Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-05-2015, 09:05 AM
 
Location: moved
13,646 posts, read 9,708,585 times
Reputation: 23478

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by JWG223 View Post
Ford has ALWAYS done this. They make a car that appeals to the masses, and sell the hell out of it, and it works well. But GM always destroys them on the track/drag-strip/anywhere where performance matters. Witness the 9C1 Caprice that was the police car, vs. the Crown Vic. Ford won out due to marketing, etc. but the old Caprice was a faster, much better handling police cruiser. Now also look at the 1993-2001 Pony Car wars. GM decimated Ford, but they just couldn't MARKET the car. Now look at the Camaro vs. Mustang. The old Camaro (2010) is being compared to the NEW Ford...and still winning, lol...
In my view, the various pony/muscle cars aren't that far apart. The same holds for the large RWD sedans and the various other competitors. Going further afield, the Camry and Accord aren't that far apart, though one could make the same argument, that the Camry is the softer car appealing to more of the masses, while the Accord is more driver-oriented.

What does appear to be true is that Ford, as a corporation, has been more stable than Chrysler or GM. This is both good and bad. It's good in the sense of implying something successful and enduring about their marketing, corporate governance, management, and maybe even their engineering. It's bad in the sense of obviating the watershed introspection that comes from bankruptcy and sudden shakeup, the necessity-as-mother-of-invention that produces radical new products.

To me, there's much that is appealing about all of the modern pony cars. Despite their prodigious weight, they attain decent fuel-economy with acceleration that shames all but the most exotic and specialized muscle-cars of the late-1960s. They have, in many ways bridged the performance gap with that compact RWD stalwart - the 3-series BMW - in no small part because BMW has itself been gaining weight faster than American cars. Nevertheless, I can't see myself driving a car that's so large and heavy. This is really less of a gripe against Mustang/Camaro/Challenger, than a fond hope that combination of advanced materials and engineering would finally give us 2000-pound RWD cars. Sadly, it hasn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-05-2015, 09:15 AM
PDD
 
Location: The Sand Hills of NC
8,773 posts, read 18,385,103 times
Reputation: 12004
NFN but the only way the new Camaro beats the Mustang on the strip or at the road course is because of more cubes or superchargers. GM is not making a NA 5 liter that can run with the Mustangs.

Simple fact 2 valve motors with the same ci make less HP than 4 valves.

It's not rocket science but it is science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2015, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Louisville KY
4,856 posts, read 5,820,854 times
Reputation: 4341
I like the new mustang, I'd be happy if it were simpler. Like the Viper used to be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2015, 11:06 AM
 
9,326 posts, read 22,016,628 times
Reputation: 4571
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWG223 View Post
It's 200# heavier than the outgoing model. Gas and a driver puts it over 4,000#. What the hell...from the company that owns Aston Martin...
Its actually 200 pounds LIGHTER..
As far as fuel economy is concerned, Ford says the new 2015 Mustang will go farther than the current car on each gallon of gas. In addition to powertrain enhancements, the new Mustang is about 200 pounds lighter, thanks in part to its aluminum hood and front fenders, and more aerodynamic. But the real driver behind fuel economy gains with the redesigned Mustang is the new 2.3-liter EcoBoost 4-cylinder engine.

Source:
2014 vs. 2015 Ford Mustang: What's the Difference? - Autotrader
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2015, 11:14 AM
 
281 posts, read 368,262 times
Reputation: 552
I don't see a date on that link, but I think it's old. I know at first there were rumors that it was going to be lighter, but I think in the end it turned out that it WAS heavier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2015, 01:04 AM
 
Location: H-town, TX.
3,503 posts, read 7,497,966 times
Reputation: 2232
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaxRhapsody View Post
I like the new mustang, I'd be happy if it were simpler. Like the Viper used to be.
I'm sure there is a Cobra R out there waiting for you. Ford's more interested in making a buck rather than a few SVT-type toys these days. You should know this by now...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top