Why do people like mustangs? - Page 2

02MineralGrayGT · 02-04-2002, 06:39 PM

As much as I hate to see the end of the camaro and firebird line, it is undeniable evidence of ford's superiority. Mustangs outsell camaros and TAs put together 4 to 1. I love all American muscle cars but many people are sick of the unimaginative GM body style, flat paint, and disgusting suspension. Lets also keep in mind that Motor Trend lists the GT at 0-60 in 5.4 and 1/4 mile in 13.9. They list the Camaro Z28 at 0-60 in 5.5 and 1/4 mile in 14.0.
Now I'm not going to compare it to an SS or a WSX. Regardless of what the magazines say, I've heard of stock SS's running high 12's so watch out. But for that price you could throw a blower on your mustand and look at vettes in your rear view. To sum it up, they're all nice cars but I'll take a GT any day.

95GTS · 02-05-2002, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CactusHugger11
TAs sit lower. So based on tha law of physics it would seem that a TA would out handle a GT as well as out power it.

Not necessarily true at all. Try my GEN 1 Lightning. Weighs around a 1000 pounds more than your TA's and Z's and sits higher, too, yet will out handle one of your TA's or Z's in the twisties any day of the week. Can those pull a .89-.90 G on the skid pad???? Nope, didn't think so. Oh, and that's with our stock suspensions, too

. Even the new GEN 2 L's are right behind us. Now you'll beat a stock GEN 1 in a straight line but a stock GEN 2 will be right there with you. We have quite a few stock GEN 2s running low 13s (around 13.3s) over on the National Lightning Owners Club site. Most run high to mid 13s (some are low 14s but for reasons of elevation and all that, yes).

Just for grins here's a link to the member's GEN 2 list with alot of the GEN 2s in the club. http://www.nloc.net/forum/showthread.php?threadid=9927
11s, 12s, and 13s in the 1/4. Most of them are in the 12s.

And just for kicks here's a list of some of the GEN 1 members times on the site. The fastest being a 7.88@179

. Starting at mid 15s in the 1/4.
http://www.nloc.net/forum/showthread.php?threadid=9976

CactusHugger11 · 02-05-2002, 04:08 PM

However, the lowered and stiffened suspension proved darty and unpredictable in the slalom, and it struggled to a slowest-of-the-group 59.2 mph. Ride quality is downright harsh and chassis vibration way objectionable on some surfaces.

thats from motor trend refering to the lightnings. a lightning does not handle better than a TA. but we werent even talking about lightnings anyways...

95GTS · 02-05-2002, 04:33 PM

Motortrend couldn't drive to save their own life. You can only take their information with a grain of salt. They have no idea how to drive one. You can't learn in a day or two. Yes they WILL out handle a T/A. You obviously know nothing of the GEN 1s let alone the GEN 2s so there's no point arguing with you. Quoting magazines is as useless as Z rated tires on a Geo. Let alone you didn't give us the whole article. Even though it's useless.

The main point was that just because the mustang sits a little higher doesn't mean that it'll handle worse. For an example, even though a vehicle may sit lower if it's front/rear weight bias is way off it'll still handle like crap. Just one of many examples that will rule out your statement of lower=better handling.

And I've had a few mustangs myself so I know what I'm talking about. I've also driven the F-bodies and they could never keep up with my L in the twisties. Experience is much better than quoting magazines.

CactusHugger11 · 02-05-2002, 05:15 PM

ok so why would a lightning out handle a TA?

ford67racer · 02-05-2002, 05:57 PM

I honestly dont know what it is about mustangs and fords that is so attractive, could it be that just about all of the domestic races in my area consist of Chevy and Mopar? and God forbid

a GIRL that can come out there, stand her ground and win her fair share of races in a FORD that she built

Every time I am crusing in one of my girls(67 fastback or 96 cobra) I ALWAYS get a competitive(sp?) urge come over me when I see a same era Chevy or Mopar as the ford i am driving at that moment

MiracleMax · 02-05-2002, 06:08 PM

Here's another good reason to buy a Mustang, 87 octane is reccomended by Ford for the GT

, that saves me about 40 cents at the pump per gallon, and seeing as how I burn through a tank a week under normal driving, that saves me in the neighborhood of 300 bucks a year in fuel costs. which will go nicely into the MM tire fund. Which will take 2 to 3 years to burn down, so by the end of year three if all goes well, thats 900 bucks toward another set of 1200 dollar tires.

So theres another reason, Mustangs are cheaper to operate than the "I need premium fuel for my LS1" f-bodies.

95GTS · 02-05-2002, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CactusHugger11
ok so why would a lightning out handle a TA?

Like I thought. You don't know what a Lightning is. Not a flame because alot of people have no idea what a Lightning is. They are far from a regular F150. That was just a platform to build on. Especailly the GEN 1 Lightnings (93-95, the GEN 2's are 99-02) are set up from the factory for ROAD RACING. They have a road race suspension designed by Ford, SVT, and Roush Racing. They WILL handle with vettes and other high dollar sports cars. They also almost have a 50/50 weight bias which really is a big key to handling even if we do weigh around 4500 pounds stock. The National Lightning Owner's Club website is in a link in my sig at the bottom. They, especially the GEN 1s, are rare, though more of the GEN 2's have been made than the GEN 1's. Many of the Lightning guys road race their trucks as well as drag race them. Do some more research on these trucks. Go to our site and also search the web about them. If you want to know alot then come over to the site and ask some questions. We'll be more than happy to tell you all about them. We just went to a new site so we are missing the main page and the other information pages that told everything about the trucks. The only thing up right now on the new site is the forum like this format.

CactusHugger11 · 02-05-2002, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MiracleMax
, another good reason to buy a Mustang, 87 octane is reccomended by Ford for the GT , that saves me about 40 cents at the pump per gallonng,

where the hell do you buy your gas? it only costs 20 cents a gallon for 93 octane around here.

CactusHugger11 · 02-05-2002, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 96GTS

Like I thought. You don't know what a Lightning is.

I never said I dont know what a Lightning is. I know what they are. But it seems illogical that they would out handle a TA and youve yet to provide any proof that they do. Sorry but I dont consider your own personal experience as very reliable proof. Wouldnt you feel the same way if I told you Ive driven both a TA and a Lightning and thought the TA handled a lot better?

95GTS · 02-05-2002, 10:01 PM

Sorry you can't understand it but that's understandable. If you actually knew about Lightnings you wouldn't say that it's illogical for them to outhandle the T/A. Also learn more about suspensions, period. A lower center of gravity isn't the only thing needed for handling. You know where to find us (Lightnings). If you want your proof come on over and troll the board. I'm done with this thread.

Traderguy2 · 02-05-2002, 10:55 PM

For me it was a simple choice.

Price I checked out the SS NICE CAR BUT 30k +

Every time I look at a Firebird the hood reminds me of two giant nostrils. Get a little hair in those babies and I'd be convinced.

Styling, The stang is just a great looking car.

Performance, well stock the SS is faster, but lets compare a apple to an apple, for 30K I could have the Cobra, then lets do a straight line run.

Ever sit in a Camaro? I find them umcomfortable.

I've had my stock stang with nothing more then a K&N to 135 with more to go, it's a fast car, and that sound i love it.

Hammer · 02-06-2002, 07:28 AM

Here's something to chew on...

A fellow gear-head at work is a chevy guy, and he was looking into the 2002 Camaro SS. He called around and got some info.
Price: around 35,000...

You know what else is going to be around 35,000?
The 2003 blown Cobra..... Talk about value per dollar....

MiracleMax · 02-07-2002, 11:48 AM

where do I buy my gas

, I haven't had to by premium for a while, I had an old camaro (72), that I drove for a while and premium was almost a 1.40 at the time, between the break down and using a loaner, gas got cheaper, and then I got my 02 GT and haven't paid more than .96. a gallon since october.

I've got a few questions of my own about the Ligthening

50/50 weight distribution ?!? (with my fat aunt strapped in the bed)

Out handle a vette ?!? (maybe a 53 vette)

A Lightening is a pretty bad truck that can handle really well for a truck and is big time fast in terms of acceleration

In terms of suspension, the Lightening is truck new millenium, but car disco era.

Sounds to me like the Lightening guys are subject to the same disease most LS-1 f-body owners are. SHS (swelled head syndrome). Stanger's had it in the mid 80's and early 90's then we were humbled a bit especially when Ford porked the stang up and left us with 215 hp for a while, It's about to hit again when ford rolls out the 03 cobra's though

95GTS · 02-07-2002, 01:20 PM

Concerning the development of the "Thunderbolt" -
To my knowledge, they're not using anyone from the first Lightning Team(at least none of the "major players"). I did run into the primary chassis/suspension Design Engineer for the Lightning, and he said that he'd been "a consultant" of sorts, but that they wouldn't let him actually work on the program. I've always felt a little negatively towards the likelyhood that the so-called "Lightning replacement" will amount to very much, and I'll tell you why:

A couple of months before the Lightning went into production in late '92, we decided to have a final all-out verification drive evaluation of 5 pre-production Lightning vehicles. Each one was set up differently, some with empty beds, some loaded to maximum GVW, one with a cab-high box cover, one with a flat box cover, and one towing a 24' travel trailer (rented!). One of the Development Engineers was very familiar with the Smokey Mountains, so he laid out a course which he planned to take us about 5 days to complete (Start Monday AM, finish Friday, PM). We proceeded to collect enough volunteer drivers with varied backgrounds and evaluation experience, AND we sent a note to the Managers in charge of the New '96 F150 Program, inviting them to send representatives along on the trip so they would know what it was that they were going to be trying to replace as soon as they could develop a powertrain. They didn't even respond to our invitation, so my conclusion was and is "How can they successfully replace an exceptional vehicle like the Lightning, when they aren't even interested enough to find out what it can do?"...

We ran the trip on 4 successive weeks, with different drivers each week, and each of them driving a different one of the Lightnings each day. It was unbelieveable! What a rush!!!

Development Issues with the Lightning -
The frame had to be reinforced at several locations due to Durability failures. Lowering the body reduced allowable suspension travel and required stiffer springs and shocks, which increased stresses on the frame. The front end was lowered 1", and the back 2.5" so that it sits more level when empty, then the rear springs had to be made stiffer so it wouldn't "drag its ***" when loaded to max. GVW.

The extra leaf on the front side of the rear springs was put there to prevent the axle from "winding up" when doing fast launches from a stop. This helps prevent axle hop and reduces the chances of snapping the u-joints. The 4" aluminum driveshaft (2.5" steel was "standard") and limiting the Lightning to the SWB were both to prevent twisting off the driveshaft on "launch", as the 17" wheels and BIG tires mostly prevented the rear axle (wheels) from spinning, which transmitted more torque to the driveshaft than was expected at first.

The Lightning has a true dual exhaust system, routed down the RH frame rail to allow keeping the midship fuel tank. Development worked with the exhaust system supplier for about 6 months to get the exhaust sound as subjectively good as possible, while still passing "Legal Drive-By Noise" Testing.

The Lightning had the first block-mounted engine oil cooler on a Ford Truck Gas engine (went across-the-board on 5.8L after Lightning developed it).

The Lightning has tubular exhaust and upper intake manifolds (Cobra style), Single-bar throttle linkage (other Ford Trucks at the time had 4-bar linkages which were MUCH slower-responding).

The Lightning interior has unique sport bucket seats with inflatable lumbar support and side bolsters.

The I-Beams are the same as every other F-150 EXCEPT for the steering stop. This was done to prevent the tires from rubbing the radius arms, however some still do. There are no other changes to the axle for alignment. The radius arms were drilled slightly different to get some of the camber back when the truck was lowered.

The Lightning could go 0-60 MPH in 7.2 seconds, (equal to or better than a Chevy 454 SS, with 103 less cubic inches), and could maintain .9 G lateral acceleration on the skid-pad, with spikes to 1.0 G, which is considerably better than most sports cars of any price or pedigree.

-From Gary Siegel who managed the powertrain team for the original Lightning project.

NEED MORE??

95GTS · 02-07-2002, 01:46 PM

Here's the OEM Spec Sheet for your curiosity:
Go to: http://www.svt.ford.com/flash/index.html

Click on SVT Archive at the top. Select the 93, 94, 95 Lightnings and then click View specs.

CactusHugger11 · 02-07-2002, 03:55 PM

we arent even talking about lightnings on this thread. the topic is f-bodies vs. stangs. why dont you go tart your own thread on why trucks are so cool. this sight is about mustangs and things related to them. not lightnings. granted if i ever had to buy a truck i would probably buy a lightning cuz its the fastest truck but i dont liek trucks and i dont really care about them so lets not talk about them anymore.

95GTS · 02-07-2002, 04:33 PM

I don't care what you think. Sure I know this site is for stangs. Look how long i've been a member here. Also this thread now also involves the Lightning since i'm now trying to inform the ignorant about the truck. You as well as some others bashed these trucks in THIS thread so now i'm setting the record straight about them. Tough luck if you don't like trucks.

I brought up the L as an example as to your logic of "the lower vehicle handles better". That was the only reason it was brought up. Bashing it is what brought all of this about.

95mustanggt · 02-07-2002, 05:20 PM

Man this thread is getting old...

Hammer, buddy, kill this thread, man

95GTS · 02-07-2002, 07:53 PM

I second that motion. I"m done with it myself.

02-04-2002, 06:39 PM	#21
02MineralGrayGT Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: CT Posts: 5	bye bye camaro and firebird As much as I hate to see the end of the camaro and firebird line, it is undeniable evidence of ford's superiority. Mustangs outsell camaros and TAs put together 4 to 1. I love all American muscle cars but many people are sick of the unimaginative GM body style, flat paint, and disgusting suspension. Lets also keep in mind that Motor Trend lists the GT at 0-60 in 5.4 and 1/4 mile in 13.9. They list the Camaro Z28 at 0-60 in 5.5 and 1/4 mile in 14.0. Now I'm not going to compare it to an SS or a WSX. Regardless of what the magazines say, I've heard of stock SS's running high 12's so watch out. But for that price you could throw a blower on your mustand and look at vettes in your rear view. To sum it up, they're all nice cars but I'll take a GT any day.

02-05-2002, 04:33 PM	#24
95GTS Git jiggy Join Date: Oct 1999 Location: MO USA Posts: 865	Motortrend couldn't drive to save their own life. You can only take their information with a grain of salt. They have no idea how to drive one. You can't learn in a day or two. Yes they WILL out handle a T/A. You obviously know nothing of the GEN 1s let alone the GEN 2s so there's no point arguing with you. Quoting magazines is as useless as Z rated tires on a Geo. Let alone you didn't give us the whole article. Even though it's useless. The main point was that just because the mustang sits a little higher doesn't mean that it'll handle worse. For an example, even though a vehicle may sit lower if it's front/rear weight bias is way off it'll still handle like crap. Just one of many examples that will rule out your statement of lower=better handling. And I've had a few mustangs myself so I know what I'm talking about. I've also driven the F-bodies and they could never keep up with my L in the twisties. Experience is much better than quoting magazines. __________________ 1967 Mustang Coupe

02-05-2002, 05:57 PM	#26
ford67racer Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Campbell, California Posts: 1	I honestly dont know what it is about mustangs and fords that is so attractive, could it be that just about all of the domestic races in my area consist of Chevy and Mopar? and God forbid a GIRL that can come out there, stand her ground and win her fair share of races in a FORD that she built Every time I am crusing in one of my girls(67 fastback or 96 cobra) I ALWAYS get a competitive(sp?) urge come over me when I see a same era Chevy or Mopar as the ford i am driving at that moment __________________ yes im a gearhead chick Inventory: 1967 white mustang fastback thats my baby, she has lots of stuff done to her but im not going to reviel any of it unless u message me and possibly not then. 1996 white cobra coupe stock-for now-little performance upgrades like a K&N filter... 1966 white mustang coupe-302 1965 red galaxie 4-door interceptor LTD 352-got it for free and has a NASTY rodknock-surprisingly clean int. and straight body. 1961 lincolin continental 430 motor im building for a chevy friend of mine...he wants my galaxie...iv almost converted him Samantha

02-05-2002, 06:08 PM	#27
MiracleMax Registered Member Join Date: Apr 1999 Location: Hayes, Va, USA Posts: 798	Here's another good reason to buy a Mustang, 87 octane is reccomended by Ford for the GT , that saves me about 40 cents at the pump per gallon, and seeing as how I burn through a tank a week under normal driving, that saves me in the neighborhood of 300 bucks a year in fuel costs. which will go nicely into the MM tire fund. Which will take 2 to 3 years to burn down, so by the end of year three if all goes well, thats 900 bucks toward another set of 1200 dollar tires. So theres another reason, Mustangs are cheaper to operate than the "I need premium fuel for my LS1" f-bodies. __________________ 2002 5M GT (99% stock) 1991 5M LX (30% stock) patiently awaiting my satin silver 07 Mach 1, and don't forget the shaker

02-05-2002, 10:01 PM	#31
95GTS Git jiggy Join Date: Oct 1999 Location: MO USA Posts: 865	Sorry you can't understand it but that's understandable. If you actually knew about Lightnings you wouldn't say that it's illogical for them to outhandle the T/A. Also learn more about suspensions, period. A lower center of gravity isn't the only thing needed for handling. You know where to find us (Lightnings). If you want your proof come on over and troll the board. I'm done with this thread. __________________ 1967 Mustang Coupe

02-05-2002, 04:08 PM	#23
CactusHugger11 Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Indiana Posts: 38	However, the lowered and stiffened suspension proved darty and unpredictable in the slalom, and it struggled to a slowest-of-the-group 59.2 mph. Ride quality is downright harsh and chassis vibration way objectionable on some surfaces. thats from motor trend refering to the lightnings. a lightning does not handle better than a TA. but we werent even talking about lightnings anyways...

02-05-2002, 05:15 PM	#25
CactusHugger11 Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Indiana Posts: 38	ok so why would a lightning out handle a TA?

02-05-2002, 10:55 PM	#32
Traderguy2 Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Shoreham NY, USA Posts: 3	Why the Stang For me it was a simple choice. Price I checked out the SS NICE CAR BUT 30k + Every time I look at a Firebird the hood reminds me of two giant nostrils. Get a little hair in those babies and I'd be convinced. Styling, The stang is just a great looking car. Performance, well stock the SS is faster, but lets compare a apple to an apple, for 30K I could have the Cobra, then lets do a straight line run. Ever sit in a Camaro? I find them umcomfortable. I've had my stock stang with nothing more then a K&N to 135 with more to go, it's a fast car, and that sound i love it.

02-06-2002, 07:28 AM	#33
Hammer AKA "Dr. Evil" Join Date: Feb 1999 Location: South Fork Ranch Posts: 1,721	Here's something to chew on... A fellow gear-head at work is a chevy guy, and he was looking into the 2002 Camaro SS. He called around and got some info. Price: around 35,000... You know what else is going to be around 35,000? The 2003 blown Cobra..... Talk about value per dollar.... __________________ Uncle Sam "What the hell is up with all the gauges? Calling Captain Kirk, your ride awaits... Phasers on stun...."

02-07-2002, 11:48 AM	#34
MiracleMax Registered Member Join Date: Apr 1999 Location: Hayes, Va, USA Posts: 798	where do I buy my gas , I haven't had to by premium for a while, I had an old camaro (72), that I drove for a while and premium was almost a 1.40 at the time, between the break down and using a loaner, gas got cheaper, and then I got my 02 GT and haven't paid more than .96. a gallon since october. I've got a few questions of my own about the Ligthening 50/50 weight distribution ?!? (with my fat aunt strapped in the bed) Out handle a vette ?!? (maybe a 53 vette) A Lightening is a pretty bad truck that can handle really well for a truck and is big time fast in terms of acceleration In terms of suspension, the Lightening is truck new millenium, but car disco era. Sounds to me like the Lightening guys are subject to the same disease most LS-1 f-body owners are. SHS (swelled head syndrome). Stanger's had it in the mid 80's and early 90's then we were humbled a bit especially when Ford porked the stang up and left us with 215 hp for a while, It's about to hit again when ford rolls out the 03 cobra's though __________________ 2002 5M GT (99% stock) 1991 5M LX (30% stock) patiently awaiting my satin silver 07 Mach 1, and don't forget the shaker

02-07-2002, 01:20 PM	#35
95GTS Git jiggy Join Date: Oct 1999 Location: MO USA Posts: 865	From Gary Siegel Concerning the development of the "Thunderbolt" - To my knowledge, they're not using anyone from the first Lightning Team(at least none of the "major players"). I did run into the primary chassis/suspension Design Engineer for the Lightning, and he said that he'd been "a consultant" of sorts, but that they wouldn't let him actually work on the program. I've always felt a little negatively towards the likelyhood that the so-called "Lightning replacement" will amount to very much, and I'll tell you why: A couple of months before the Lightning went into production in late '92, we decided to have a final all-out verification drive evaluation of 5 pre-production Lightning vehicles. Each one was set up differently, some with empty beds, some loaded to maximum GVW, one with a cab-high box cover, one with a flat box cover, and one towing a 24' travel trailer (rented!). One of the Development Engineers was very familiar with the Smokey Mountains, so he laid out a course which he planned to take us about 5 days to complete (Start Monday AM, finish Friday, PM). We proceeded to collect enough volunteer drivers with varied backgrounds and evaluation experience, AND we sent a note to the Managers in charge of the New '96 F150 Program, inviting them to send representatives along on the trip so they would know what it was that they were going to be trying to replace as soon as they could develop a powertrain. They didn't even respond to our invitation, so my conclusion was and is "How can they successfully replace an exceptional vehicle like the Lightning, when they aren't even interested enough to find out what it can do?"... We ran the trip on 4 successive weeks, with different drivers each week, and each of them driving a different one of the Lightnings each day. It was unbelieveable! What a rush!!! Development Issues with the Lightning - The frame had to be reinforced at several locations due to Durability failures. Lowering the body reduced allowable suspension travel and required stiffer springs and shocks, which increased stresses on the frame. The front end was lowered 1", and the back 2.5" so that it sits more level when empty, then the rear springs had to be made stiffer so it wouldn't "drag its ***" when loaded to max. GVW. The extra leaf on the front side of the rear springs was put there to prevent the axle from "winding up" when doing fast launches from a stop. This helps prevent axle hop and reduces the chances of snapping the u-joints. The 4" aluminum driveshaft (2.5" steel was "standard") and limiting the Lightning to the SWB were both to prevent twisting off the driveshaft on "launch", as the 17" wheels and BIG tires mostly prevented the rear axle (wheels) from spinning, which transmitted more torque to the driveshaft than was expected at first. The Lightning has a true dual exhaust system, routed down the RH frame rail to allow keeping the midship fuel tank. Development worked with the exhaust system supplier for about 6 months to get the exhaust sound as subjectively good as possible, while still passing "Legal Drive-By Noise" Testing. The Lightning had the first block-mounted engine oil cooler on a Ford Truck Gas engine (went across-the-board on 5.8L after Lightning developed it). The Lightning has tubular exhaust and upper intake manifolds (Cobra style), Single-bar throttle linkage (other Ford Trucks at the time had 4-bar linkages which were MUCH slower-responding). The Lightning interior has unique sport bucket seats with inflatable lumbar support and side bolsters. The I-Beams are the same as every other F-150 EXCEPT for the steering stop. This was done to prevent the tires from rubbing the radius arms, however some still do. There are no other changes to the axle for alignment. The radius arms were drilled slightly different to get some of the camber back when the truck was lowered. The Lightning could go 0-60 MPH in 7.2 seconds, (equal to or better than a Chevy 454 SS, with 103 less cubic inches), and could maintain .9 G lateral acceleration on the skid-pad, with spikes to 1.0 G, which is considerably better than most sports cars of any price or pedigree. -From Gary Siegel who managed the powertrain team for the original Lightning project. NEED MORE?? __________________ 1967 Mustang Coupe

02-07-2002, 01:46 PM	#36
95GTS Git jiggy Join Date: Oct 1999 Location: MO USA Posts: 865	OEM Specs Here's the OEM Spec Sheet for your curiosity: Go to: http://www.svt.ford.com/flash/index.html Click on SVT Archive at the top. Select the 93, 94, 95 Lightnings and then click View specs. __________________ 1967 Mustang Coupe

02-07-2002, 03:55 PM	#37
CactusHugger11 Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Indiana Posts: 38	we arent even talking about lightnings on this thread. the topic is f-bodies vs. stangs. why dont you go tart your own thread on why trucks are so cool. this sight is about mustangs and things related to them. not lightnings. granted if i ever had to buy a truck i would probably buy a lightning cuz its the fastest truck but i dont liek trucks and i dont really care about them so lets not talk about them anymore.

02-07-2002, 04:33 PM	#38
95GTS Git jiggy Join Date: Oct 1999 Location: MO USA Posts: 865	I don't care what you think. Sure I know this site is for stangs. Look how long i've been a member here. Also this thread now also involves the Lightning since i'm now trying to inform the ignorant about the truck. You as well as some others bashed these trucks in THIS thread so now i'm setting the record straight about them. Tough luck if you don't like trucks. I brought up the L as an example as to your logic of "the lower vehicle handles better". That was the only reason it was brought up. Bashing it is what brought all of this about. __________________ 1967 Mustang Coupe

02-07-2002, 05:20 PM	#39
95mustanggt Registered Member Join Date: May 2000 Location: Kamloops, BC Posts: 2,875	Man this thread is getting old... Hammer, buddy, kill this thread, man

02-07-2002, 07:53 PM	#40
95GTS Git jiggy Join Date: Oct 1999 Location: MO USA Posts: 865	I second that motion. I"m done with it myself. __________________ 1967 Mustang Coupe

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
40 reasons FOR gun control	DAN-MAN	Blue Oval Lounge	22	11-13-2002 05:19 PM
I love Mustangs	LayanRubr	Blue Oval Lounge	12	08-11-2002 04:39 PM
Seatbelt recall 99 mustangs	TechnoVixen	Built Ford Tough	0	06-13-2001 10:33 AM