Quote from: sportyaccordy on January 21, 2012, 05:29:21 PM
Well, for whatever its worth, the M3 coupe is close to a foot shorter than the Mustang, and has a bigger back seat.

If they continue the retro thing, they should def cash in on the 80s Rustang styling and use that to their packaging advantage. I would love a Mustang, but only if it has usable back seats, and isn't damn near the size of a 5 series...

More like 6"...  And M3 also weighs several hundred lbs more than a Mustang.  300 lbs is a far bigger penalty than 6 extra inches in length, and a trade I'd gladly make any day of the week.

Quote from: sportyaccordy on January 21, 2012, 04:54:51 PM
See, I'm not crazy.

And the Mustang is on its own platform. I am skeptical in the idea of its live axle being cheaper than an IRS... they could have used the old Explorer IRS for example or develop something for a much needed RWD Lincoln platform. Hell, beef up the rear end from the AWD Taurus, and sell the live axle through Ford Racing for the serious drag racers.

An IRS is not better than a live axle by default.  A good live axle is better than a poor IRS.  And the IRS from the Explorer, which was designed for truck duties, is far from an ideal design for a performance car.

Quote from: hotrodalex on January 21, 2012, 12:57:01 PM
The Mustang is normal size for a 4-seater pony car. Couldn't get much smaller without screwing up the long hood/short deck proportions or getting rid of the rear seats.

The Mustang is bigger than its ever been, and its always been a 2+2.

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 21, 2012, 08:56:32 PM
The Mustang is bigger than its ever been, and its always been a 2+2.

No, it's not bigger than it's ever been.  It's within an inch of the late 60s cars in every dimension but height, and a bit smaller than the '71.

GOD DAMN IT.  Stop fucking saying "bee's knees".  You're not a Chicagoan in the 1920s. 

Quote from: MX793 on January 21, 2012, 08:56:26 PM
More like 6"...  And M3 also weighs several hundred lbs more than a Mustang.  300 lbs is a far bigger penalty than 6 extra inches in length, and a trade I'd gladly make any day of the week.

The m3 weighs less than the mustang.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1010_2011_2011_ford_mustang_gt_vs_2011_bmw_m3_comparison/specs.html

Don't forget when Bmw publishes unladened weight it accounts for 75kgs of driver and luggage

Quote from: Raza  link=topic=26541.msg1654857#msg1654857 date=1327208600
GOD DAMN IT.  Stop fucking saying "bee's knees".  You're not a Chicagoan in the 1920s. 

I say it in real life, too.

Quote from: 2o6 on January 21, 2012, 01:54:52 PM

And that isn't fixed on the car's physical size.

Kinda is. Can't just have a miniature version of the same car and expect everything to fit.

I'm not saying the Mustang is as small as it can be, but it's a normal sized pony car. A 1969-70 Mustang is ~1 inch shorter than a 2012 model.

Yeah, pony cars were small for the time, but certainly aren't small by modern standards. I wish they were, though.

Quote from: MX793 on January 21, 2012, 08:58:25 PM
No, it's not bigger than it's ever been.  It's within an inch of the late 60s cars in every dimension but height, and a bit smaller than the '71.

How's it on weight?

But everything is heavier today than the equivalent in the '60s...

Quote from: Soup DeVille on January 21, 2012, 11:47:35 PM
How's it on weight?

~200 lbs heavier than the '69-'70, about the same or a shade lighter than the '71-'73.  And, as mentioned, every car is heavier than a similarly sized car from 30+ years ago by virtue of more stringent safety standards today.

Quote from: 565 on January 21, 2012, 10:28:29 PM


The m3 weighs less than the mustang.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1010_2011_2011_ford_mustang_gt_vs_2011_bmw_m3_comparison/specs.html

Don't forget when Bmw publishes unladened weight it accounts for 75kgs of driver and luggage

Doh, forgot that BMW doesn't follow the US standard for curb weight.

Regardless, it's probably more accurate to say that the two weigh essentially the same.  Depending on which test example you look at, either the BMW or the Mustang will be lighter by 50-100 lbs.  C&D's long term M3 was 3630 lbs, but then a different one they tested against the C63 was only 3552.  The '11 Mustang GT they tested against the Camaro was 3580 lbs (and that's the only '11 plus they've seemingly tested, as their "short take" car was the same Mustang GT).

Which still begs the question:  If the weight is the same or less, what real disadvantage is 6" of extra length?  Sporty harps on this like it cripples the Mustang in some meaningful way.

So post about the Elise and RX-8 has turned into a Mustang thread?

Oh, and as someone who has to drive 50+ cars a weeks around a fucked up parking lot and building I can tell you these Gad damn high belt lines make it much more difficult to back up in. I hate them even in my RX-8.

Quote from: 2o6 on January 21, 2012, 06:06:45 PM
But you have space for your legs! And arms! And you can drive the cheapest model from any manufacturer on the freeway all day without wanting to commit suicide afterwards!



Some cars are worse than others in regards to visibility.

That's because everything has moved up a class in size. And old cars aren't that bad. I have done long trips in old Corollas and Civics. Was it ideal? No. But few things the small side of a Maybach are.

Quote from: SVT666 on January 21, 2012, 07:30:46 PM
When did BMW ever put a big bore V8 in the M3?

The current generation's 90 something mm bore is pretty big, IMO. Especially considering the engine size, stroke, and bore of the inline six that preceded it.

Quote from: sportyaccordy on January 22, 2012, 07:55:38 AM
That's because everything has moved up a class in size. And old cars aren't that bad. I have done long trips in old Corollas and Civics. Was it ideal? No. But few things the small side of a Maybach are.The current generation's 90 something mm bore is pretty big, IMO. Especially considering the engine size, stroke, and bore of the inline six that preceded it.

The Corvette Z06 has a big bore V8 at 105mm.  By your definition almost everything is big bore because the only engines I looked up that were smaller than 90mm were 2.0L inline fours and even some of them were 89mm.

Quote from: sportyaccordy on January 22, 2012, 07:55:38 AM
That's because everything has moved up a class in size. And old cars aren't that bad. I have done long trips in old Corollas and Civics. Was it ideal? No. But few things the small side of a Maybach are.

'


You keep saying this, but that isn't true, either.




As a comparison; the 5th gen Civic sedan is only 4 inches shorter than the 8th gen sedan. Yet, with this only minimal length and width increase, engineers and designers have created a more useful shape that provide more room for the occupants. The Accord you once owned is a whopping 30" longer than the current model Fit, yet the Fit beats it in interior room and is roomier and more comfortable.


Heck, cars like this are cramped for people like me, and I'm only 5'9".




Nowawdays, you can actually legitimately use a subcompact/compact car as a family vehicle, and make less compromises than you'd think.

Yet my 6'4" father still hates getting in them because they're still too small.

Quote from: Rupert on January 22, 2012, 01:19:49 PM
Yet my 6'4" father still hates getting in them because they're still too small.

In comparison to yesteryear, these new cars are far more accommodating to more body types.




You keep trying to discredit progress as if it has never happened.

Progress is in the eye of the beholder.

You keep insisting that all tiny cars are perfect for huge people and long trips.

Quote from: Rupert on January 22, 2012, 01:50:21 PM
Progress is in the eye of the beholder.

You keep insisting that all tiny cars are perfect for huge people and long trips.

I'm merely saying they've come a long way and are far better than they were. I'm saying this about all cars, not just the little ones. Midsize cars today are just sublime.


You really think a mid-80's Escort is roomy and comfortable as a new Focus? And a new Focus is as tight and insubstantial as an old Escort?

Quote from: sportyaccordy on January 21, 2012, 04:54:51 PM
See, I'm not crazy.

And the Mustang is on its own platform. I am skeptical in the idea of its live axle being cheaper than an IRS... they could have used the old Explorer IRS for example or develop something for a much needed RWD Lincoln platform. Hell, beef up the rear end from the AWD Taurus, and sell the live axle through Ford Racing for the serious drag racers.

The Mustang was actually based on a Lincoln platform, and it was indeed decided to use a live rear axle for cost reasons.  Just go back to early reviews of the 05 MY car and you can verify that for yourself.

Want the GT300 spec BRZ.

Quote from: S204STi on January 22, 2012, 02:14:13 PM
The Mustang was actually based on a Lincoln platform, and it was indeed decided to use a live rear axle for cost reasons.  Just go back to early reviews of the 05 MY car and you can verify that for yourself.

The Mustang is really sort of a hodgepodge of platforms.  There's actually some C1 (Mazda3, Focus) in the front and rear suspension.  The original plan was to lift as much from the DEW98 platform (Lincoln LS, Jag S-type) as possible, but it proved too expensive and they ended up scrapping that plan and largely developing a unique platform.  I believe all that they ended up using from the DEW98 was the floor pan and some of the frame design.  DEW98 used double wishbones front and rear, while the D2C (S197) uses MacPherson struts up front and, obviously, live axle rear.

Yeah, that's my understanding as well.  In any case, it's built to a price-point.

Quote from: 2o6 on January 22, 2012, 02:01:42 PM
I'm merely saying they've come a long way and are far better than they were. I'm saying this about all cars, not just the little ones. Midsize cars today are just sublime.


You really think a mid-80's Escort is roomy and comfortable as a new Focus? And a new Focus is as tight and insubstantial as an old Escort?

Nope, and I haven't said that, either.

You really think tall people can be totally comfortable in a new Fit?

Quote from: Rupert on January 22, 2012, 02:54:13 PM
Nope, and I haven't said that, either.

You really think tall people can be totally comfortable in a new Fit?

Now you just being snarky and a contrarian and im not going to indulge.

Guess I won.

I encourage the reuse of this image in the future.