0L V8 in it :lol:
Looks like I was the second person to vote 350Z. :lol:
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on April 02, 2007, 11:12:38 AM
Looks like I was the second person to vote 350Z.? :lol:
SHAAAAAAAAME! :lol:
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 02, 2007, 11:09:51 AM
Hmmmmmmm.....240Z.? Now that's a car I love.? I would love to drop a 5.0L V8 in it :lol:
Animal!
Quote from: MX793 on April 02, 2007, 11:09:21 AM
I think the California Special package is only available on the GT.
Now it is. But it started with the V6.
The 350Z is probably a better car, and I think it sounds amazing, but it looks too plain next to the 'Stang.
Quote from: Raza on April 02, 2007, 11:51:04 AM
Now it is. But it started with the V6.
Of the current generation cars? I think they offered it with the V6 in the last gen ('99-'04), but I thought it was GT only with the S197.
Quote from: MX793 on April 02, 2007, 11:57:51 AM
Of the current generation cars? I think they offered it with the V6 in the last gen ('99-'04), but I thought it was GT only with the S197.
You are correct, with the S197, only the GT was offered with the GT/CS package.
I voted mustang, but I must say that I have become intrigued with the NISMO 350Z.
(http://images.leftlanenews.com/content/2-nissan-nismo-350z.jpg)
Quote from: Ron From Regina on April 02, 2007, 11:56:53 AM
Please elaborate.
It has an independent rear suspension, is more of a sporting car right out of the box, is cheaper, a better handler, the engine is pretty rev-happy, the exhaust note with the upgraded exhaust sounds amazing (not a V8 rumble but great nonetheless), it has a 6 speed manual on the models that matter where I think some V8 stang models still have a 5 speed, it's more compact, it doesn't look like everything else on the road, and it has a decent-sized aftermarket following (not compared to the Mustang, but big nonetheless).
Quote from: MX793 on April 02, 2007, 11:57:51 AM
Of the current generation cars? I think they offered it with the V6 in the last gen ('99-'04), but I thought it was GT only with the S197.
I guess I'm wrong. I could have sworn there was a 2006 V6 California Special.
Quote from: the Teuton on April 02, 2007, 12:07:11 PM
It has an independent rear suspension, is more of a sporting car right out of the box, is cheaper, a better handler, the engine is pretty rev-happy, the exhaust note with the upgraded exhaust sounds amazing (not a V8 rumble but great nonetheless), it has a 6 speed manual on the models that matter where I think some V8 stang models still have a 5 speed, it's more compact, it doesn't look like everything else on the road, and it has a decent-sized aftermarket following (not compared to the Mustang, but big nonetheless).
Well, you make good points, but my advice is to drive both. Even though it's not really cheaper. The most expensive GT right now 27,6, so I can't imagine that the Shelby GT will start at much more than 30 or 31. The base model 350Z stars at 27,9. Go Grand Touring and it's 36K.
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 02, 2007, 10:13:22 AM
It's closer in price to the Shelby then it is to the GT in the US...and where I am the 350Z is the same price as a GT500.
No it isn't. The Shelby GT costs $35k, a similarly equipped GT costs about $30k, and a 350z Touring fits right between at $32.7k.
Quote from: the Teuton on April 02, 2007, 12:07:11 PM
It has an independent rear suspension, is more of a sporting car right out of the box, is cheaper, a better handler, the engine is pretty rev-happy, the exhaust note with the upgraded exhaust sounds amazing (not a V8 rumble but great nonetheless), it has a 6 speed manual on the models that matter where I think some V8 stang models still have a 5 speed, it's more compact, it doesn't look like everything else on the road, and it has a decent-sized aftermarket following (not compared to the Mustang, but big nonetheless).
You're speaking out of your ass for the most part because you have never driven a Shelby GT, so how would you know which handles better and which is sportier? I am willing to bet the Shelby GT will be at least as good as the 350Z in performance, if not better.
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 02, 2007, 12:49:12 PM
You're speaking out of your ass for the most part because you have never driven a Shelby GT, so how would you know which handles better and which is sportier?? I am willing to bet the Shelby GT will be at least as good as the 350Z in performance, if not better.
Have you driven both cars? If not then you also are speaking out of the butt.
Quote from: Onslaught on April 02, 2007, 12:54:45 PM
Have you driven both cars? If not then you also are speaking out of the butt.
Not at all. I'm not saying it performs as well as the 350Z, I'm saying I'm willing to bet it will. He stated that the 350Z outperforms the Shelby...period.
Quote from: the Teuton on April 02, 2007, 12:07:11 PM
It has an independent rear suspension, is more of a sporting car right out of the box, is cheaper, a better handler, the engine is pretty rev-happy, the exhaust note with the upgraded exhaust sounds amazing (not a V8 rumble but great nonetheless), it has a 6 speed manual on the models that matter where I think some V8 stang models still have a 5 speed, it's more compact, it doesn't look like everything else on the road, and it has a decent-sized aftermarket following (not compared to the Mustang, but big nonetheless).
Plus it looks better :praise:
If I had to have one it would be the 350Z. I'm more of a sports car person rather than a muscle car guy.
I've driven a Z and a GT Stang and the Z just has the "feel" that I like more. But to be honest the Z is too heavy
and I can't get past the looks of the door handles.
Quote from: the Teuton on April 02, 2007, 12:07:11 PM
It has an independent rear suspension,
This is an old argument. Its already been stated by several people who have drvien the Mustang, plus countless magazines, that the live axle in the mustang is as good as any IRS setup in the segment. The only time time it is noticed is when applying big power and hitting a bump mid corner.
With my car, very rarely do I even notice, and when I do, its not a big deal.
Further, the live exle setup is what helps keep the costs of the mustang down, and is easy to modify by those of us who are into drag racing.
Quoteis cheaper,
I'm too lazy to look up the pricing, but as Hemi as already pointed out, a 350Z in Canada costs the same as a Shelby GT500. I can't imaging the 350Z is a whole lot different in price than a Shelby GT.
Quote
a better handler,
Says who? Its already been argued to death that the Mustang GT can handle almost as well as the 350Z. The Shelby GT has a fairly major suspension upgrade. Although handling is hard to quantify, M/T pulled .91G on their skid pad, and 25.7 seconds on the figure 8; both figures besting the nissan signifigantly.
Quote
the engine is pretty rev-happy,
What matters is how the car is geared. The mustang has enough torque to not stall on blacktop when dumping the clutch off idle, and will pull you back into the seat, all the way to its redline.
Quote
the exhaust note with the upgraded exhaust sounds amazing (not a V8 rumble but great nonetheless),
I'll give it that. I do like the exaust note on the Z, but I have to say, I do prefer the stock exaust on the mustang. Aftermarket is anyone's call.
Quote
it has a 6 speed manual on the models that matter where I think some V8 stang models still have a 5 speed,
Although I've always wanted a 6spd in the mustang, just to say it had one, I certainly don't think it is necessary. Sure, it would be nice to bring the revs down a bit (from about 2600)? when cruising at 80mph, though.
Quote
it's more compact, it doesn't look like everything else on the road,
It also has 2 less seats.
I would argue that the mustang has the more unique look on the road. Sure, there are more of them, but nobody would mistake a mustang for anything else.
I'd take the Shelby or the GT over the Z.
Quote from: Ron From Regina on April 02, 2007, 01:24:29 PM
I would argue that the mustang has the more unique look on the road. Sure, there are more of them, but nobody would mistake a mustang for anything else.
Which is why the word Mustang shows up a total of 0 times on the car.
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 02, 2007, 01:47:37 PM
Which is why the word Mustang shows up a total of 0 times on the car.
You don't have to spell out the name when you put chrome emblems of the animal all over the place.
Quote from: Onslaught on April 02, 2007, 01:57:21 PM
You don't have to spell out the name when you put chrome emblems of the animal all over the place.
By all over the place, you mean the one on the grill? The only other mustang logo's visible from the exterior are tiny ones edged into the glass on the windows, and are no more than a 1/4 inch.
(The V6 has it on the trunk and side badges, but the V8 ones just have a badge that says GT.)
Don't forget the one on the steering wheel and how some of the V6 ones have those ugly decals with Mustangs all down it.
Hemi, I voted for the Stang out of those two because it's a special edition and looks amazing, but otherwise it's just and ordinary Mustang with a nice paint job and some Ford catalog parts. It still has the wrong suspension in the back and it's just another iteration because it's one of the few cars that Ford makes that draws a profit and they're trying to milk the hell out of that car.
That being said, it could be a better, cheaper car, but Ford has a monopoly on the muscle car market right now and they can charge whatever the heck they want for whatever special edition they want. I don't see this as a $200k car in 30-40 years because Ford is pumping out so many special editions. SRA limits tunability unless your name is Jack Roush and makes it a less desirable car. That's why 350Zs, RX8s, and Camaros will/do exist.
Quote from: the Teuton on April 02, 2007, 02:15:28 PM
Hemi, I voted for the Stang out of those two because it's a special edition and looks amazing, but otherwise it's just and ordinary Mustang with a nice paint job and some Ford catalog parts.
What do you think a NISMO 350Z is?
QuoteIt still has the wrong suspension in the back
:rolleyes:
Quoteand it's just another iteration because it's one of the few cars that Ford makes that draws a profit and they're trying to milk the hell out of that car.?
Yup, nothing wrong with that...is there? What do you think they did back in the late 60s and early 70s?
350Z, no question in my book.
Substitute the base G35/7 coupe and I'm sold, which at a base of $33,000 still undercuts the Shelby GT by almost $4,000.
The 350Z bothers me because of the lack of a back seat, and the rumors of a lot of road noise and lack of refinement. For not a lot more money, one can have the G35/7.
The only compelling argument for the Shelby GT is exhaust note IMO.
Quote from: GoCougs on April 02, 2007, 02:38:59 PM
Substitute the base G35/7 coupe and I'm sold, which at a base of $33,000 still undercuts the Shelby GT by almost $4,000.
Try $2000. :rolleyes:
I found a Shelby GT on ebay and a very clear shot of the window sticker shows an MSRP of $32K and change. Of course, dealer markup makes sticker prices moot, but their MSRP isn't as high as a lot of people seem to be indicating.
EDIT:
NM, it appears these cars come with two window stickers. One for the original Mustang and a second from Shelby highlighting the cost of the add ons. Prices are indeed north of $35K. Base price of $36,970 according to leftlanenews.com.
Shelby GT (or regular GT, for that matter) all the way! However, the 350Z is a damn nice car.
You guys clearly have no idea how much more the Shelby GT is over a regular GT. It's 10k and change for the shelby GT over the price of the normal GT. You can order all the parts from ford racing for about 3k. So basically that other 7k is for the Shelby name. I voted for the 350z because I just like it alot better for the price you CAN get them at. A very close second though is to buy a base GT and install the next 10k in "real" aftermarket parts...
Reference:http://www.caranddriver.com/previews/12692/first-drive-2007-ford-mustang-shelby-gt.html
I will give the looks to the GT though..it does have some very striking angles. :ohyeah:
I think the stock GT looks better than that thing. Give me a GT and the money waisted on the Shelby name and I could make a better car then that.
Quote from: Onslaught on April 02, 2007, 03:50:47 PM
Give me a GT and the money waisted on the Shelby name and I could make a better car then that.
Yep, thats exactly what i said in my previous post. You paying out the ass for a name only. That's why in this specific comparo the 350 got my vote. :huh:
Very easy choice.? 350Z any day.
I'd take a 350Z, but i'm alittle biased. I'm just more of a Z fan, and i don't like backseats in 2 door cars.
In another year(or less) when nissan sticks the 330HP "rev-up" motor in the Z then it would be an even easier pick.
I recall a press release not too long ago(a year or less) that stated nissan was going after the 911 with the next z, not in numbers but in feel between the car and the driver. With this new motor and possibly a few more ponies (340-350) this v-6 and a minor redesign could put the z where they want it to be.
Either way i'll stick with my TT, which will be getting a stillen exhaust/race pipes and ECU in about 2 weeks, a package good for 420-430 HP....and i still like the looks of the Z32 over the new one. :ohyeah:
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on April 02, 2007, 06:34:31 PM
In another year(or less) when nissan sticks the 330HP "rev-up" motor in the Z then it would be an even easier pick.
...and for the 2009 modl year the reguar Mustang GT is getting 350 hp. I'm talking about these two cars and what they offer right now.
Not an easy choice, I'd have to drive them both. Having driven neither, I feel the Mustang has a more character but the Z is probably the better car objectively. As an only car I'd take the Z. As a second car most likely the "rawer" 'stang.
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 02, 2007, 10:14:46 AM
I love that riveted on hood scoop. It just looks so badass.
(http://z.about.com/d/cars/1/7/n/S/ag_07shelbygt_scoop.jpg)
Seems to me that if a hood scoop is coming from the factory, it should look like it came from the factory. The riveted on thing looks like some kid tacked it on there and then it got a good paint job.
Nonetheless, I voted for the Mustang. I'm not a huge fan of the latest Z.
Quote from: Psilos on April 02, 2007, 11:34:59 PM
Seems to me that if a hood scoop is coming from the factory, it should look like it came from the factory. The riveted on thing looks like some kid tacked it on there and then it got a good paint job.
You can tell some people have never seen old muscle cars up close.
Well, I don't really like either one, but I chose the 350Z.
The Mustang almost looks like some kind of retro novelty kit car.
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 02, 2007, 11:38:34 PM
You can tell some people have never seen old muscle cars up close.
:rolleyes:
I don't know about this hood scoop but the regular GT one is just held on with double sided tape. I've had to put a few of those ugly things on peoples cars for Ford. I personally don't like them.
Quote from: SaltyDog on April 02, 2007, 01:36:43 PM
I'd take the Shelby or the GT over the Z.?
SaltyDog: DogDude!? Great lookin' '93 Sentra--we had a '93 four-door XE Limited Edition and it was splendid!? The two-door woulda been beyond splendid!? And an SE-R woulda been fantastic!
Back to the topic:? The original 240Z--or the last Z before the current one--woulda made this a tougher decision, but not the current 350Z.? Any S197 Mustang gets my vote!? The Nethead here ain't a scoops dude, so my preference would be the Shelby GT-H in black-&-gold with the automatic replaced with a Tremec 6060, which the good folks at Tremec say is the best manual transmission they've ever made.? Shelby could make that conversion so easily since the only car to offer the 6060 so far is the Shelby GT500--which would also have a driveshaft and universals to match perfectly!? A little Sawzall on the sheetmtal behind the C-scoops and some ducting and ya got rear brake cooling a la the original G.T. 350s, too.? The GT500's front brake cooling ducts could be adapted for the front, or else bolt on the front brake cooling kit from the FR500C.? Yank the antenna and the radio, do a little sheetmetal work on the antenna hole, tint the windows darker than midnight in a cave, and put 30s on all four while you save up for the intercooled Vortech, the porting & polishing, the cams & springs, the long-tubes, the Ford GT mufflers, and perhaps a ducktail spoiler and you're set to go!? And then get that SCCA "B" competition license...
Quote from: Onslaught on April 03, 2007, 05:52:31 AM
I don't know about this hood scoop but the regular GT one is just held on with double sided tape. I've had to put a few of those ugly things on peoples cars for Ford. I personally don't like them.
I personally don't like non-functional scoops on the S197. They, IMO, wreck the lines of the car and look somewhat awkward on the large hood. However, I guess if I had to have one, I would want it to be riveted on as opposed to taped.
Mustang. It has a V8 that sings to me, and a rawness that I love.
Z: although this may be sacrilege around here :lol: I'm just not much of a Mustang guy...
Quote from: J86 on April 03, 2007, 08:09:36 AM
Z: although this may be sacrilege around here? :lol: I'm just not much of a Mustang guy...
I used to like Mustangs, but the new one is too retarded looking to be likeable.
Quote from: NACar on April 03, 2007, 08:25:54 AM
I used to like Mustangs, but the new one is too retarded looking to be likeable.
NACar: NADude, what did you like before that you don't like in the current Mustang?
Quote from: Nethead on April 03, 2007, 09:33:31 AM
NACar:? NADude, what did you like before that you don't like in the current Mustang?
Maybe he liked that they didn't look like Mustangs. :lol:
Quote from: Nethead on April 03, 2007, 09:33:31 AM
NACar:? NADude, what did you like before that you don't like in the current Mustang?
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.
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 03, 2007, 09:36:33 AM
Maybe he liked that they didn't look like Mustangs. :lol:
Styling is supposed to evolve with the times, not jump back 40 years to try to be something that it used to be. But people from that generation love it. I am not of that generation; I grew up in the 80's and 90's, so maybe you'll understand what a Mustang is to me.
The question is, could it have been a better car if they didn't go out of their way to make it look a certain way? The answer is yes. The answer to that question is almost always yes, but it's an even bigger yes with the Mustang.
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.
Good lad. You may have an SS-V for your kindness.
Quote from: omicron on April 03, 2007, 09:45:53 AM
Good lad. You may have an SS-V for your kindness.
Why thank you kind sir. I will accept your offering of an SS-V, and I will enjoy it much.
Z
Though i'd love a Mustang too. Just not a GT500.
Quote from: NACar on April 03, 2007, 09:48:35 AM
Why thank you kind sir. I will accept your offering of an SS-V, and I will enjoy it much.
There is room up front for your basils, too.
Quote from: NACar on April 03, 2007, 09:42:17 AM
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.
You hate retro but you don't mind the Challenger?? Take your rose coloured glasses off.
(http://www.geocities.com/fordmustangpics4/1969_Ford_Mustang_Boss_429_black.jpg)
1969 Mustang
(http://www.stangbangers.com/2006_MustangGT_ForSale1a.jpg)
2006 Mustang
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/newandoldchallenger.jpg)
Challenger comparison.
Quote from: NACar on April 03, 2007, 09:44:44 AM
Styling is supposed to evolve with the times, not jump back 40 years to try to be something that it used to be. But people from that generation love it. I am not of that generation; I grew up in the 80's and 90's, so maybe you'll understand what a Mustang is to me.
I turn 30 next month, I grew up in the 80s and 90s too. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Raghavan on April 03, 2007, 09:51:37 AM
Z
Though i'd love a Mustang too. Just not a GT500.
Not talking about the GT500.
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 03, 2007, 10:06:23 AM
You hate retro but you don't mind the Challenger?? Take your rose coloured glasses off.
I said I hate retro. I said the Challenger has some retro cues. Therefore, I hate it. I said it's more reasonable, but it still does not meet with my approval.? :ohyeah:
So maybe it was wrong of me to group the Challenger in with the Magnum / Charger.
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 03, 2007, 10:07:52 AM
Not talking about the GT500.
Yeah, i know, i'm just saying i'd like any Mustang, whether they compete with the Z or not.
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 02, 2007, 01:47:37 PM
Which is why the word Mustang shows up a total of 0 times on the car.
Doesn't it show up on the back of the car?
The Z only says 350Z on one time and thats on the back of the car like the Stang.
Quote from: JYODER240 on April 03, 2007, 10:10:36 AM
Doesn't it show up on the back of the car?
The Z only says 350Z on one time and thats on the back of the car like the Stang.
Nope.? The word Mustang doesn't show up anywhere on the car.? The fake gas cap on the back says Ford GT.
(http://www.moddedmustangs.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/06/ford-mustang-gas-cap.jpg)
V6 fake gas cap. The horse is replaced with "GT" on the GT model.
I stopped at the Ford dealership by my house to see when they're getting a GT-H in. I walked in the showroom and they have eight GT500's all marked up 20K over sticker :rolleyes:
The salesman said they are the number 1 dealership for GT500's in the world. They also had a black and gold GT-H but I didn't check the sticker on it.
NACar: "So maybe it was wrong of me to group the Challenger in with the Magnum / Charger"
Yep, it sure was.
Do you also dislike the Prowler and the PT Cruiser (and the odious HHR and much-ridiculed SSR)?
Hey, what you like you like, and what you don't you don't! That's why there are over 600 different models of vehicles sold in the US today...
I really want a Challenger. I know I shouldn't, but I do.
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 03, 2007, 09:36:33 AM
Maybe he liked that they didn't look like Mustangs. :lol:
HEMI666: Very good point! They
didn't!
Quote from: Nethead on April 03, 2007, 10:53:21 AM
HEMI666:? Very good point!? They didn't!
You want to know what a Mustang looks like? Here ya go:
(http://www.animalsvoice.com/IMAGES/horse_rearing.jpg)
and here is one with two legs :lol:
(http://www.weirdspot.com/images/uploads/horse2legs.jpg)
Quote from: Nethead on April 03, 2007, 10:50:07 AM
NACar:? "So maybe it was wrong of me to group the Challenger in with the Magnum / Charger"
Yep, it sure was.
Do you also dislike the Prowler and the PT Cruiser (and the odious HHR and much-ridiculed SSR)?
Hey, what you like you like, and what you don't you don't!? That's why there are over 600 different models of vehicles sold in the US today...
Yes, I dislike the Prowler, PT cruise, HHR and the SSR especially!
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 03, 2007, 10:14:00 AM
Nope.? The word Mustang doesn't show up anywhere on the car.? The fake gas cap on the back says Ford GT.
The only place on the whole car that says "Mustang" is on the door sill. Obviously, though, you can't see it unless the door is open.
(http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/8088/doorsillmustang2005vp3.jpg)
Quote from: NACar on April 03, 2007, 10:56:41 AM
and here is one with two legs :lol:
(http://www.weirdspot.com/images/uploads/horse2legs.jpg)
(http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/8660/whutianfv8.jpg)
Quote from: Nethead on April 03, 2007, 10:53:21 AM
HEMI666:? Very good point!? They didn't!
Don't get me wrong. I like the fox body 5.0 LX a lot. I love the 94-98 model as well, since I've owned two of them. I also really like the 99-2004 model too. I especially love the 2001 Bullit and the 2003-04 Mach 1 and Cobra too. Mustangs are Mustangs, but the 2005+ Mustang captured what was kinda missing in those other models. I can't put my finger on it, but whatever was missing, it's got it again.
Quote from: JYODER240 on April 03, 2007, 10:14:29 AM
I stopped at the Ford dealership by my house to see when they're getting a GT-H in. I walked in the showroom and they have eight GT500's all marked up 20K over sticker :rolleyes:
The salesman said they are the number 1 dealership for GT500's in the world. They also had a black and gold GT-H but I didn't check the sticker on it.
If they can sel them for 20k over sticker, what do you care? It's not your money, and they wouldn't be pricing them that high (and wouldn't be, apparently, the #1 GT500 dealer) if people wouldn't buy them. I wouldn't have paid $10-15,000 Cdn. over sticker for an S2000 when they first hit the floor, but people did! Same with the Solstice. The Ford GT was selling for TENS of thousands over MSRp, and people paid!
Also, I wouldn't be surprised of the GT500 holds its value very, very well over the years.
-FordSVT-
Quote from: NACar on April 03, 2007, 09:44:44 AM
Styling is supposed to evolve with the times, not jump back 40 years to try to be something that it used to be. But people from that generation love it. I am not of that generation; I grew up in the 80's and 90's, so maybe you'll understand what a Mustang is to me.
Nice way to be insulting to us that were there, and owned older Mustangs. You're effectively saying it's ugly and only appealing to people that are old and don't know any better.
Well, I can return that fucking favor.It doesn't look like an old Mustang, it looks like what a NEW Mustang would look like if it had continued to follow that styling pattern of the originals and not stopped to being a gussied up Pinto then a square fucking box. (and BTW, the fastest Mustang I ever built was one of those Fox bodied ones, and I liked that car, too)
But talking to closed minded, inexperienced kids is starting to get tiresome as they know fucking EVERYTHING without having to actually experience anything.
Yes, I'm pissed about the insults.
Funny thing is in this comparo, I'd about take the Z due to the extra cost of the Shelby name vs the GT with the same parts. The Z is a great car, saddled with some unfortunate door handles.
And the scoop on the Mustang looks like the scoop on a $500k Shelby 427 Cobra. I love it.
Quote from: NACar on April 03, 2007, 10:57:28 AM
Yes, I dislike the Prowler, PT cruise, HHR and the SSR especially!
Too bad, because the PT is a better car than your ugly little Esteem could ever be. I owned one for 4 years, and it was the best, most versatile, and most reliable car I've ever had, and that's saying something.
What a prick. (that's for you ChrisV)
ChrisV just gets better and better--and the more pissed he is, the better he gets!? PT Cruisers are superb vehicles--practical, stylish, unique, and shitloads more desirable than any minivan or station wagon!? And ChrisDude knows how to make those suckers really handle on a budget!? I hope DCX or Chrysler Corporation or Magna or whomever never loses interest in the PT!? I can't say as much for the bowtie imitation, the latest example--but not the last nor the least--of "Profit Through Imitation" from the GM camp...
Chris, ya gotta cut NACar some slack--he wasn't there to know the magic and the awe one felt when a '63 fuel-injected Stingray drove by--or a '65 G.T. 350, or a '64 triple-deuce GTO, or an R3 Avanti, or any Cobra 427, or a Boss 302, or a '66 SS-396, or a Hemi Charger, or a '63 XKE or even a '63 Riviera.? And I could go on and on and on.? It is hard for the young to believe that there was a time in Southern California when on any afternoon a person might see every one of these cars pass through a busy intersection!? Now, it only happens when there's a car show goin' on within a few blocks of that same intersection...The good ol' days.........Sigh.....
Quote from: Nethead on April 03, 2007, 02:02:41 PM
ChrisV just gets better and better--and the more pissed he is, the better he gets!? PT Cruisers are superb vehicles--practical, stylish, unique, and shitloads more desirable than any minivan or station wagon!? And ChrisDude knows how to make those suckers really handle on a budget!? I hope DCX or Chrysler Corporation or Magna or whomever never loses interest in the PT!? I can't say as much for the bowtie imitation, the latest example--but not the last nor the least--of "Profit Through Imitation" from the GM camp...
Chris, ya gotta cut NACar some slack--he wasn't there to know the magic and the awe one felt when a '63 fuel-injected Stingray drove by--or a '65 G.T. 350, or a '64 triple-deuce GTO, or an R3 Avanti, or any Cobra 427, or a Boss 302, or a '66 SS-396, or a Hemi Charger, or a '63 XKE or even a '63 Riviera.? And I could go on and on and on.? It is hard for the young to believe that there was a time in Southern California when on any afternoon a person might see every one of these cars pass through a busy intersection!? Now, it only happens when there's a car show goin' on within a few blocks of that same intersection...The good ol' days.........Sigh.....
My heartbeat increased 10 fold when I was reading the list of cars you mentioned. I was born in the wrong era. :cry:
Quote from: NACar on April 03, 2007, 09:45:47 AM
The question is, could it have been a better car if they didn't go out of their way to make it look a certain way? The answer is yes. The answer to that question is almost always yes, but it's an even bigger yes with the Mustang.
What makes you think that? All signs point to the S197s styling as being one of the biggest selling points of the car. But then, I guess you liked that souped up Cavalier.....I mean GTO, so I guess I can see where you are coming from :P.
Quote from: ChrisV on April 03, 2007, 01:21:42 PM
Nice way to be insulting to us that were there, and owned older Mustangs. You're effectively saying it's ugly and only appealing to people that are old and don't know any better. Well, I can return that fucking favor.
It doesn't look like an old Mustang, it looks like what a NEW Mustang would look like if it had continued to follow that styling pattern of the originals and not stopped to being a gussied up Pinto then a square fucking box. (and BTW, the fastest Mustang I ever built was one of those Fox bodied ones, and I liked that car, too)
But talking to closed minded, inexperienced kids is starting to get tiresome as they know fucking EVERYTHING without having to actually experience anything.
Yes, I'm pissed about the insults.
Funny thing is in this comparo, I'd about take the Z due to the extra cost of the Shelby name vs the GT with the same parts. The Z is a great car, saddled with some unfortunate door handles.
And the scoop on the Mustang looks like the scoop on a $500k Shelby 427 Cobra. I love it.
Bad day at work :lockedup:?
Quote from: NACar on April 03, 2007, 10:55:08 AM
You want to know what a Mustang looks like? Here ya go:
(http://www.animalsvoice.com/IMAGES/horse_rearing.jpg)
Probably doesn't handle as well though :devil:
Quote from: NACar on April 03, 2007, 10:56:41 AM
and here is one with two legs? :lol:
(http://www.weirdspot.com/images/uploads/horse2legs.jpg)
They should use this Mustang for the emblem of the V6 one.
Quote from: ChrisV on April 03, 2007, 01:21:42 PM
Nice way to be insulting to us that were there, and owned older Mustangs. You're effectively saying it's ugly and only appealing to people that are old and don't know any better. Well, I can return that fucking favor.
It doesn't look like an old Mustang, it looks like what a NEW Mustang would look like if it had continued to follow that styling pattern of the originals and not stopped to being a gussied up Pinto then a square fucking box. (and BTW, the fastest Mustang I ever built was one of those Fox bodied ones, and I liked that car, too)
But talking to closed minded, inexperienced kids is starting to get tiresome as they know fucking EVERYTHING without having to actually experience anything.
Yes, I'm pissed about the insults.
Funny thing is in this comparo, I'd about take the Z due to the extra cost of the Shelby name vs the GT with the same parts. The Z is a great car, saddled with some unfortunate door handles.
And the scoop on the Mustang looks like the scoop on a $500k Shelby 427 Cobra. I love it.
Chris, you are so FUCKING insulting. How DARE you insult the Mustang II like that. You need to start fucking learning to start fucking re-fucking-specting other people's opinions. You are so ignorant :rolleyes:
Quote from: ChrisV on April 03, 2007, 01:23:54 PM
Too bad, because the PT is a better car than your ugly little Esteem could ever be. I owned one for 4 years, and it was the best, most versatile, and most reliable car I've ever had, and that's saying something.
What it's saying is that you have owned some shit cars :evildude:
Quote from: ChrisV on April 03, 2007, 01:23:54 PM
Too bad, because the PT is a better car than your ugly little Esteem could ever be. I owned one for 4 years, and it was the best, most versatile, and most reliable car I've ever had, and that's saying something.
If you seriously think I've been raving about how stylish I think my Esteem is, then you're wrong. Unlike some people, I do not judge cars primarly on their outside apperance. I've driven ugly cars, and I've spent lots of my own hard earned cash buying cars that I didn't exactly think were pretty. You see, I can forgive a car's ugliness if it doesn't compromise the rest of the car. The PT Cruiser is designed completely around it's "retro" styling. I would rather a car is designed to perform it's intended function, and then throw some styling in if need be. Function over form, get it? Ok then.
ChrisV, I think I see where you're coming from now. You're one of those people who thought the VW New Beetle was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but would have never even considered a Golf.? :rolleyes:
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on April 03, 2007, 03:10:16 PM
Chris, you are so FUCKING insulting. How DARE you insult the Mustang II like that. You need to start fucking learning to start fucking re-fucking-specting other people's opinions. You are so ignorant :rolleyes:
What it's saying is that you have owned some shit cars :evildude:
:lol: :lol:
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on April 03, 2007, 03:08:11 PM
Probably doesn't handle as well though? :devil:
Haha Jeremy Clarkson "proved" a real horse will beat a Ford Mustang around a track. And the horse has 1 horspower while the Ford had over 200. Real Mustangs (horses) FTW. :rockon:
Quote from: 565 on April 03, 2007, 03:43:34 PM
Haha Jeremy Clarkson "proved" a real horse will beat a Ford Mustang around a track.? And the horse has 1 horspower while the Ford had over 200.? ?Real Mustangs (horses) FTW. :rockon:
Jeremy Clarkson is a retard.
First he lies to the viewing audience by saying the Mustang he is driving is a GT with 300 hp, then he leisurely leaves the line and drives as slow as possible without looking like he's fixing the race...just to lose.
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-
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:
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.
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:
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...
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).
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".
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!
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...
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:
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?
YesSo, 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.
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:
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
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.
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.
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:.
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.
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.
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"
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:
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.
SVT is alive and well? Surely you don't even believe that.
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.
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.
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.
I thought they were renaming SVT...
Quote from: Raghavan on April 05, 2007, 10:01:07 AM
I thought they were renaming SVT...
You thought wrong. :lol:
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.
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.
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:
Well! It seems as if I've walked into he midst of a war.
Quote from: NACar on April 05, 2007, 11:37:42 AM
And you just proved my point.
What point is that? That I'm a "Mustang whore"? BTW, real mature. I'm a Mustang fan absolutely. However, if you even knew a fraction of Mustang history, you would realize that what you said is absolute idiocy.
Nick has some awesome basils. I don't see you guys with any awesome basils.... Hmm???
So Nick wins. :praise:
Quote from: Raghavan on April 05, 2007, 11:50:48 AM
Nick has some awesome basils.? I don't see you guys with any awesome basils.... Hmm???
So Nick wins.? :praise:
You got me there. :ohyeah:
Yeah well Craiggy has a hot secretary. :ohyeah:
Quote from: TheIntrepid on April 05, 2007, 11:57:28 AM
Yeah well Craiggy has a hot secretary. :ohyeah:
Woah there. :confused: Back it up. :mask:
:lol:
Quote from: TheIntrepid on April 05, 2007, 11:57:28 AM
Yeah well Craiggy has a hot secretary. :ohyeah:
I got more then that. My receptionist is hot, the chick who does payroll/billing/payables is hot too, but the architectural technologist that sits just outside my office has got one of those bodies that makes you stay awake at night. She dresses appropriately too...if you catch my drift. I'm surprised no one has told her to dress more professional yet...well, actually it doesn't surprise me since my boss is a guy.
Stop calling me Craiggy.
Post pics of said hot girls. :ohyeah:
Sorry, Craiggers. :P
Quote from: TheIntrepid on April 05, 2007, 12:03:24 PM
Post pics of said hot girls. :ohyeah:
Sorry, Craiggers. :P
Not only would I not be able to get pics without them knowing, I would never post their pics on the internet without their permission.
"yeah, so there's this weird brown kid that goes onto these car forums that i go onto so can i take some pics of you guys and post them here?"
If you didn't get bitch slapped, i'd be surprised.
Quote from: Raghavan on April 05, 2007, 01:06:45 PM
"yeah, so there's this weird brown kid that goes onto these car forums that i go onto so can i take some pics of you guys and post them here?"
If you didn't get bitch slapped, i'd be surprised.
:lol:
"Yet the GTO pulled 0.88 g on the skidpad, a testament to its fundamental balance and stability. The GTO's handling is really more Deutschland than Detroit. In corners the front end bites hard and the rear tracks dutifully, the understeer staying mostly in the shadows."
"Bend the GTO into a series of corners that require no downshifting, and it's easy to be seduced. Steering is far more communicative than the system in the Mustang; the effort increases as cornering loads increase. Turn the wheel off-center, and the GTO dives into the corner as predictably and voraciously as a goat at an all-you-can-eat tin-can buffet. A bit of body roll accompanies maneuvers near the 0.88-g threshold, but understeer almost never rears its head."
"On the road, the Mustang understeered more than the GTO, and the proclivity to tighten the line with the rear end was largely absent. The Mustang will power-oversteer, but it occurs at lower speeds and is short-lived. If drifting is your need, get the Goat."
Nethead continually posts that same comparison, then says the GTO doesn't handle well. It does.
Now, in the interest of full disclosure, that's from a comparison with the Mustang GT, in which the Mustang won, based solely on the "Gotta Have It" factor, which is simply bullshit.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=8406.msg407874#msg407874 date=1175800799
Now, in the interest of full disclosure, that's from a comparison with the Mustang GT, in which the Mustang won, based solely on the "Gotta Have It" factor, which is simply bullshit.?
Agreed. I wish magazines would take the subjective ratings out of their final standings including price. Just tell me which is the better car, I can decide for myself if the price and appearance is worth it.
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 05, 2007, 01:26:11 PM
Agreed. I wish magazines would take the subjective ratings out of their final standings including price. Just tell me which is the better car, I can decide for myself if the price and appearance is worth it.
Yeah, it's like I'm a baby and I need to be told what's good for me. Reviewing has its embedded subjectivity and bias, but trying to quantify it out of 25 is really quite stupid. If you're going to do a point system, you can't weigh subjective ratings that have nothing to do with the driving that highly. The Gotta Have It factor outweighed any single statistic other than fun to drive (which is the most important factor when comparing these types of cars), which was also out of 25 points. Just because the Mustang was new and caught a big wave of quick popularity doesn't mean you should choose it in a comparison if the other car beat it. Because of a 7 point advantage in GHI, it won by one point, meaning that it was the deciding factor. And on top of that, they didn't even mention it in the body of the article.
(http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/112420041122.jpg)
I see one great looking car, and one amazing looking car. Who are they to tell me that I'm wrong because I like the GTO's looks better? I mean, the Mustang is also a very good car (one of the most fun to drive in its class), but the deciding factor should not be looks. You can mention looks in a review, talk about how you personally wouldn't want to drive a single car because of the way it looks, but it is not the reviewer's job to be making value decisions for the reader on something so personal. It would be like me telling you that you have to like Pink Floyd better than Led Zeppelin. It doesn't work that way.
Well, you could go so far as to say no review or comparison should EVER mention looks, as it's irrelevent to competition.
And yet it is. Even if it's subjective. Otherwise the Aztek would have done well, as it was built well, did it's job well, and was priced lower than it's competition.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=8406.msg407890#msg407890 date=1175801795
It would be like me telling you that you have to like Pink Floyd better than Led Zeppelin.
If I was on crack maybe.
Quote(http://www.caranddriver.com/assets/image/112420041122.jpg)
I see one great looking car, and one amazing looking car.? Who are they to tell me that I'm wrong because I like the GTO's looks better?
?
You're definitely on crack. :lol: :ohyeah:
Quote from: ChrisV on April 05, 2007, 01:51:31 PM
Well, you could go so far as to say no review or comparison should EVER mention looks, as it's irrelevent to competition.
And yet it is. Even if it's subjective. Otherwise the Aztek would have done well, as it was built well, did it's job well, and was priced lower than it's competition.
Like I said, there's no way around it. But to weigh it more important than handling or performance or transmission and as much as fun to drive is silly. They have a normal styling category out of 10, so this 25 point GHI factor is not only weighed too highly, but also redundant.
Quote from: ChrisV on April 05, 2007, 01:51:31 PM
Well, you could go so far as to say no review or comparison should EVER mention looks, as it's irrelevent to competition.
And yet it is. Even if it's subjective. Otherwise the Aztek would have done well, as it was built well, did it's job well, and was priced lower than it's competition.
I have no problem with the reviewers comments on the appearance or price of the car, but it should not be factored into the final point tally.
Quote from: Raza on April 05, 2007, 01:56:26 PM
Like I said, there's no way around it. But to weigh it more important than handling or performance or transmission and as much as fun to drive is silly. They have a normal styling category out of 10, so this 25 point GHI factor is not only weighed too highly, but also redundant.
But think about it. The Aztek's poor looks overshadowed everything it did well, and still does, even though people know better. They constantly say they wouldn't be seen in one AND tell others not to be seen in one. No one says, "I wouldn't want to be seen in an Aztek, but they work good so you should check one out."
Looks play more of a factor than fun to drive when both are plenty fun.
Yeah, I know it's subjective, and I'm glad that not all cars look the same. Hell, I'm the first one defending cars against purely subjective judgements. But when saying which was the better car, it's not only about the buyer, but about which was better for the manufacturer to make. And a car with the "gotta have it factor" is more likely to remain around and not get orphaned, Lack of a "gotta have it" factor is a bad thing for a car, even if it IS a good car. Which the GTO most assuredly is.
IMO, i ignore the GHI Factor. It shows what they want, and i usually subrtract that amount of points from both cars and see which one did better.
Quote from: ChrisV on April 05, 2007, 02:04:31 PM
But think about it. The Aztek's poor looks overshadowed everything it did well, and still does, even though people know better. They constantly say they wouldn't be seen in one AND tell others not to be seen in one. No one says, "I wouldn't want to be seen in an Aztek, but they work good so you should check one out."
Looks play more of a factor than fun to drive when both are plenty fun.
Yeah, I know it's subjective, and I'm glad that not all cars look the same. Hell, I'm the first one defending cars against purely subjective judgements. But when saying which was the better car, it's not only about the buyer, but about which was better for the manufacturer to make. And a car with the "gotta have it factor" is more likely to remain around and not get orphaned, Lack of a "gotta have it" factor is a bad thing for a car, even if it IS a good car. Which the GTO most assuredly is.
I definitely see where you're coming from, and I understand it. I guess when it comes to the GTO, I'm a little touchy, since I really love that car, and I've come close to buying it before, and I still regret having to pass up the opportunity. Hopefully, come August 2008, I'll be able to rectify that.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=8406.msg407874#msg407874 date=1175800799
"Yet the GTO pulled 0.88 g on the skidpad, a testament to its fundamental balance and stability. The GTO's handling is really more Deutschland than Detroit. In corners the front end bites hard and the rear tracks dutifully, the understeer staying mostly in the shadows."
"Bend the GTO into a series of corners that require no downshifting, and it's easy to be seduced. Steering is far more communicative than the system in the Mustang; the effort increases as cornering loads increase. Turn the wheel off-center, and the GTO dives into the corner as predictably and voraciously as a goat at an all-you-can-eat tin-can buffet. A bit of body roll accompanies maneuvers near the 0.88-g threshold, but understeer almost never rears its head."
"On the road, the Mustang understeered more than the GTO, and the proclivity to tighten the line with the rear end was largely absent. The Mustang will power-oversteer, but it occurs at lower speeds and is short-lived. If drifting is your need, get the Goat."
Nethead continually posts that same comparison, then says the GTO doesn't handle well.? It does.?
Now, in the interest of full disclosure, that's from a comparison with the Mustang GT, in which the Mustang won, based solely on the "Gotta Have It" factor, which is simply bullshit.?
Raza: Sure, the "Gotta Have It" factor is simply bullshit. OTOH, the "
Don't Gotta Have It" factor killed the GTO for the second time in history, and that
ain't bullshit.
Razdude, it's like this: Pontiac claimed they resurrected the musclecar with the GTO. Dodge claims they, too, resurrected the musclecar with the Charger SRT8. Ford claims they also resurrected the musclecar with the GT500. Even Chevrolet claimed they resurrected the musclecar with the (chuckle) Monte Carlo SS :lol:. All of these musclecar suppliers talk the talk--well,
talked the talk in the case of the two that have been discontinued...
In late June of last year, when the GTO was technically still a production vehicle for a coupla more weeks,
Motor Trend went out to see just which ones could
walk the walk. They didn't bother with the Monte Carlo SS--and neither would you, me, or anyone else in these forums...So they tested the three believable claimants to latter-day musclecars. It is not easy to buy that a four-door that comes only with an automatic has a very credible claim to be a resurrected musclecar, but let the figures tell the story. They did the tests and published the results. I've posted them before, and they're in that July, '06 issue if you suspect that I may have tampered with the figures to shade the results. I read the results and I believe them. You may read them and NOT believe them. I couldn't give a shit either way. I know what the results mean, so I don't really need to argue about them. I do know who
Motor Trend knows can walk the walk
as well as talk the talk. Others do, too...
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=8406.msg407950#msg407950 date=1175804014
Hopefully, come August 2008, I'll be able to rectify that.
Is that when they are supposed to be releasing it or something?
I like the looks of the GTO more than the Mustang myself. It's one of the only domestics that I like.
Well, I do like Pink Floyd better than Led Zeppelin, so obviously we just have different opinions about some things. Let's just leave it at that, ok?
[size=04pt]even though my opinion is more better than yers[/size]
Quote from: LonghornTX on April 05, 2007, 02:30:14 PM
Is that when they are supposed to be releasing it or something?
No, that's when, barring insanity, I'll be looking to pick up a used one.
Based on looks, I like the Mustang better than the GTO.
Based on driving, I like the GTO better.
Quote from: Onslaught on April 05, 2007, 02:35:32 PM
I like the looks of the GTO more than the Mustang myself. It's one of the only domestics that I like.
Except it's not a domestic.
Yes but it's sold by a US manufacture. Not very many cars are true domestics anymore.
Quote from: Onslaught on April 06, 2007, 05:57:28 AM
Yes but it's sold by a US manufacture. Not very many cars are true domestics anymore.
There's a difference between a "true" domestic and a flat out import. The GTO is a "true" import.
But it's made by a GM company. I mean, are Canadian made US brand cars imports in the US?
I don't think there is a true domestic anymore. Even if it's assembled in the US many of the parts come from Canada or Mexico. If it's sold by a US manufacture then it's a Domestic in my books. I like imports more anyway so perhaps that's why I like the GTO.
Quote from: Raza ?link=topic=8406.msg408586#msg408586 date=1175872364
But it's made by a GM company.? I mean, are Canadian made US brand cars imports in the US?
Raza:? What percentage of the faux GTO was built in Australia by Holden and what percentage was built in the US by Pontiac?? ?Your argument is like saying Land Rovers, Jaguars, and Volvos are Fords--and also Aston Martins until just weeks ago.? ?Flawed, flawed reasoning.? Aston Martins weren't Fords, even though Ford builds the Vanquish V12s for Aston Martin somewhere in Michigan.? If Ford had slapped, say, "Thunderbird" emblems on Vanquishes and then imported them--that wouldn't make the Vanquish a domestic Thunderbird any more than slapping "GTO" emblems on an imported Monaro made it a domestic GTO...?
Save Havin a back seat, the 350Z destroys the Mustang in all things. Make ine the 350Z
Quote from: ArchBishop on April 12, 2007, 12:12:40 AM
Save Havin a back seat, the 350Z destroys the Mustang in all things. Make ine the 350Z
If by "destroy" you mean "barely beats it in a couple things", then ok. Stating opinion as an assertion of fact is a bad way to start out.
Quote from: ChrisV on April 12, 2007, 04:28:03 AM
If by "destroy" you mean "barely beats it in a couple things", then ok. Stating opinion as an assertion of fact is a bad way to start out.
...and since we are talking about the Shelby GT, the 350Z may only beat it in ride quality. We will have to wait and see a road test to compare, but I think that with the upgrades to the Shelby suspension and power, it may be better then the 350Z.
Quote from: ArchBishop on April 12, 2007, 12:12:40 AM
Save Havin a back seat, the 350Z destroys the Mustang in all things. Make ine the 350Z
I've never lost to a 350Z in a drag, not once. It's probably a faster track car, but it doesn't "destroy the Mustang in all things".
-FordSVT-
Quote from: FordSVT on April 12, 2007, 07:19:37 AM
I've never lost to a 350Z in a drag, not once. It's probably a faster track car, but it doesn't "destroy the Mustang in all things".
-FordSVT-
And the Mustang is infinitely more fun...
Quote from: ChrisV on April 12, 2007, 04:28:03 AM
If by "destroy" you mean "barely beats it in a couple things", then ok. Stating opinion as an assertion of fact is a bad way to start out.
Well, I could be more like you, and Lash out on those who refuse to take my opinion as fact.
And This is not Barely:
1) 350Z Track - 3:12.52) Evo MR - 3:13.5, 124, 0.94
3) RX-8 - 3:19.0, 116.4, 0.86
4) Cobalt SS - 3:20.6, 117.1, 0.85
5) Mustang GT - 3:20.9, 119.3, 0.886) GTI - 3:25.1, 112.0, 0.82
7) Civic Si - 3:26.5, 111.6, 0.80
8) MX-5 - 3:29.3, 108.6, 0.83
Infact, thats a Lot.
.
Quote from: FordSVT on April 12, 2007, 07:19:37 AM
I've never lost to a 350Z in a drag, not once. It's probably a faster track car, but it doesn't "destroy the Mustang in all things".
-FordSVT-
(http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b394/jdifolco/track.jpg) For those that bitch that The Z isn't quick enough, lets not forget it too got improved for 07
The New 350Z is indeed faster than a Stock GT
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/8908/21st-century-muscle-cars-page3.html
And Notice that the Mustang has a 103mph trap speed compared to the 350Z's 105. Meaning the Z is putting distance on the mustang as Speed increases
It handles better, it stops better, and
I think it looks better.
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 12, 2007, 06:55:10 AM
...and since we are talking about the Shelby GT, the 350Z may only beat it in ride quality. We will have to wait and see a road test to compare, but I think that with the upgrades to the Shelby suspension and power, it may be better then the 350Z.
.
No. Slightly stiffer suspension, and a Tad more power, and I doubt its up to Z caliber still. And Lets not even talk about the Shitty brake System this car is still sporting.
Quote from: Raza on April 12, 2007, 08:33:50 PM
And the Mustang is infinitely more fun...
Who allows you near a Computer?
Quote from: ArchBishop on April 12, 2007, 11:14:18 PM
Well, I could be more like you, and Lash out on those who refuse to take my opinion as fact.
And This is not Barely:
1) 350Z Track - 3:12.5
2) Evo MR - 3:13.5, 124, 0.94
3) RX-8 - 3:19.0, 116.4, 0.86
4) Cobalt SS - 3:20.6, 117.1, 0.85
5) Mustang GT - 3:20.9, 119.3, 0.88
6) GTI - 3:25.1, 112.0, 0.82
7) Civic Si - 3:26.5, 111.6, 0.80
8) MX-5 - 3:29.3, 108.6, 0.83
Infact, thats a Lot.
In fact, you put a TRACK version of the 350 Z up against the considerably cheaper Mustang GT. In THIS comparison, we're taliing about the faster SHELBY GT. IN any rate, the TIRES on the TRACK 350Z are the deciding factor in that comparison. Quit being a magazine racer and actually learn to drive for a change.
I'm so tired of magazine racers. How old are you? 14?
Oh, and 2 mph in trap speed is not DESTRYONG anything, you child. It's BARELY BEATING. And again, you're being a magazine racer.
I just had my first magazine race because it sounded like fun! I didn't know you could do that.? My Playboys went the farthest and fastest on the floor over my car and drivers. Probably because they are slippery. Thanks for the idea ChrisV.
You're welcome. I've never raced Playboys, but I do know the Robb Reports always went pretty far.
Quote from: ArchBishop on April 12, 2007, 12:12:40 AM
Save Havin a back seat, the 350Z destroys the Mustang in all things. Make ine the 350Z
MRZ/barbarian, having divined the workings of the mysterious "Shift" key, decides to start posting on automotive forums again.
Quote from: ChrisV on April 13, 2007, 05:31:03 AM
In fact, you put a TRACK version of the 350 Z up against the considerably cheaper Mustang GT. In THIS comparison, we're taliing about the faster SHELBY GT. IN any rate, the TIRES on the TRACK 350Z are the deciding factor in that comparison. Quit being a magazine racer and actually learn to drive for a change.
I'm so tired of magazine racers. How old are you? 14?
Oh, and 2 mph in trap speed is not DESTRYONG anything, you child. It's BARELY BEATING. And again, you're being a magazine racer.
The Track version of the 350Z also has huge brakes that aren't available on the standard Z. The 350Z Track is substantially more expensive then a Mustang GT.
Quote from: ChrisV on April 13, 2007, 06:27:36 AM
You're welcome. I've never raced Playboys, but I do know the Robb Reports always went pretty far.
I don't think this was a fair comparison--ChrisV had carpeting whereas Onslaught was using a freshly waxed and buffed hardwood floor. And Onslaught was at a lower altitude but in a more humid bedroom. Clearly this was not a level playing floor--ChrisV should be allowed to use The Yellow Pages to make this fair--his higher altitude and carpeting would be offset by the slicker, stiffer-covered phonebook with more mass to offset the drag of the carpeting. Shame on you, Onslaught! Not only that, ChrisV was sliding his Robb Report from North to South whereas the perfidious Onslaught was seeking further advantange by sliding his Playboy from East to West. I vote we suspend Onslaught from viewing the foldouts in his next two issues...Andy, we gotta nip this in the bud!
Quote from: ArchBishop on April 12, 2007, 11:14:18 PM
No. Slightly stiffer suspension, and a Tad more power, and I doubt its up to Z caliber still. And Lets not even talk about the Shitty brake System this car is still sporting.
The suspension on the Shelby GT is hardly "slightly" stiffer. It's 1.5" lower then stock and substantially stiffer. I should know. It's virtually the same suspension system I put on my '96 Mustang GT. Nose dive and body roll were all but eliminated.
Quote from: Nethead on April 13, 2007, 07:20:30 AM
I don't think this was a fair comparison--ChrisV had carpeting whereas Onslaught was using a freshly waxed and buffed hardwood floor. And Onslaught was at a lower altitude but in a more humid bedroom. Clearly this was not a level playing floor--ChrisV should be allowed to use The Yellow Pages to make this fair--his higher altitude and carpeting would be offset by the slicker, stiffer-covered phonebook with more mass to offset the drag of the carpeting. Shame on you, Onslaught! Not only that, ChrisV was sliding his Robb Report from North to South whereas the perfidious Onslaught was seeking further advantange by sliding his Playboy from East to West. I vote we suspend Onslaught from viewing the foldouts in his next two issues...Andy, we gotta nip this in the bud!
I was hoping the lines of magnetic force running north to south were actually helping my magazines go farther and faster, but alas, it was not to be. Damn Onslaught and his cheating ways!
Stock for stock a Mustang GT is quicker than a 350Z in a straight line. All things being equal it will consistantly run a 2-3 tenths quicker in the 1/4. Most of that comes from 0-60, from a highway roll its usually a close call and at speeds from 100-150 the Z usually has the edge.
No, none of this is scientific but its what I've heard from countless streetracing stories on different forums so take it for what it is.
Quote from: JYODER240 on April 13, 2007, 08:01:25 AM
Stock for stock a Mustang GT is quicker than a 350Z in a straight line.? All things being equal it will consistantly run a 2-3 tenths quicker in the 1/4. Most of that comes from 0-60, from a highway roll its usually a close call and at speeds from 100-150 the Z usually has the edge.
No, none of this is scientific but its what I've heard from countless streetracing stories on different forums so take it for what it is.
Forum racing!!! Magazine racing is so....90s.
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 13, 2007, 08:12:15 AM
Forum racing!!!? Magazine racing is so....90s.
exactly! :lol:
Seriously, though that is what tends to be the outcome between the two cars. It's not the most accurate way of comparing the two but i'm just offering what i've heard so take it for what it is.
Quote from: ChrisV on April 13, 2007, 05:31:03 AM
In fact, you put a TRACK version of the 350 Z up against the considerably cheaper Mustang GT. In THIS comparison, we're taliing about the faster SHELBY GT. IN any rate, the TIRES on the TRACK 350Z are the deciding factor in that comparison. Quit being a magazine racer and actually learn to drive for a change.
I'm so tired of magazine racers. How old are you? 14?
Oh, and 2 mph in trap speed is not DESTRYONG anything, you child. It's BARELY BEATING. And again, you're being a magazine racer.
I just put on the same RE050A tires that came on the 350Z Track edition on my RX8... they are good tires, but they are far from being super sticky gumballs like say a Michelin Pilot Sport cup tire, Falken Azen, Yoko AD07, ect ect...
in that test the Stang GT pulled .88 g's on the skid pad while the RX8 pulled .86 g's on the stock RE040 tires which is what the lesser 350Z's came with... from my experience, the the RE050A's might have increased the grip to .88 - .90 with the same suspension setup.
the tires pretty good - have good turn-in feel, are quiet, good wet traction, bet are far from mindblowingly grippy though...
Quote from: ChrisV on April 13, 2007, 07:36:39 AM
I was hoping the lines of magnetic force running north to south were actually helping my magazines go farther and faster, but alas, it was not to be. Damn Onslaught and his cheating ways!
ChrisV: Yeah, Onslaught's a beast--he'll stop at nothing to win. You don't want to know how he slicked up his copy of Playboy, and made his bedroom more humid at the same time...
He must be a NASCAR crew chief.
Quote from: r0tor on April 13, 2007, 08:31:08 AM
I just put on the same RE050A tires that came on the 350Z Track edition on my RX8... they are good tires, but they are far from being super sticky gumballs like say a Michelin Pilot Sport cup tire, Falken Azen, Yoko AD07, ect ect...
in that test the Stang GT pulled .88 g's on the skid pad while the RX8 pulled .86 g's on the stock RE040 tires which is what the lesser 350Z's came with... from my experience, the the RE050A's might have increased the grip to .88 - .90 with the same suspension setup.
the tires pretty good - have good turn-in feel, are quiet, good wet traction, bet are far from mindblowingly grippy though...
Very true, a lot of 350Z owners complain about the stock RE040 tires. Fortunantly I have Pilot Sports on mine.
Quote from: r0tor on April 13, 2007, 08:31:08 AM
I just put on the same RE050A tires that came on the 350Z Track edition on my RX8... they are good tires, but they are far from being super sticky gumballs like say a Michelin Pilot Sport cup tire, Falken Azen, Yoko AD07, ect ect...
the tires pretty good - have good turn-in feel, are quiet, good wet traction, bet are far from mindblowingly grippy though...
Yeah, but compare them to the all seasons the Mustang comes with... it's like night and day.
Other then the door handles, I love the 350Z. But it doesn't "destroy" the Mustang "in all areas" as ArchBishop's opinion states. I have no problem with him liking the Z more. I have a problem with opinion stated as fact when it's mere hyperbole. That sounds like a 14 year old just learning about his favorite cars.
Quote from: ChrisV on April 13, 2007, 09:10:10 AM
Yeah, but compare them to the all seasons the Mustang comes with... it's like night and day.
The stang pulled .88g's on the skidpad... according to Tirerack, the 18" wheel option gives you OEM BFG KDW summer tires. The regular tires are Pirellia PZero Nero Ultra High Performance all-seasons (which are known to be an outstanding all season tire BTW). I'd say the skid pad number shows it was on the very sticky KDW's.
The stang was not under tired at all compared to the 350Z track (or the RX8 that also beat it :lol:)
Quote from: r0tor on April 13, 2007, 09:49:26 AM
The stang pulled .88g's on the skidpad... according to Tirerack, the 18" wheel option gives you OEM BFG KDW summer tires.? The regular tires are Pirellia PZero Nero Ultra High Performance all-seasons (which are known to be an outstanding all season tire BTW).? I'd say the skid pad number shows it was on the very sticky KDW's.
The stang was not under tired at all compared to the 350Z track (or the RX8 that also beat it? :lol:)
Skid pad numbers only tell half the story.
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 13, 2007, 09:53:21 AM
Skid pad numbers only tell half the story.
its enough to show it was on some seriously sticky summer tires...
Quote from: r0tor on April 13, 2007, 09:49:26 AM
The stang pulled .88g's on the skidpad... according to Tirerack, the 18" wheel option gives you OEM BFG KDW summer tires.? The regular tires are Pirellia PZero Nero Ultra High Performance all-seasons (which are known to be an outstanding all season tire BTW).? I'd say the skid pad number shows it was on the very sticky KDW's.
The stang was not under tired at all compared to the 350Z track (or the RX8 that also beat it? :lol:)
If the KDW's were available, then the Mustang probably had them.
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/11755/the-lightning-lap-the-players-page2.html
"The Rules
We asked the people who supplied the cars (all of them unmodified production vehicles) to send the models that are
equipped with all the performance options available ? things like bigger brakes and stiffer suspensions.
"
And they made a big deal about the SRT8 coming on all seasons.
"We are clueless to explain why the SRT8 appeared at our door with all-season tires instead of performance tires.? With the lesser rubber, the Charger understeered like mad and made us acutely aware of each of its 4241 pounds. Its time of 3:18.2 was slowest in its class.
"
I think if the Mustang came with all seasons as well, they probably would have mentioned it.
I don't know why all the Mustang fans keep blaming the tires when C&D explicitly stated why the Mustang was so slow around the track.
"the Ford suffered from
weak brakes and a
floppy chassis. After only two laps, the
brakes started to give ground and the
soft suspension allowed the car to move around too much to go quickly through the high-speed esses of Sector Two. The Cobalt averaged 4.7 mph faster through that part of the track. On the plus side,
cornering grip and balance were decent. With more suspension control, the Mustang would have taken better advantage of these attributes."
Sounds like it had good grip and balance, but the brakes just gave up and the chassis is too floppy.
Clearly we are gonna havta buy a 350Z, a Mustang GT, and eight identical high-performance summer tires and sort this out in a manly manner.?
Fortunately, the Nethead here will magnanimously provide a mailbox for all your contributions to the final resolution of this conflict.? Please, no checks.? The Nethead here reminds you that he is is an Equal Opportunity Donatee, so all cultures, races, creeds, political affiliations, and IQs are cordially invited to contribute.? Every donor of $20.00 or more US--or the equivalent in any other currency--will receive a free "I think I just did something REALLY stupid :cry:" bumper sticker.?
Ladies, please ask for a private consultation with Doctor Nethead here about other opportunities to further serve the cause. :ohyeah:? No fat chicks.
:lol: :lol:
350Z's break in half faster too!
http://www.click2houston.com/news/11693999/detail.html
Quote from: 565 on April 13, 2007, 10:22:12 AM
Sounds like it had good grip and balance, but the brakes just gave up and the chassis is too floppy.
A floppy chassis is most likely really soft suspension. Once you replace the stock springs, shocks, and struts the car feels very stiff and tight. That would say to me that the chassis isn't floppy...the suspension is. I will never argue that point. Stock suspension on a Mustang GT is aimed at a soft comfortable ride, and is not as performance oriented as we enthusiasts would like, which is why the suspension is often the first thing to get replaced by people who mod their Mustangs. It's always been the first thing I do.
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 13, 2007, 03:23:00 PM
A floppy chassis is most likely really soft suspension.? Once you replace the stock springs, shocks, and struts the car feels very stiff and tight.?
as will pretty much any car out there after you change to a stiffer suspension... i don't really understand the "if you change the suspension, it will handle better" arguement - the same can be said of any car? :huh:
Quote from: 565 on April 13, 2007, 10:22:12 AM
If the KDW's were available, then the Mustang probably had them.
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/11755/the-lightning-lap-the-players-page2.html
"The Rules
We asked the people who supplied the cars (all of them unmodified production vehicles) to send the models that are equipped with all the performance options available ? things like bigger brakes and stiffer suspensions.
"
And they made a big deal about the SRT8 coming on all seasons.
"We are clueless to explain why the SRT8 appeared at our door with all-season tires instead of performance tires.? With the lesser rubber, the Charger understeered like mad and made us acutely aware of each of its 4241 pounds. Its time of 3:18.2 was slowest in its class.
"
I think if the Mustang came with all seasons as well, they probably would have mentioned it.
I don't know why all the Mustang fans keep blaming the tires when C&D explicitly stated why the Mustang was so slow around the track.
"the Ford suffered from weak brakes and a floppy chassis. After only two laps, the brakes started to give ground and the soft suspension allowed the car to move around too much to go quickly through the high-speed esses of Sector Two. The Cobalt averaged 4.7 mph faster through that part of the track. On the plus side, cornering grip and balance were decent. With more suspension control, the Mustang would have taken better advantage of these attributes."
Sounds like it had good grip and balance, but the brakes just gave up and the chassis is too floppy.
I think you misinterpreted some of the info you have written here.?
1. The mustang's optional 18 inch fitment uses KDWS tires, not the KDW.? These are all-seasons (albeit high performance ones) where as the 350z is equipped OE with the RE050A, a max performance summer tire.? There is a huge difference in the performance of these two tires (to give you a clue, the KDWS has a wear rating of 400 while the RE050A sports a 140).? This info is all from the tirerack.com website.
2. They made a big deal about the SRT8 not having performance tires because they are a no cost OPTION.? This is even mentioned in the exact same sentence you quoted, except you left it off.? "We are clueless to explain why the SRT8 appeared at our door with all-season tires instead of performance tires,
which are a no-cost option."? The mustang does not have a performance tire option.
3. People don't realize that in addition to better tires, the 350z also has
wider and more low-profile tires.? The 350z track runs 245/40/18 front and 265/35/19 in the rear, on forged rims no less.? The mustang runs 235/50/18 all around, on heavier cast aluminum wheels.? This is in addition to the fact that this mustang was not wearing the FRPP handling pack that the Shelby sports.? This includes matched spring with shocks and struts (lowering 1.5 inches), matched front and rear thicker rollbars with billet links, and a front strut tower brace.? And finally, to the brakes.? They are unfortunately how you portray them, though luckily this is a symptom of the OE pads and not the caliper or sizing of the rotor.? Switch to a better pad, and these brakes would feel and perform a lot better.
So, with the 350z, you are simply paying for a more track ready package at the dealer.? Yes, it performs better, but that is largely because the Mustang GT is hampered with such a non-performance oriented setup from the get go (in addition to being much cheaper).? The S197 is highly capable as a track car when fed the right parts (like the PJ edition).
Quote from: r0tor on April 13, 2007, 04:40:45 PM
as will pretty much any car out there after you change to a stiffer suspension... i don't really understand the "if you change the suspension, it will handle better" arguement - the same can be said of any car? :huh:
Umm. My point is that it's not the chassis as quoted from the article, it's the suspension.
Quote from: ChrisV on April 13, 2007, 05:31:03 AM
In fact, you put a TRACK version of the 350 Z up against the considerably cheaper Mustang GT. In THIS comparison, we're taliing about the faster SHELBY GT. IN any rate, the TIRES on the TRACK 350Z are the deciding factor in that comparison. Quit being a magazine racer and actually learn to drive for a change.
I'm so tired of magazine racers. How old are you? 14?
Oh, and 2 mph in trap speed is not DESTRYONG anything, you child. It's BARELY BEATING. And again, you're being a magazine racer.
What are you talking about? 2 mph, and .2 seconds is good for about a 2 carlenths or more. That was an actual time slip from a STOCK 07 350Z, and was not magizine racing. Again, just becuase you don't agree, doesn't make it not true.
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 13, 2007, 03:23:00 PM
A floppy chassis is most likely really soft suspension.? Once you replace the stock springs, shocks, and struts the car feels very stiff and tight.? That would say to me that the chassis isn't floppy...the suspension is.? I will never argue that point.? Stock suspension on a Mustang GT is aimed at a soft comfortable ride, and is not as performance oriented as we enthusiasts would like, which is why the suspension is often the first thing to get replaced by people who mod their Mustangs.? It's always been the first thing I do.
:rolleyes:
Right, because car and driver can't tell between a Floppy Chassis, and a Floppy suspension.
Quote from: LonghornTX on April 13, 2007, 05:14:52 PM
I think you misinterpreted some of the info you have written here.?
1. The mustang's optional 18 inch fitment uses KDWS tires, not the KDW.? These are all-seasons (albeit high performance ones) where as the 350z is equipped OE with the RE050A, a max performance summer tire.? There is a huge difference in the performance of these two tires (to give you a clue, the KDWS has a wear rating of 400 while the RE050A sports a 140).? This info is all from the tirerack.com website.
2. They made a big deal about the SRT8 not having performance tires because they are a no cost OPTION.? This is even mentioned in the exact same sentence you quoted, except you left it off.? "We are clueless to explain why the SRT8 appeared at our door with all-season tires instead of performance tires, which are a no-cost option."? The mustang does not have a performance tire option.
3. People don't realize that in addition to better tires, the 350z also has wider and more low-profile tires.? The 350z track runs 245/40/18 front and 265/35/19 in the rear, on forged rims no less.? The mustang runs 235/50/18 all around, on heavier cast aluminum wheels.? This is in addition to the fact that this mustang was not wearing the FRPP handling pack that the Shelby sports.? This includes matched spring with shocks and struts (lowering 1.5 inches), matched front and rear thicker rollbars with billet links, and a front strut tower brace.? And finally, to the brakes.? They are unfortunately how you portray them, though luckily this is a symptom of the OE pads and not the caliper or sizing of the rotor.? Switch to a better pad, and these brakes would feel and perform a lot better.
So, with the 350z, you are simply paying for a more track ready package at the dealer.? Yes, it performs better, but that is largely because the Mustang GT is hampered with such a non-performance oriented setup from the get go (in addition to being much cheaper).? The S197 is highly capable as a track car when fed the right parts (like the PJ edition).
Even a Lesser Z without All the added options such as the bigger wheels and track Brakes, would perform very similar to the track. The Currect 07 Z doesn't even come with a Track option, and would more than likely match, or beat the Previous track.
LonghornTX's last posting upstream of this one pretty elegantly states the Mustang case.
?
There are lots of beneficial mods to the Mustang that can greatly increase its acceleration, handling, and braking.? While not cheap, they are exceedingly effective.
But ditto for the 350Z, and just about every other vehicle except perhaps some of the pricey exotics which have the best street-legal parts money can buy.? Don't knock any 350Z variant for coming much closer to track-ready than a Mustang GT--which is a practical two-door designed to please anybody in need of performance and seating for four.? It really is a different market than the market for a 350Z.
BUT, the 350Z out of the box is much nearer its absolute performance capabilities than is a Mustang GT.? The Shelby GT is a definite performance step up from a Mustang GT, almost certainly with a ride and quietness penalty.? But the Shelby GT is not halfway between the performance of a Mustang GT and an FR500GT (probably the maximum performance possible in the current Mustang while still retaining a normally-aspirated engine available from the factory--as opposed to a crate Boss 429 bored and stroked to over 800 cubic inches--and the S197 body/frame in modified stock configuration--there is a racing fuel cell, a roadracing rollcage, and many more seam welds but they are welded to or bolted onto the stock S197 body frame).? The FR500GT is not emissions-compliant, decibel-compliant, and does not have turn signals so it isn't to be construed that I'm making any street-legal comparison.? There is even a custom race shop built tube frame concoction racing in the GT class of the Grand-Am Cup Series, but it's no more a Mustang than John Force's funny car.
Now that I've got the extreme end out of the way, an FR500C is probably the closest vehicle to a maximum Mustang.? It could be smog-certified if they built it with the Ford GT's smog equipment but they don't since there is no profitable volume of demand for a street version--people are sorta attached to upholstery, A/C, heaters, audio gear, and windows in the doors--not to mention seating for more than just the driver.? But a GT500 could be stripped, given the FR500C's pricey multi-adjustable competition shocks, and outrun the FR500C because the GT500 sports an intercooled, supercharged 5.4 V8 instead of a naturally-aspirated 5.0 V8 and has a sixth gear to boot.? But I digress...the Shelby GT is probably one-fourth to one-third of the difference between the Mustang GT and the FR500C, and a GT500 is probably about halfway (with the GT500KR perhaps another five percent closer).
Let's hope there's a side-by-side comparo of a 5-speed manual Shelby GT and the 350Z coupe coming from some mag soon!? It's quite conceivable that this could happen, as the pricing is pretty close even if the two cars aren't aimed at the same buyer's market--else the Mustang would be a two-passenger vehicle at least a foot shorter (and lighter by the metal and upholstery saved therefrom) or the 350Z would be a four-passenger at least a foot longer (and heavier by the metal and upholstery added thereto).
Quote from: ArchBishop on April 14, 2007, 09:25:39 AM
Even a Lesser Z without All the added options such as the bigger wheels and track Brakes, would perform very similar to the track. The Currect 07 Z doesn't even come with a Track option, and would more than likely match, or beat the Previous track.
It is unlikely that a lesser model without the better brakes and bigger tires would perform the same :rolleyes:. True, there is not longer a track model, but most of the frills from that package have been transferred to the grand touring package (I believe that is the name, whatever it is, the most expensive model).
Quote from: LonghornTX on April 14, 2007, 02:27:43 PM
It is unlikely that a lesser model without the better brakes and bigger tires would perform the same? :rolleyes:.? True, there is not longer a track model, but most of the frills from that package have been transferred to the grand touring package (I believe that is the name, whatever it is, the most expensive model).
How do you figure?
The brake on the Non Brembo Version are about as big, though do lack the multi Piston caliper, and all Z's use the same type of tire, though. We are not talking about the mustangs Crappy brakes here.
STD
FR: 225/45R18 91W
RR: 245/45R18 96W
GT
FR: 245/40R18 93W
RR: 265/40R19 94W
Though my understanding is the current 18's are pretty light. Ither way, I'm not saying it would be faster, but it would be crazy to think it would be that much slower..if at all.
For the record, the 350Z out of the box is at a much higher level of track readiness than is America's number one affordable performance car. The utility of the Mustang's approach is reflected by the higher sales of the Mustang, but it's far more things to far more people than the more sharply-focused intent of the 350Z.
OTOH, the 350Z is much closer to its development limit than is the Mustang. Let's avoid tube-framed race-shop-built one-offs that have shells that resemble the stock bodywork from up in the stands--those aren't Mustangs and they aren't 350Zs. You don't own one, I don't own one, and we ain't ever gonna have either out in our driveways...
Let's stick to the limits obtainable with the stock body/frame. Those limits are tested a dozen or so times per year in the Grand American Cup Road Racing Series, in which both Mustangs and 350Zs compete in the same Grand Sport class. Since the Mustangs have 5.0 liter 'Cammer V8s, they must carry lead plates bolted to the front passenger floorboard sufficient to increase their weight without the driver to 3225 pounds. The 350Zs have 3.5 liter V6s so they are allowed to race at 2900 pounds without the driver. The next race will be this coming Sunday afternoon at Homestead-Miami Speedway. Qualifying was this afternoon, and Canada's sensuous Valerie Limoges :ohyeah: (The WifeDude :wub: and the Nethead here talked momentarily with Valerie at Daytona about fifteen months ago) took the pole in a Mustang. Other Mustangs qualified second, fourth, fifth, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twenty-second, twenty-fourth, twenty-sixth, and thirty-second. Less than two seconds separated the lap times of those nine Mustangs in the top twenty, and the other four Mustangs were within two seconds of the lap time of the last of those nine Mustangs in the top twenty. The highest placed 350Z qualified thirty-sixth, a little over seven seconds behind the Mustang that qualified thirty-second.
That 350Z specs are (per the Koni Challenge Regulation book):
"287 HP Track option model allowed. Tire size: 245/40/17 front, 275/40/17 rear. NISMO Aero package #G2010-RNZ30 allowed. Exhaust headers allowed. Allowed fabricated front upper control arm with sliding ball joint mount for camber adjustment (because the cars are lowered to 3.5" ground clearance). Allowed 7.5 inch lightweight clutch/flywheel assembly. Allowed NISMO cam kit part #99996-RSKK. Aftermarket front caliper upgrade as per rules. May use aftermarket ECU."
This sounds like a pretty healthy 350Z to the Nethead here, especially at a weight of 2900 pounds and a final drive ratio of 3.53:1 (the Mustangs are required to use 3.55:1)
So this should show that there is a LOT of untapped performance potential in that live-axled Mustang because it comes quite mildly set up for under $26,000. If you can sacrifice some ride quality, you can turn some fast, fast laps. Even chicks are gettin' poles :huh:!
Nethead, the Mustang sucks, the 350Z owns it. How hard is it for you to get that?
Quote from: ro51092 on April 14, 2007, 08:56:18 PM
Nethead, the Mustang sucks, the 350Z owns it. How hard is it for you to get that?
ro51092: roDude, where's the proof? It'll be
REALLY hard for you to get that...
Damn, I wanted you to write a book. I was joking. :lol:
Quote from: ro51092 on April 14, 2007, 09:54:30 PM
Damn, I wanted you to write a book. I was joking.? :lol:
You want a book?
Hey Netdude: prove that the Mustang is better than the 350Z.
:lol:
Quote from: ro51092 on April 14, 2007, 09:54:30 PM
Damn, I wanted you to write a book. I was joking.? :lol:
ro51092:? Dude!? I wasn't!? :cheers:
Quote from: JYODER240 on April 14, 2007, 10:03:23 PM
You want a book?
Hey Netdude: prove that the Mustang is better than the 350Z.
I have a date with one luscious chick. You have a date with three of them. One of your dates gets into your 350Z, so the other two luscious chicks come over to ride with me and my luscious chick in the Mustang.
I win.Any questions?
:lol:
Quote from: ArchBishop on April 14, 2007, 09:19:12 AM
:rolleyes:
Right, because car and driver can't tell between a Floppy Chassis, and a Floppy suspension.
Yeah, that's basically what I'm saying. I have been modifying Mustangs for 10 years and I am telling you the chassis on the new Mustang isn't the problem...it's the suspension. The previous Mustangs all had suspension AND chassis issues. They all required subframe connectors, transmission tunnel reinforcement, strut tower bracing, and suspension mods in order to handle well. For great hanling they requied a full Kenny Brown suspension replacement. The new Mustang needs springs and maybe shocks and struts for really good handling. For truly great handling you can throw in an aftermarket panhard bar or Watts link and a strut tower brace. That's it.
Quote from: Nethead on April 14, 2007, 08:54:02 PM
For the record, the 350Z out of the box is at a much higher level of track readiness than is America's number one affordable performance car.? The utility of the Mustang's approach is reflected by the higher sales of the Mustang, but it's far more things to far more people than the more sharply-focused intent of the 350Z.
OTOH, the 350Z is much closer to its development limit than is the Mustang.? Let's avoid tube-framed race-shop-built one-offs that have shells that resemble the stock bodywork from up in the stands--those aren't Mustangs and they aren't 350Zs.? You don't own one, I don't own one, and we ain't ever gonna have either out in our driveways...?
Let's stick to the limits obtainable with the stock body/frame.? Those limits are tested a dozen or so times per year in the Grand American Cup Road Racing Series, in which both Mustangs and 350Zs compete in the same Grand Sport class.? Since the Mustangs have 5.0 liter 'Cammer V8s, they must carry lead plates bolted to the front passenger floorboard sufficient to increase their weight without the driver to 3225 pounds.? The 350Zs have 3.5 liter V6s so they are allowed to race at 2900 pounds without the driver.? The next race will be this coming Sunday afternoon at Homestead-Miami Speedway.? Qualifying was this afternoon, and Canada's sensuous Valerie Limoges :ohyeah: (The WifeDude :wub: and the Nethead here talked momentarily with Valerie at Daytona about fifteen months ago) took the pole in a Mustang.? Other Mustangs qualified second, fourth, fifth, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twenty-second, twenty-fourth, twenty-sixth, and thirty-second.? Less than two seconds separated the lap times of those nine Mustangs in the top twenty, and the other four Mustangs were within two seconds of the lap time of the last of those nine Mustangs in the top twenty.? The highest placed 350Z qualified thirty-sixth, a little over seven seconds behind the Mustang that qualified thirty-second.
That 350Z specs are (per the Koni Challenge Regulation book):
"287 HP Track option model allowed.? Tire size: 245/40/17 front, 275/40/17 rear. NISMO Aero package #G2010-RNZ30 allowed. Exhaust headers allowed.? Allowed fabricated front upper control arm with sliding ball joint mount for camber adjustment (because the cars are lowered to 3.5" ground clearance).? Allowed 7.5 inch lightweight clutch/flywheel assembly.? Allowed NISMO cam kit part #99996-RSKK.? Aftermarket front caliper upgrade as per rules.? May use aftermarket ECU."
This sounds like a pretty healthy 350Z to the Nethead here, especially at a weight of 2900 pounds and a final drive ratio of 3.53:1 (the Mustangs are required to use 3.55:1)
So this should show that there is a LOT of untapped performance potential in that live-axled Mustang because it comes quite mildly set up for under $26,000.? If you can sacrifice some ride quality, you can turn some fast, fast laps.? Even chicks are gettin' poles :huh:!
And What does a race spec mustang, with a Bigger motor, have to do with the Shitty stock mustang? Not to mention the Z is running the Pre-Rev up Motor, with bolts ons (about 260whp)
What is the Mustang allowed? And the fact that it was stripped so heavily, and had to use ballast to get to the weight limit says that it was allowed a lot more leway than the Z. Furthermore, the ablity to have ballast means it can put them anywere they want for better Weight distribution...
I Just read through the rules, and the Z is allowed:
Cams
Ecu
Clutch/Flywheel
Front Caliper Upgrade
Nismo Areo kit
Header/Exhaust
Camber Adjustment
SMALLER Wheels (245/40/17 X 275/40/17)
The Mustang is allowed:
Bigger wheels (275/35/18 )
New 5.0 motor with at least 420hp
new Transmission
Driveshaft
Brake upgrade
Front and Rear Suspension Mod
Different ABS system
Steeda "Areo kit"
Chassis Stiffening...(?)
And Fuel cell Behind the rear Axel (bador good?)
Gee....I wonder who is getting the short end of the stick.
Who let Barbarian / MrZ join?
EDIT: Oh wait. I apologize. Your spelling and grammar far exceed Barbarian / MrZ's.
Quote from: HEMI666 on April 16, 2007, 07:50:25 AM
Who let Barbarian / MrZ join?
EDIT: Oh wait. I apologize. Your spelling and grammar far exceed Barbarian / MrZ's.
Well, he WOULD be a couple of grades higher by now. And I was on to him back on page 7. :praise:
Quote from: ArchBishop on April 15, 2007, 10:28:33 PM
I Just read through the rules, and the Z is allowed:
Cams
Ecu
Clutch/Flywheel
Front Caliper Upgrade
Nismo Areo kit
Header/Exhaust
Camber Adjustment
SMALLER Wheels (245/40/17 X 275/40/17)
The Mustang is allowed:
Bigger wheels (275/35/18 )
New 5.0 motor with at least 420hp
new Transmission
Driveshaft
Brake upgrade
Front and Rear Suspension Mod
Different ABS system
Steeda "Areo kit"
Chassis Stiffening...(?)
And Fuel cell Behind the rear Axel (bador good?)
Gee....I wonder who is getting the short end of the stick.
ArchBishop: ArchDude, people will always argue fairness in the rules when their favorites don't win. That's the one given in automobile racing.
The Nethead here has carefully watched this series since late 2004, as it is the true heir to the now defunct SCCA Trans-Am series (once upon a time, this was the greatest racing series in America).
The Mustang's 5.0 'Cammer is the only engine allowed in '05 or newer Mustangs in the GS class--the 4.6 3-valver is illegal in any year Mustang in this class. The stock Mustang fuel tank location, forward of the rear axle beneath the rear seats, was required to be moved to the trunk because the officials considered it to be too much of a handling advantage--the weight of the fuel mounted low in the car, and no COG shift as the fuel was used up. The rules don't allow Mustangs any cams outside of a street grind, no recalibration of the chip, no aftermarket chips, no equal-length tube headers (they race with unequal-length street "shorties"), and no X-pipe (but a less potent H-pipe is allowed).
Every car in the series is allowed a front brake upgrade. The only chassis stiffening allowed is additional welding of the seams and the required roadracing rollcage, but no suspension parts may be attached to the rollcage. Every car is allowed to pick the shocks they will use (they can't be adjustables that can be adjusted by the driver while racing), with heavy preference given to Koni shocks (a series sponsor). Some of the Mustangs (maybe all of them) are now using Konis to show support for the sponsor. Every car is allowed to use suspension pieces that can accommodate the 3.5" minimum ride height and the series-required Hoosier racing tires. The rules do not allow the Mustangs to use the Tremec 6060 six-speed--Tremec's best six-speed manual--even though the only cars on Earth equipped with the 6060s are Shelby GT500s. Because Steeda is a series sponsor, Mustangs are allowed to use Steeda wings, hoods, and adjustable Panhard bars. To my knowledge, no Mustang racer uses the wings (the roofline and the slope of the Mustang's rear fenders generate plenty of downforce without having to use a drag-generating wing--Steeda's or Ford's or anyone else's), no Mustang racer uses the Steeda hood (all Mustangs come with aluminum hoods, and the T50 5.0 V8 fits underneath the hood without a hood bulge being necessary), and no Mustang racer uses the Steeda adjustable Panhard bar (the one Ford supplies on the FR500Cs have been just fine--although the Steeda Panhard bars might be used if future rules changes allow much more horsepower in the engines or tubbing of the rear wheelwells). For racing safety, any car using multi-piece driveshafts are allowed (or possibly required) to use one-piece driveshafts. 18" wheels are options on all V8 Mustangs, and possibly optional on all V6 Mustangs as well. The ones usually used on the FR500C are racing units supplied by Fikse, which have a safety feature in the rims that is required in many racing series (such as NASCAR), although the Nethead here does not know if that feature is required for the Grand-Am Cup GS-class racecars. And of course the FR500C--which weighs 3050 pounds without the mufflers (not required until mid-season 2005)--is required to carry lead plates in the front passenger floorboard sufficient to increase its weight to a minimum of 3225 pounds, making it the heaviest competitor in the series. Restrictor plates had never been required on engines less than 5.1 liters until they were mandated on Mustangs for the 2006 season and beyond.
And what can the officials do about the ABS system? No one ever used ABS until the Mustangs kicked serious ass in the pouring rain at VIR in 2005--passing on the inside, the outside, or up the middle with ease. After that, everybody wanted ABS. Ford offers two versions on the Mustang FR500C, and the difference may be whether your wheels incorporate toner rings or not. You'll have to research that one. The rules only specify what diameter and width wheels you may run, but mentions nothing about toner rings incorporated into the wheels.
All in all, the biggest advantage the Mustangs have over the competing makes is that you can buy one complete and ready to race--the others have to be built by you or someone with the equipment and knowledge to build one to the stated specs. Or you can buy the parts for around $76,000 in crates, build it yourself, and save nearly $50,000. Thirteen Mustangs were entered in yesterday's race, and five different drivers in those Mustangs lead the race at some point (the sensuous Canadian Valerie Limoges led the most laps--thirty-five--but not the lap that counts the most).
The 350Z is allowed to race at a lighter weight (2900 pounds) than any other competing vehicle except for the BMW Z4 M (also 2900 pounds), and it has the size/wheelbase/frontal area advantage a two-passenger vehicle will have over a four-passenger vehicle if all other factors are equal. Your complaints about the Mustang's supposedly unfair advantages over the 350Z ring hollow when all the other competing makes typically finish ahead of the 350Zs, too--but to be fair it is usually a reliability issue more than a speed issue. Yesterday's race was more of an exception, since the fastest race lap by the Corso/Huerta 350Z (1:32.998) was over four seconds slower than the fastest Mustang's, the fastest Porsche's, the fastest BMW's, and even over a second slower than the fastest GTO's. It was also over a second slower than the Mustang with the slowest fastest lap speed (1:31.630) of the thirteen Mustangs in the race. Typically, the 350Zs are much more competitive than that and frequently have the lead at some point (such as at this year's season opener at Daytona).
So who gets the short end of the stick? Even the Nethead here's debating eloquence cannot argue that Mustangs are getting the short end of the stick--they've won the two races this year, taking the poles both times, and put five in the top ten and ten in the top twenty. That ain't the short end, for sure...
But that's one of the reasons I like Mustangs--their stick doesn't have a short end.
Everyone bitching and whining when their favourite car doesn't win is why NASCAR is what it is...and NASCAR sucks.
Quote from: ArchBishop on April 15, 2007, 10:03:50 PM
And What does a race spec mustang, with a Bigger motor, have to do with the Shitty stock mustang? Not to mention the Z is running the Pre-Rev up Motor, with bolts ons (about 260whp)
What is the Mustang allowed? And the fact that it was stripped so heavily, and had to use ballast to get to the weight limit says that it was allowed a lot more leway than the Z. Furthermore, the ablity to have ballast means it can put them anywere they want for better Weight distribution...
ArchBishop: Where do I begin the corrections, ArchDude? The Mustang has to carry penalty weight to raise it to 3225 pounds, because of being so much faster than everything else on the track. That's also why it's the only car with an engine size less than 5.1 liters that has to race with restrictor plates. And why it isn't allowed to use equal-length tube headers, or an X-pipe. And why it has to run with a 3.55:1 final drive ratio. All of these restrictions, and more, are GARRA's way of trying to equalize the competition. And all the lead plates have to be carried in a series-mandated metal box bolted to the front passenger seat floorboard--no other location is allowed. You really would benefit from reading the regulations that are online at grandamerican.com--especially if you're about to post in a thread where the others have read and understood the series rules.
I suppose you'll be posting next that a 350Z sitting in the dealership's showroom weighs 2900 pounds...
For an ArchBishop, you are exceedingly uninformed...others may be less charitable than the Nethead here...
I sense a trial coming on. Excommunication!
Quote from: omicron on April 16, 2007, 12:27:37 PM
I sense a trial coming on. Excommunication!
omicron: Patience, My lad, Patience...It's uninformed ranters like ArchBishop that make Us appear to be sages--and the crasser they become, the greater seems Our knowledge and wisdom...[Genuflects.]?
Amen.
Quote from: ArchBishop on April 14, 2007, 02:59:31 PM
How do you figure?
The brake on the Non Brembo Version are about as big, though do lack the multi Piston caliper, and all Z's use the same type of tire, though. We are not talking about the mustangs Crappy brakes here.
STD
FR: 225/45R18 91W
RR: 245/45R18 96W
GT
FR: 245/40R18 93W
RR: 265/40R19 94W
Though my understanding is the current 18's are pretty light. Ither way, I'm not saying it would be faster, but it would be crazy to think it would be that much slower..if at all.
For someone so intent on argueing a point, you sure do not know do your research.
1. All of the Zs do NOT use the same tire. Those with the upgraded forged wheels use the RE050A while the standard setup uses Pilot Sports or the RE040. The increased width (F&R) will generate more mechanical grip, while the shorter sidewalls will give better steering response.
2. Are you really trying to tell me that there is no discernable difference between the Brembo upgrade and the standard package? Not only are the rotors of larger diameter (both F&R), they are also wider as well (better for heat dissapation). In addition they use stiffer, 4-piston calipers on the front, replacing the stock 2-piston (IIRC, JYODER can probably correct me here) setup and replace the rear single piston setup (again, this is from memory and quick research does not yield an answer) with a 2-piston setup. I would say that is a pretty significant upgrade myself, even if the rear uses a 2-piston setup.
The upgraded tires (both in quality and sizing), lighter forged wheels, and braking package yields a much more track ready package in the GT model than in lesser models. If you do not think those will yield a discernable difference on an open track, well, I would say you do not really know what you are talking about.
The Brembo brakes actually don't really perform any better than the non-Brembos. They operate at lower temperatures, so in prolonged hard use they may not fade quite as quickly, but stopping distances are only marginally better.
Here's a brake test using a Brembo-equipped 350Z Track and a non-Brembo 350Z "Performance". Both cars equipped with the same tires.
http://www.zeckhausen.com/testing_brakes.htm
350Z Track average braking distance
60-0: 117.3 ft
80-0: 208.7 ft
100-0: 328.3 ft
350Z Performance avg braking distance
60-0: 118.0 ft
80-0: 210.5 ft
100-0: 333.6 ft
Quote from: MX793 on April 16, 2007, 05:16:32 PM
The Brembo brakes actually don't really perform any better than the non-Brembos.? They operate at lower temperatures, so in prolonged hard use they may not fade quite as quickly, but stopping distances are only marginally better.
Here's a brake test using a Brembo-equipped 350Z Track and a non-Brembo 350Z "Performance".? Both cars equipped with the same tires.
http://www.zeckhausen.com/testing_brakes.htm
350Z Track average braking distance
60-0:? 117.3 ft
80-0:? 208.7 ft
100-0:? 328.3 ft
350Z Performance avg braking distance
60-0:? 118.0 ft
80-0:? 210.5 ft
100-0:? 333.6 ft
That is interesting, but really that website only confirms what I was thinking. For the first lap or two (or in this case couple stops), the two braking systems would perform almost identically because of the similar rotor sizes but after that the Brembo system would hold the advantage becaue of the better cooling characteristics of the system.
Some quotes about the non-brembo setup:
"After six stops from 80mph, and then four stops from 100 mph, the front rotors reached 804 ?F and the stopping distances began to increase as fade set in."
And now, in comparison to the brembo setup:
"The Brembo brakes didn't seem to make a significant difference on stopping performance until the cars started doing repeated 100mph stops, at which point the increased thermal capacity of the bigger rotors kept brake fade at bay, while the Performance model with smaller brakes began to experience fade."
Essentially, the Brembo setup is a more worthy "trackable" option because over the course of any kind of open course session they would resist fade much better than the non-brembo option (look at those operating temps :mask:). One thing I did notice is that the brembo car was equipped with the same size tires as the non-brembo car, thus making this not a true comparison of the two cars respective performances as per factory specs.
Quote from: ArchBishop on April 15, 2007, 10:28:33 PM
I Just read through the rules, and the Z is allowed:
Cams
Ecu
Clutch/Flywheel
Front Caliper Upgrade
Nismo Areo kit
Header/Exhaust
Camber Adjustment
SMALLER Wheels (245/40/17 X 275/40/17)
The Mustang is allowed:
Bigger wheels (275/35/18 )
New 5.0 motor with at least 420hp
new Transmission
Driveshaft
Brake upgrade
Front and Rear Suspension Mod
Different ABS system
Steeda "Areo kit"
Chassis Stiffening...(?)
And Fuel cell Behind the rear Axel (bador good?)
Gee....I wonder who is getting the short end of the stick.
Again. Every Z is running the Pre-Rev up VQ motor. The Rev up motor has a Higher redline, better internals, and More power. A 287 350Z will dyno in the 235-245hp range(and that is considered good). A Rev up will dyno in the 250-260hp range. Stock.
(http://www.swiftmotorsports.com/images/350Z_JWT_CAMS_DYNO.jpg)
A Stock 287 Vq with camsAgain, even with every mod listed, your looking around 260-270hp to the wheels or about 320bhp. and 2900lbs. Further more, the Z isn't allowed to run With 18 inch wheels, and is restricted to the 17's. And the Z doesn't have the option of using a different ABS program.
For comparison, the Cammer motor is good for 420hp, and lets say air restrictors drop output to around 390hp, it gets the same 3.55 gearset the Z gets (though, I don't think that is available on a production mustang) meaning it can multiply its output just as effectively as a Z does.
All cars are required to run Koni Struts, and get to modify camber for lowering 3.5inches, but the mustang Actually gets redesigned front and rear supsension components, while the Z runs on Fairly unmodified suspension geometry.
And even with that all said is the mustang, at an estimated 390 Crank Hp, and 3200lbs, STILL will have a better lb/hp over the Z. And I'm being optimistic about the Z's power figures.
And this agian, moves further from the subject that the stock Mustang is a Turd, and isn't even a match for the Z.
Quote from: LonghornTX on April 16, 2007, 02:03:43 PM
For someone so intent on argueing a point, you sure do not know do your research.
1.? All of the Zs do NOT use the same tire.? Those with the upgraded forged wheels use the RE050A while the standard setup uses Pilot Sports or the RE040.? The increased width (F&R) will generate more mechanical grip, while the shorter sidewalls will give better steering response.
2.? Are you really trying to tell me that there is no discernable difference between the Brembo upgrade and the standard package?? Not only are the rotors of larger diameter (both F&R), they are also wider as well (better for heat dissapation).? In addition they use stiffer, 4-piston calipers on the front, replacing the stock 2-piston (IIRC, JYODER can probably correct me here) setup and replace the rear single piston setup (again, this is from memory and quick research does not yield an answer) with a 2-piston setup.? I would say that is a pretty significant upgrade myself, even if the rear uses a 2-piston setup.
The upgraded tires (both in quality and sizing), lighter forged wheels, and braking package yields a much more track ready package in the GT model than in lesser models.? If you do not think those will yield a discernable difference on an open track, well, I would say you do not really know what you are talking about.?
All 2007 350Z's get the RE50 tires.
http://nissannews.com
And as MX pointed out, the stopping distances between the Brembos, and the Regular brakes are similar, with the slight difference maybe due to the bigger front tires (added grip).
Nice try. And I'm Trying to find the Wieght of all the Z wheels with no Success.
Quote from: ArchBishop on April 16, 2007, 06:06:56 PM
All 2007 350Z's get the RE50 tires.
http://nissannews.com
And as MX pointed out, the stopping distances between the Brembos, and the Regular brakes are similar, with the slight difference maybe due to the bigger front tires (added grip).
Nice try. And I'm Trying to find the Wieght of all the Z wheels with no Success.
You are right about the tires.? I took my info from tirerack.com, so I guess they must have their info wrong as it does indeed list the RE050As for all Zs on the nissan website.
Yes, the stopping distances in that test were similar for the two packages, but as the brakes started to heat up the Brembos resisted fading while the stock brakes faded.? Thus, in any kind of track environment (and not single passes where the car is stopped completely to measure the temp), short of autocross, the Z equipped with the Brembos will indeed perform better.? Anything over 3 laps on any track of decent length and the Brembo car is going to really show a performance increase.? Infact, in the opinion of the testers, "I don't think the Performance model will stand up to any serious track use unless the brakes are upgraded."? The same was not said of the Brembos.
Also, if you had read my post (or the link that MX posted), you would see that the two cars in the this test were equipped with the same size, brand, and style of tire (I believe they were RE040s), thus negating the positive benefits on braking distances that the GT would normally enjoy.? From the website,
"All the tests (except the 4-wheel brake upgrade) were to be conducted using the same tire make and model in the same size and on the same size wheels."
So, not only does the Brembo equipped car stop slightly shorter (without the above mentioned tire benefit), but it also has much better heat management properties.? This, in addition to the wider tires it employs, easily makes the GT the most track oriented model of the Z range. It also has a lowed Cd and better downforce (from what I hear), but we will leave that out of this discussion.
Quote from: ArchBishop on April 16, 2007, 06:06:56 PM
All 2007 350Z's get the RE50 tires.
http://nissannews.com
And as MX pointed out, the stopping distances between the Brembos, and the Regular brakes are similar, with the slight difference maybe due to the bigger front tires (added grip).
Nice try. And I'm Trying to find the Wieght of all the Z wheels with no Success.
Here is a link for 03-05 non-35th wheel weight:
http://www.350zmotoring.com/modules.php?s=&mop=modload&file=index&name=Wheels
I don't know what the 35th, 06 and 07 wheels weigh.
Quote from: ArchBishop on April 16, 2007, 05:43:12 PM
Again. Every Z is running the Pre-Rev up VQ motor. The Rev up motor has a Higher redline, better internals, and More power. A 287 350Z will dyno in the 235-245hp range(and that is considered good). A Rev up will dyno in the 250-260hp range. Stock.
(http://www.swiftmotorsports.com/images/350Z_JWT_CAMS_DYNO.jpg) A Stock 287 Vq with cams
Again, even with every mod listed, your looking around 260-270hp to the wheels or about 320bhp. and 2900lbs. Further more, the Z isn't allowed to run With 18 inch wheels, and is restricted to the 17's. And the Z doesn't have the option of using a different ABS program.
For comparison, the Cammer motor is good for 420hp, and lets say air restrictors drop output to around 390hp, it gets the same 3.55 gearset the Z gets (though, I don't think that is available on a production mustang) meaning it can multiply its output just as effectively as a Z does.
All cars are required to run Koni Struts, and get to modify camber for lowering 3.5inches, but the mustang Actually gets redesigned front and rear supsension components, while the Z runs on Fairly unmodified suspension geometry.
And even with that all said is the mustang, at an estimated 390 Crank Hp, and 3200lbs, STILL will have a better lb/hp over the Z. And I'm being optimistic about the Z's power figures.
And this agian, moves further from the subject that the stock Mustang is a Turd, and isn't even a match for the Z.
ArchBishop: Actually, ArchDude, there is some worthwhile stuff in this posting of yours. I knew you could do it even if others had given up all hope!
About wheel sizes: There is a Grand American Cup certification procedure similar to homologation in Europe. Whomever it was that got 350Zs certified--some racing team (or teams) since Nissan wasn't interested--chose to use the 17" wheels for certification, probably because they performed better than had been their experience with 18" wheels. You may correct the Nethead here if you find evidence which shows that whomever certified the 350Z asked to have 18" wheels approved but the officials refused. A 17" wheel and tire saves unsprung weight, and also will require less of the engine's power to spin at the same RPM as an 18" wheel and tire. It's a trade off since one turn of an 18" wheel and tire produces more forward distance than does one turn of a 17" wheel and tire. If it's an issue for you, investigate it!
Ford and Multimatic went with 18" wheels and tires from day one because the T50 had the power to accelerate those 18-inchers plenty fast and to wind them on up to redline in fifth gear.
ABS: The Mustang has two choices--and I believe it's because some performance wheels have an integral toner ring and some performance wheels do not. If you want to use ABS at all (not mandatory), you select the ABS that works with the wheels you'll be using--Mustang FR500Cs come with Fikses, but those moving up from earlier model Mustangs probably want to use as much of the hardware they can from their previous Mustangs, and there were teams that did just that. Some teams are lucky enough to have wheel manufacturer sponsorships so you know whose wheels they will insist upon using. If that's the case, Ford can probably accommodate your wheels with one or the other of the ABS components. This saves you having to invest in more sets of wheels--Fikses were $4,000 for a set of four back in '05, and you'll need two sets at the very minimum so you'll have a tire already on a wheel if you have one starting to lose air during the race. It's also helpful to have a set dedicated to rain tires, too. This is just sensible thinking about the little guy in racing, y' know? Save 'em money any way you legally can.
3.55:1 rear end ratios: This is a punitive ratio, but barely...Back in '05 they required that the Mustangs switch from something like 3.31:1 to cut their awesome top speed--so the officials mandated something like 4.10:1. The top speed did indeed go down, but then they could accelerate like afterburners off the corners and continued winning because they were still the vehicles with the highest top speed on long straights (the advantages of DOHCs coming through here). The officials then mandated something in the mid 3s, although the Nethead here cannot tell you if it was 3.55:1 at first like it is today. It's meant to be very punitive, but with the power of the T50 there's still plenty of top end and still plenty of acceleration. If I get motivated, I may see if I can find what rear end ratio the FR500Cs were equipped with originally--which may be what was found to be the best ratio for balanced performance in the car as certified.
Stock Mustangs: The cheapest and best 300 HP available in America, period. On regular unleaded. And they're great! They also are practical enough to live with for many years--that fold-down back seat yields a lot of cargo capacity in a small two-door coupe. Mustang has more repeat buyers than any car model sold in America--domestic or foreign. One-touch windows, remote side mirrors, 500 amp and 1000 amp sound systems, and the largest aftermarket in the history of the Earth--not to mention at least twenty-four companies turning out tuner versions with horsepower ranging from a little above stock to a twin-turbo 900 HP--even
Germany has a 180 MPH tuner version with 520 HP! And every Ford engine fits without sledgehammering the wheelwells or Sawzalling the firewall--even the Aston Martin Vanquish V12 snuggles nicely in the engine bay with plenty of wheelwell clearance for headers (a blessing of a sixty-degree engine). And splendid resale when you've had your fun and want to trade for another. Where else can you get 500 HP and 480 feet pounds of torque for $40,930?
Just accept that facts nethead. 350Z>mustang. Forever. :lol:
Quote from: JYODER240 on April 16, 2007, 08:06:57 PM
Here is a link for 03-05 non-35th wheel weight:
http://www.350zmotoring.com/modules.php?s=&mop=modload&file=index&name=Wheels
I don't know what the 35th, 06 and 07 wheels weigh.
Found them
http://240sx-tech.com/zwiki/Wheel_Specifications
Wheel Version? Front Weight? Rear Weight?
Standard 17"? 23.26? 24.14? lbs
Touring 18" v.1? 26.56? 26.56? lbs
Track 18" v.1? 18.19? 18.62? lbs
Touring 18" v.2? 24.8? 25.8? lbs
Track 18/19" v.2? 21.25? 29.50? lbs
So the new Track rims are 18/19, and the rears are the heaviest 350Z rims of all (due to size), while the front ones are slightly lighter than standard.? Still the first generation track rims are the lightest of all, by more than 10 pounds in the case of the rears.
In terms of total weight there is actually disadvantage to the 18/19 track rims compared to base or touring rim, so there goes that theory.
And just to troll.
02' Z06 spun cast rims
http://www.superhonda.com/tech/wheel_weights.html
Chevrolet Corvette Z06 02 Cast/Spun 17x9.5 19.2 lbs (front)
Chevrolet Corvette Z06 02 Cast/Spun 18x10.5 21.0 lbs (rear)
Quote from: 565 on April 16, 2007, 09:18:26 PM
Found them
http://240sx-tech.com/zwiki/Wheel_Specifications
Wheel Version Front Weight Rear Weight
Standard 17" 23.26 24.14 lbs
Touring 18" v.1 26.56 26.56 lbs
Track 18" v.1 18.19 18.62 lbs
Touring 18" v.2 24.8 25.8 lbs
Track 18/19" v.2 21.25 29.50 lbs
So the new Track rims are 18/19, and the rears are the heaviest 350Z rims of all (due to size), while the front ones are slightly lighter than standard. Still the first generation track rims are the lightest of all, by more than 10 pounds in the case of the rears.
In terms of total weight there is actually disadvantage to the 18/19 track rims compared to base or touring rim, so there goes that theory.
And just to troll.
02' Z06 spun cast rims
http://www.superhonda.com/tech/wheel_weights.html
Chevrolet Corvette Z06 02 Cast/Spun 17x9.5 19.2 lbs (front)
Chevrolet Corvette Z06 02 Cast/Spun 18x10.5 21.0 lbs (rear)
Nevermind then about the rims. Those sure are some heavy forged rims; 29.5 lbs for a 19 inch rim is unacceptable in my book :nono:.
Those Z06 wheels, on the otherhand, are pretty dang light!
Quote from: LonghornTX on April 16, 2007, 05:43:06 PM
That is interesting, but really that website only confirms what I was thinking. For the first lap or two (or in this case couple stops), the two braking systems would perform almost identically because of the similar rotor sizes but after that the Brembo system would hold the advantage becaue of the better cooling characteristics of the system.
Some quotes about the non-brembo setup:
"After six stops from 80mph, and then four stops from 100 mph, the front rotors reached 804 ?F and the stopping distances began to increase as fade set in."
And now, in comparison to the brembo setup:
"The Brembo brakes didn't seem to make a significant difference on stopping performance until the cars started doing repeated 100mph stops, at which point the increased thermal capacity of the bigger rotors kept brake fade at bay, while the Performance model with smaller brakes began to experience fade."
Essentially, the Brembo setup is a more worthy "trackable" option because over the course of any kind of open course session they would resist fade much better than the non-brembo option (look at those operating temps :mask:). One thing I did notice is that the brembo car was equipped with the same size tires as the non-brembo car, thus making this not a true comparison of the two cars respective performances as per factory specs.
Remember, the brakes do not stop the car, the tires do, given no brake fade. So the stopping distances being equal would come down to the tires being the same levels of grip. As you surmised, however, the advantage is in lack of fade for heavy duty use.
Quote from: ChrisV on April 17, 2007, 07:03:39 AM
Remember, the brakes do not stop the car, the tires do, given no brake fade. So the stopping distances being equal would come down to the tires being the same levels of grip. As you surmised, however, the advantage is in lack of fade for heavy duty use.
Sometimes braking distances are just unexplainable.
From http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroadtests/7082/infiniti-g35-6mt.html
"Despite wearing the skinniest rubber, the G35 still shorted them all, posting a distance of 153 feet from 70 to 0 mph. That's less than the pavement needed by the Z (164), G35 coupe (157), 330i (158), and even the Lamborghini Murci?lago (155) and the Saleen S7 (156). Perhaps Nissan had some leftover brakes from the R390 GT1 supercar. "Hey, Taka, what should we do with these fancy brakes"
But the fact is the G35 came with smaller rubber, less sticky rubber, smaller brakes, but still outstopped some impressive competition.
565: How 'bout a better ABS system? The Nethead here does not know if the G35 had a better ABS system, but that factor should be considered...
Quote from: Nethead on April 17, 2007, 01:33:44 PM
565:? How 'bout a better ABS system?? The Nethead here does not know if the G35 had a better ABS system, but that factor should be considered...
Well the G35 probably has the same system as the Z and G35 coupe, but it still outstopped those despite smaller rubber and brakes. That particular G35 also stopped better than the new G35 sedan. Sometimes cars just stop better, and it's hard to explain.
Quote from: 565 on April 17, 2007, 06:24:26 PM
Well the G35 probably has the same system as the Z and G35 coupe, but it still outstopped those despite smaller rubber and brakes.? That particular G35 also stopped better than the new G35 sedan. Sometimes cars just stop better, and it's hard to explain.
Those tests were probably all done on seperate days on different tracks. The level of grip on the pavement will affect braking distances.
Quote from: ChrisV on April 17, 2007, 07:03:39 AM
Remember, the brakes do not stop the car, the tires do, given no brake fade. So the stopping distances being equal would come down to the tires being the same levels of grip.
That's not
quite accurate. A car's stopping power is
limited to the friction generated between the road surface and the tires, but the brakes still stop the car. Bigger brakes are better able to maximize the stopping power of a set of tires. Given an equally super-sticky set of tires, but one car having 4-piston, 17" cross drilled rotors and ceramic composite pads, and the other car has the brakes from a 1997 Nissan Sentra, it's pretty obvious which car is going to be better able to stop from 100 mph.
But yes, brake fade and control are extremely important when comparing brakes. Most street equipment quickly becomes useless during track use.
-FordSVT-
Quote from: FordSVT on April 18, 2007, 06:41:40 AM
That's not quite accurate. A car's stopping power is limited to the friction generated between the road surface and the tires, but the brakes still stop the car. Bigger brakes are better able to maximize the stopping power of a set of tires. Given an equally super-sticky set of tires, but one car having 4-piston, 17" cross drilled rotors and ceramic composite pads, and the other car has the brakes from a 1997 Nissan Sentra, it's pretty obvious which car is going to be better able to stop from 100 mph.
If the brakes can lock the tires up, they are adequate to stop the car in teh same distance as teh fancy brakes.
http://www.teamscr.com/grmbrakes.htm
Read it. The brakes do not stop the car.
"In plain English, your brakes convert ?the energy of motion? into ?heat? An engineer would say the brakes are responsible for turning the kinetic energy of your speeding car into thermal energy. But in either case, your brakes are not stopping your car."
http://www.stoptech.com/tech_info/wp_rearbrake_upgrades.shtml
" Contrary to popular belief, the real reason sports- and racing cars use big brakes is to deal with heat. Period. There has been a bunch of stuff published which will disclaim this, but when you look at the braking system from a design standpoint, making them 'bigger' doesn't fundamentally do anything for stopping distance. It's all about the heat."
http://www.stoptech.com/tech_info/wp_brakesystems_upgradeselections.shtml
"1) The brakes don't stop the vehicle - the tires do. The brakes slow the rotation of the wheels and tires. This means that braking distance measured on a single stop from a highway legal speed or higher is almost totally dependent upon the stopping ability of the tires in use - which, in the case of aftermarket advertising, may or may not be the ones originally fitted to the car by the OE manufacturer.
2) The brakes function by converting the kinetic energy of the car into thermal energy during deceleration - producing heat, lots of heat - which must then be transferred into the surroundings and into the air stream."
Quote
But yes, brake fade and control are extremely important when comparing brakes. Most street equipment quickly becomes useless during track use.
-FordSVT-
That is true. Bigger brakes don't let the car stop any shorter, they only let it stop short
consistently."For maximum brake potential, vehicles benefit from proper corner weight balance, a lower CG, a longer wheelbase, more rear weight bias and increased aerodynamic down force at the rear."
The Mustang has demonstrably worse tires, stock, it has more nose weight (though not as much as some would think) and a higher CG. So it's braking performance vs a TRACK version of the Z is lessened. But the TRACK version vs GT is not what we are discussing here in the original post. The track version of the Z has not, to my knowledge, been run against the Shelby, that also has better upgrades in suspension and braking. (and tires, IIRC)
Oh, and crossdrilling ONLY gives more chance for cracks, it does NOTHING else. It does NOT aid in cooling the brakes. Pads do not outgas anymore, so even THAT reason is not there.
http://www.stoptech.com/tech_info/wp_brakesystems_upgradeselections.shtml
"For many years most racing rotors were drilled. There were two reasons - the holes gave the "fireband" boundary layer of gasses and particulate matter someplace to go and the edges of the holes gave the pad a better "bite".
Unfortunately the drilled holes also reduced the thermal capacity of the discs and served as very effective "stress raisers" significantly decreasing disc life. Improvements in friction materials have pretty much made the drilled rotor a thing of the past in racing."
http://www.teamscr.com/rotors.htm
"Crossdrilling your rotors might look neat, but what is it really doing for you? Well, unless your car is using brake pads from the 40?s and 50?s, not a whole lot. Rotors were first ?drilled? because early brake pad materials gave off gasses when heated to racing temperatures ? a process known as ?gassing out?. These gasses then formed a thin layer between the brake pad face and the rotor, acting as a lubricant and effectively lowering the coefficient of friction. The holes were implemented to give the gasses ?somewhere to go?. It was an effective solution, but today?s friction materials do not exhibit the same gassing out phenomenon as the early pads.
For this reason, the holes have carried over more as a design feature than a performance feature. Contrary to popular belief they don?t lower temperatures (in fact, by removing weight from the rotor, the temperatures can actually increase a little), they create stress risers allowing the rotor to crack sooner, and make a mess of brake pads ? sort of like a cheese grater rubbing against them at every stop. (Want more evidence? Look at NASCAR or F1. You would think that if drilling holes in the rotor was the hot ticket, these teams would be doing it.)"
Quote from: ChrisV on April 18, 2007, 07:09:29 AM
If the brakes can lock the tires up, they are adequate to stop the car in teh same distance as teh fancy brakes.
http://www.teamscr.com/grmbrakes.htm
Read it. The brakes do not stop the car.
"In plain English, your brakes convert ?the energy of motion? into ?heat? An engineer would say the brakes are responsible for turning the kinetic energy of your speeding car into thermal energy. But in either case, your brakes are not stopping your car."
http://www.stoptech.com/tech_info/wp_rearbrake_upgrades.shtml
" Contrary to popular belief, the real reason sports- and racing cars use big brakes is to deal with heat. Period. There has been a bunch of stuff published which will disclaim this, but when you look at the braking system from a design standpoint, making them 'bigger' doesn't fundamentally do anything for stopping distance. It's all about the heat."
Exactly. Perhaps I didn't explain myself as well as I could have. Small brakes can't handle heat at high speeds at all, and they often begin to fail almost immediately when you try to use them. A larger surface area allows pressure to be distributed more evenly over the braking surface which allows for more control and heat dissipation. There were a couple of times in my Sentra when I was driving very fast (100 mph+) and tried to apply the brakes quickly, I could feel them fade immediately. A minute later when I came off the highway and pulled into a gas station, they could barely stop the car. The point about being able to lock up the brakes is correct, but larger brakes also allow you to control whether or not you lock up your brakes. Also, locking up the brakes isn't the quickest way to stop your car unless the pavement is smooth and dry.
I guess your point is taken that using the same materials and applying the same pressure to the rotor in a one-time stopping situation, merely changing the size of the brakes won't matter if the stopping power is the same, the tires are the mitigating factor.
But in the real world, when all things are concidered, bigger brakes usually equals better stopping power and control and fade resistance, all good things.
-FordSVT-