3 people haven't done they're homework.
2 votes for the 20 year old Crustang,
and 1 vote for an Eclipse or should I say Dodge Eclipse, cosidering it is co-designed, engineered, and assembled with the Sebring and Stratus.
Not to mention Eclipses horrible advertising which aims at 20 something ecstasy dropping modern day hippie's who think techno music and raves are the greatest thing on earth.

 

I dont think I need to explain why the Mustang sells. It has this certain..... effect on stupid hicks. Their dad had a mustang, so its their turn. Mustangs are "cool". Etc etc, who knows why. Aslo, the whole V8 thing comes into play. V8's are like the ultime engine to some people, nothing with less cylinders could possibly be fast.

I think most people here are smarter than to fall for a Mustang.....

 

Is ANYONE seriously influenced by car advertising anyway?? I can honestly say I have never felt the urge to buy a car based on advertising. As for the MUSTANG, it may be unrefined and outdated, but in most any real world circumstance it would put shame to the Accord (performance wise).

 

Well jw, that may be true, but Honda Accords aren't about 0-60 times, and I really was under the impression that most of our board members aren't either, since they own Hondas.

There have been a few ads that really get my heart going...such as the RSX-S ads, that Lincoln LS ad back in the day was pretty cool, and the S2000 ad was just incredible.

But if Honda can sell 48,000 Accords with some of the most boring ads I've EVER seen, your point is well understood. My belief is that ads don't make you want to buy something, they help brand recognition.

 

Agreed. I was just pointing out the fact that sometimes people on this board tend to get a little biased (which is to be expected). I mean, the Accord is probably a more well rounded car than the Mustang, but it's all in what you are looking for in a car. I was just attempting to point out that the Mustang is not a worthless piece of crap just because it has a dated design/chassis/suspension. Like all cars it has it's pros and cons.

 

I'd buy a Mustang over an Accord V6 in a second. So it's got an old-ass platform. So the build quality sucks. So the back seat's useless. So it won't go through snow. So Bill Ford talks like an idiot in the commercial. Give me one racing venue where a stock GT wouldn't stomp all over the Accord. 20 more hp, helluva more useful powerband, RWD, and some tires that have an intended purpose of something other than long treadwear and low rolling resistance. Not to mention that a GT stickers for $23,845 and I'm sure you can bargain the hell out of a Ford dealer. Oh, and add a Vortech blower and you have 400 hp.

 

Thank you, MFB. A logical explanation from that standpoint. And I do understand. And Bill Ford is a retard :fawk:

 

Lets not jump the gun and say the Crustang is going to be faster than the '03 Accord just because it has 20+ hp. A GT has 20 more hp than a S2k, who'd win that race?
I know magazine times are irrelevent in the real world, but I see GT times in mid 14's, and the new Accord is getting mid to high 14's.
The Crustang I'm sure will not be able to beat the '03 Accord in an all around performance contest either. I'm sure the Accord will produce better autocross times than a GT, all day long.

The only pro in the Crustangs favor is acceleration.
The accord:
1. value
2. reliability
3. residual value
4. durability
5. versatility
6. modern design
7. modern technology
8. luxury
9. handling
10. mpg
11. user friendly

Just to name a few, but if some of you would still buy a Crustang for the simple reason of a SLIGHTLY better acceleration time, that's your opinion.
In my opinion if I'm going to make a huge purchase like buying a car, I am going to research several variables before hand and make my decision accordingly so that my $$$ is well spent. I think the majority of the people on this site are in the same boat.

 

Raven, you forgot the biggest reason - It has fake heritage and a good nameplate. Which, of course, is total bullshit

 

Everyone assumes "race" means quarter mile. I'm not really concerned with quarter mile timeslips. I'm talking about your autocross/road course style of driving. An Accord is not going to out handle a GT, it's FWD with a soft suspension and not nearly enough tire underneath it.

Quite simply the Accord is a family sedan with a nice engine and a couple of missing doors while the GT is a sports car. I don't want a family sedan, so from this list I'd go with the GT.

P.S. S2k's get stomped on by stickshift V6 Altimas in a straight line if you care about such matters.