I remember reading on Stangnet they were all throwing a fit that the Honda Accord could beat a Mustang GT Stock vs. Stock :joshers:

 

Thast's cause the current mustangs are pices of shit. The next generation that's coming out, I think 2005, is suppose to put some muscle back into the car. Also, I remember looking at Honda's website and they didn't make the V6 in manual, only automatic. Have they seen the error of their ways and started making them since I last checked?

 

this might be just my Import / euro bias, but Mustangs have always been a POS. to take it one step further, all the "muscle cars" have been pieces of crap. To me Performance has always been more than just a number. just because you can go really fast in a straight line means shit as far as I'm concerned; if you can't corner it means nothing.

Mark

 

I respect LS1 and Lt1 engines better than anything in a ford.

You don't think S2000's are fast? Or the new V6 Accords? NSX?

 

:werd: I remember when i went to the track with my bro, it was my first time going to the track and seeing some of those commeros run blew my mind

 

i agree, kind of. i hate the newer mustangs with a passion, but you say ALL mustangs or ALL muscle cars.do you remember the shelby mustangs? those were fast cars that handles exceptionally well.and another thing, you can always alter the car to be able to turn better. our hondas and acuras mayb be light and pretty decnt from the factory, but they still arent racecars (with the type r's, s2k's and nsx's aside) im not tring to rag on you but to an extent, you have to give those cars at least a little bit of credit. i mean with out the past there is no future.

 

yeah ok, the Cobra was a smal fast light car, I did forget abou that one, but it had nothing the euro car couldn't compete with. but from the factory, you can't just make a muscle car turn as well as my civic would with the same amount of $$ droped into it. they are extremely heavy, and not to mention the very common leaf spring suspension in the back. They were pigs as far as driveability went, and they weren't very efficient, as compared to import / Euro cars of the same time period.

Just look at the state they are in now. There is a very good reason why adding a header to an import, or adding and exhaust system only gives you 3-7 horse (usually); or adding variouse other bolt on performance parts. The American cars come so inefficient from the factory that adding a new set of headers gets you 30 horse, or a new exhaust system, where the imports are designed very efficient. They have big engines to componsate for their shortcummings.

They just weren't designed to be cars that performed well, unless you were going in a straight line. Just look at what production car racing today. it is filled with quite a few Teg's BMW's Mercs porsche's, and then a few Vetts and the odd viper. the first thing to go off the track is the viper usually because it is soo ass heavy that it just can't keep up with a Porsche or a BMW around the corners. and they can cost quite a bit less right out of the factory; If the american cars were so great with customisation, then you would see a lot more being raced on stracks that had more than 4 left turns.....

but thats just my opinion......

Mark

 

One is an entry level commuto-box and the other is a bigger, family commuto-box. People who buy those cars (new) don't care about fast.

 

This is a Ford. And all I have to say is... there's not one stock piece of anything by any manufacturer in America that goes 0-100 and back to 0 in 13 seconds. This car was made in '65, and until you've drifted through a turn successfully in one of these breaking a buck-20, you really know nothing about performance enough to criticise old american musclecars. There's not an import on this planet that can compete with these and still remain street legal. There ain't a GM product out there either, and this baby was built in 1965. Nothing street legal or european ever competed with this car successfully. Get your facts straight.

The S2000 is a %$Y#ing hair dryer in comparison. I guess that makes an Accord a sewing machine, and a GM product... a weed whacker. The only Chevy that ever beat this was the Cheetah... a prototype car that never made the production numbers to meet it in a sanctioned race event... and it ain't street legal, either. I too hate everything Ford built after 1980, but I won't stand for someone bashing them. They put the United States on the map in world-wide racing events when no other manufacturer could, and that caused every other manufacturer out there to make a better product.



This thread needs to be locked, because it's going nowhere fast.

 

How does the Ford GT compare jafro?