|
Why do people like mustangs?
OK I'm not trying to start a huge argument or piss anyone off but I have been wondering why people would buy a mustang GT over say a Trans AM or Z28. The main reason people buy a V8 sports car is because they want a fast car with great performace. Well a Trans AM out performs a Mustang GT. So why do so many people buy them. If you've purchased a Mustang GT perhaps you could shed some light on this subject.
|
Why do people buy any one brand over another?
There are many reason why I bought my Mustang GT over the Z28 I was looking at. 1. Price - Mustangs tend (for the sake of arguement, I'm assuming mustangs are cheaper) to be a lot cheaper than Camero or Firebird. 2. Build quality - This one may be subjective, but from all the people I've talked to, personal experience, and research I've done, the GM products just flat out don't last. They develope squeaks and rattles faster than any car I know of. 3. Style - I like the look of the firebird, but the newer Camero looks like a cross between an LT1 and a dam Chrysler Intrepid! This is something that is personal taste, but it is still a variable. 4. Power (Not stock for stock) - You mentioned that the Z28 and Firebird are faster and that is why people buy sports cars. You hit the nail on the head there. The GM product does not have 1/2 the aftermarket support of the mustang. Open a Sumit catelog and look at the LT1/LS1 section and then look at the 4.6/5.0 section. There is not much you can do to a F-body. But a mustang can be made a hell of a lot faster than stock. You pick the right heads/intake/cam combo and 350 HP at the flywheel is easy to get and puts you right back in the game with the LS1 (blows away the LT1). So there are just 4 BIG reasons why I personally would buy a Mustang over an F-body. No one else may agree, but that's my take. |
Not a fair comparison...
That's not a good comparison. So what if a Z28 or TA is faster, I would hope so. they have to have a 5.7L engine to do it, try putting a 4.6 w/ equal power, then lets compare a mustang to a TA or Z28. I know plenty of TA's and Z's ... and vettes for that matter that have had their rear ends handed to them after running an equally power mustang. I for one have out manuvered the F-Body cars on numerous occasions. I like my GT
|
OK TAs cost about 3000 more than a GT. But your still get 50 horses over the GT. As far as your 2nd and 3rd points I think those are a matter of opinion and couldnt really be made into valid points. I do agree that the new Zs dont look that sporty and I wouldnt buy one but the new TAs, especially with the ram air option? You cant tell me that doesnt look mean. Your 4th point may be correct I dont know I havent really looked into it, but wouldnt it be true that whatever you did to a GT if you did to a TA youd make it faster dollar for dollae since your starting off with a bigger engine?
And for the second response hell yes a bigger engine is going to produce more power. Wouldnt you want a bigger engine so that you had more power? Which gets back to my original point why a GT over a TA? And one more thing: mustangs look like they sit pretty high off the ground for a sports car, I mean they sit about as high as a taurus or car like that does. 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. |
I dont know about outside of Fayetteville, but F-Body's are not cheap. By not stretch of the word can they be called a bargain.
When I went new car shoping about 1 year and a half ago, I looked at Camaro's just for kicks. THere wasnt one Z28 there for under 27k. And When I looked at FireBirds (Which I was actually considering because everyone talked about how "Expensive new Stangs were") I didnt see one that was under 29k. And they were all Autos. Except for two Ram-Air WS-6's. One Red, One Black, they had 6 spds, and were awesome looking car. But when I saw the price, I started laughing (The Salesman didnt appreciate it.) 34k for the red, 36K for the black. Well, to make the point. I bought my 2000 GT, 5spd, Performance Red (I told the dealership to find me a Perf Red GT with a 5spd, thats all that mattered to me.) BRAND NEW, for a hair under 20k. Cant beat that. Personally, I like the Styling of the Mustang way more than the Flying Cheese wedge, catfish looking Camaro. I even like it a tad more than the Ram Air birds. As for Performance, I dont know about other 99+GT's, but mine rips along pretty damn good, as a few members of this site can attest to. I have also heard F-Body owners griping about noises, such as rattles, and squeaks, and dash panel vibrations, and wind noise. The only prob I have with my stang is the throw out bearing likes to make some noise every now and then, and if I'm racing it, I can hear the belt squeal every now and then. But then again, I drive like a maniac....so.... :D But one of the main reasons I picked the stang, other than bieng 8-10k less than the Birds, is because of its Heritage, I'm a Ford Man, and definetly because I'm a Mustang Man. But an openminded one. |
Justa few more comments...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
One of the best examples is the response the 4.6L has to Boost. It may be smaller, but you can pull a lot of power out of it. Now, I'm not going to say that you can't make a Z or TB fast. That would be just plain ignorant. But I think it is fair to say that a "Mustang goes faster easier". Plus you can do the work yourself, take more pride in the car and turn it in to something YOU made. That's what I like. Quote:
Be very careful about the laws of physics. There are a LOT more of them than you are aware, nothing is ever as easy as "it's lower so it handles better". Car and Driver reported that the 2000 Mustang Cobra R had the highest road grip test results of any car they tested last year. And a simple side-by-side comparison will quickly show the height difference between a Cobra R and a Ferrari or Vette. There is no cut and dry reason why some one likes a mustang over an F-body over an other car. So trying to pick out one reason that puts the final nail in the coffin just isn't going to exisit. If it did, no one would buy anything other than Mustangs. Just remember that Mustangs out sell the Camero and Firebird combined 3 to 1. That does say something. |
Hmmm,
How should I respond to this? Maybe I should ask why people buy F-Bods? Both cars have their pros and cons. You said that people buy sports cars because they want performance.... If all you want is off-the shelf straight line performance with a warranty and you don't care what it looks like, drives like, handles like... or how long it will even last after the warranty goes out.... Go ahead and buy that FBod... Sorry, but to be honest, build quality on F-Bodies is sort of an inside joke in the car industry. Despite it's lack of off-the-shelf straight line power, the Mustang still dominates the after-market. It's just too easy to make fast... (I should know... I have a reliable, easy to drive daily, comfortable, well-appointed car that eats Vettes for breakfast for just a little more than what many F-Bod owners paid for their SSs) By a more than a 3 to 1 margin customers chose the stang. While I can't speak for others, here's some reasons why I bought one: After Market Availability Dependability Build Quality Drivability on a daily basis Visibility Looks Heritage I have no animosity at all toward f-bods, in their own way, they are some powerful machines.... but for some of us, power alone does not complete the package. Check out this review at Edmunds.com... http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/compa...3/page002.html |
Im a long time GM boy. Well 60's and 70's cars anyways:) My mustang is my first new stang.
I bought mine; #1 it was cheaper then a Z-28 or T/A, cheapest Z-28 when I was looking went for 27k vs mine with 23k sticker. I wont even mention sticker shock on T/A's #2 Newer F bodies IMHO are ugly/overwieght, #3 think alot more can be done with the Mustang. #4 Again better looking. |
I happen to know 4 good friends that have new ram-air T/A's and Camaros. They all complain of engines burning oil and rattles developing when the car should just be done breaking in. These are $32K cars that seem to be built like a Pinto.
I also don't like their looks or how you can't judge where the extremities of the car are because of seating position and the shape of the body. I am a diehard Mustang man, but I did go look at T/A's before I bought my GT. I think most people decide to buy the Mustang because of practicality, reliability, and the fact that for $3K difference, you could put that money into the Mustang to outhandle the GM and keep up in a drag race, too. |
Quote:
|
I looked at new Z's and TA's along with the 01 Mustangs. To be honest, the prices do not differ much if you are a smart shopper. I like the looks of the Z's better than the TA's, and love the GT mustang's looks. The main reason I chose the GT is because (and I have no regrets) it's so much more comfortable inside. Better ERGONOMICS. Better VISIBILITY. Better RIDE. There's more to life that just horsepower, although that is important. I wouldn't have bought a mustang if they hadn't upped the power to 260 in '99. That's pretty much my minimum acceptable, so I am very pleased with my choice. Mine's a convertible, too.
|
In response to why people buy Mustang, people buy cars for styling. Styling is the number one reason people buy cars.
The people on this forum may or may not agree with this. Then comes the price. Then utility. I read that in the consumer digest or something. I bought mine because I like it. I had one before and was very dependable. I also have a Corvette. I always wanted one. Chevy counterpart is far more expensive to fix. And Mustang is almost as much fun(with less HP). I think the argument of spending money to make one as fast as another is irrelevant. We buy Mustangs for cheaper price and spend another $10k to make it as fast as a Porsche. But the guy in the Porsche doesn't care about that. Driving a sportscar is for the way these finely crafted machines drive. No sedan feels like it. (definite exclusivity) Trying to beat another sportscar is just a game that we have created for ourselves... and we have fun with it. But that's not the main reason I bought a Mustang. |
I'm sure everyone has their own reasons for buying what they did. I personally looked at the LS1 cars as well as Cobra and picked the GT over all of them. At the time no body had even mentioned a IRS to Live axle swap otherwise I would have the Cobra.
Also keep in mind that when I set out for a car I wanted something that would not only look good but would be a good platform for drag racing without having to replace a lot of driveline parts. Plus Chevy does not have much of a following in the way of a racing series which I happen to enjoy doing with NMRA and FFW. Body: The Ram Air cars do look mean but they are heavy and heavy cars tend to break parts faster. The GT at first was not my favorite but it grew on me the more I saw them and saw potential with the body once the aftermarket opened up. Interior: The LS1 cars seemed nice inside but the there was the downside of seating position and visibility. I like to be aware of my surrounding and didn't feel like I could in this car. The mustang was better except the seats where not the best but liveable. Driveline: I spent a lot of time at the track and have plenty of friends that race. The F body rear ends are very weak and don't handle much abuse, there isn't much in the way to strengthen them other than replacement. On the hand they do have a very strong transmission. The Cobra with IRS is what turned me off from the Cobra since it's more of a handling not drag racing type suspension. The GT with live axle hands a good amount of abuse and can be beefed up fairly easily and cheap. The trans in the GT doesn't have the best rep but I'm willing to bet it would hold its own if driven properly and so far it lasted me 69K miles and I just broke a 4th gear shift fork. Not bad for 6K RPM launches on slicks. Engine: The LS1s have the advantage here but even with the 80RWHP advantage they have to over come the problem of 300 more pounds of wieght and not being able to put down any real tires for traction to save the rear end. Granted with a solid rear end they would be a much more viable option. The GT still better than previous years and the aftermarket is starting to open up. I also have lots of connections to Ford racers and shops that could help me out. The LS1s would leave me starting from scratch. Price: Most base LS1 cars where in the 25-28K range. Cobras around 28K and GTs 22K. I worked out a great deal and paid 19.8K for my GT that was pretty much the deciding factor. Bill |
Why not a Mustang? I have a 2001 GT, electric green, 5 speed manual transmission, leather interior and it is still stock. My daughters boy friend say's it has the look of superman to him and he's a rice man!(Holding out hope for him.)
My best friend is a Chevy person and owns a 2000 Camero SS, so I'll just give you the comparison of the two cars. PRICE: Camero, $38,000, 328hp, automatic tranny, t-bar roof. My GT cost $23,000 and has 260hp. In a straight line he waxes my tail and thats ok because I'am not a staight line race type person. But put us on the open road with hills and curves and he can't keep up with me. It's not his driving abilty either, we swapped cars one day and I could not stay with the stang on the curves. The SS gets all kinds of squrilly in tight turns. I find it sad that a a car that cost $15,000 more than mine cannot even handle near as well. Think about this too! For that kind of money he could have been in a Roush Mustang stag two that would open all kinds of whoop butt on a SS. Quality: I get a fan belt squeal when I do high power shifts and that is about the only strange sounds that have been heard. He has squeaks and groans coming from almost every corner of the SS. It sounds like a car with 70,000 miles instead of 11,000. BY the way the stang has 8500 miles. Style: Well that's just amatter of taste. What you think looks good is in the eye of the beholder. Power: If I spent another $15,000 on my GT what do you think would happen to the SS in the straight run? Quote from CAR AND DRIVER: The Mustang GT is the best bang for the buck out there, so run it up to the high revs in 3rd grear and back off the gas. There is nothing like the burble of the 4.6L or an American V8 for that matter. |
I got it
you can get a lot more stuff for mustangs than any onther car :D
thats Y/lol :D also they look better to me |
My wife has a Camaro, I have a Mustang. The Camaro is a great car. Comes standard with accessories that we spend thousands of dollars on (aside from the horsepower, we're talking a torque arm rears suspension, front coilovers, big brakes, etc) but after being around my Mustang obsession, she is willing to give up her Camaro for a Mustang.
The Mustang has a hard-to-explain almost cult-like following. Part of the reason for this is the massive aftermarket. Bolt on parts are almost as plentiful as the old school Chevy SB. And not only are the cars relatively easy to work on, if you DO get stuck, you only have to turn to one of the many online forums (like this one) to find someone who has been exactly where you are and done that. The Mustang is more comfortable than the Camaro, and looks better, in my opinion. It isn't all about horsepower. What sells the car is the overall package. And as long as Ford keeps the Mustang fans happy, they will continue to sell their cars for them. I couldn't begin to mention how many people I know have bought Mustangs, simply because they were exposed to the enthusiasm and enjoyment we see all the time. Mustangs Rule! |
please tell me you didnt put cobra badges on it
|
Quote:
I did not. But if I decided that I was enamoured by the look of Cobra badging and put them on my car, then I suppose that would be my choice, wouldn't it? I like the look of the car as it is. I purchased a complete Saleen graphics kit, to finish the look, but have decided against applying them. Not because I have some fixated paranoia of what others might think of my :eek: fake Saleen :eek: but because I've grown to like the sleek look of just the body kit on a monochromatic GT platform. Anyone wanna buy a complete Saleen graphics kit? |
Guys........don't ya'll know better than to feed the trolls?
|
True. We don't want to see the type of flame scars on the walls here that a few other sites tend to have.
he started it :D |
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. |
Quote:
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 :D. Starting at mid 15s in the 1/4. http://www.nloc.net/forum/showthread.php?threadid=9976 |
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... |
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. |
ok so why would a lightning out handle a TA?
|
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:eek: 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:D |
Here's another good reason to buy a Mustang, 87 octane is reccomended by Ford for the GT :D, 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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
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. |
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.... ;) |
where do I buy my gas :D, 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 :) |
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?? |
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. |
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.
|
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. |
Man this thread is getting old...
Hammer, buddy, kill this thread, man |
I second that motion. I"m done with it myself.
|
Stick a fork in it.... 'cause its done....
[Locking Thread] |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:20 PM. |