I can't believe this! [Archive]

Iliketogofast

06-27-2006, 07:43 AM

Look at this. The new Shelby GT500 Mustang has an MSRP of only $40k, and that's loaded! 500HP for only $40k!

The Z06 'Vette is $25k more, and it only has 5 horses on the 'Stang.... Weight numbers show the stang right unde 4000, with the vette 800 pounds lighter. Is that worth 25k? The 0-60 and 0-100 numbers were interesting. The Z06 gets a 4.2 0-60 and reaches 100MPH in 9 seconds flat. The Shelby gets to 60 in 4.7, and 100MPH in 11 seconds... Without the standard supercharger. I didn't get the horsepower numbers without the forced induction but I can only imagine the difference it makes on the smaller motor (5.4L versus the 'Vettes hulking 7.0).

I think the Corvette is going down drastically in sales this year unless Chevy makes some changes for 2007 (all the info was for 2006 Models - '07 hasn't been released yet).

06-27-2006, 07:48 AM

i love mustangs and i agree with what ya said but corvettes look nicer IMO

Dale512

06-27-2006, 07:56 AM

I disagree, somebody in the market for a Corvette isn't going to consider a mustang of any type or vice-versa. Not too mention the fact that theres only gonna be 9,000 of the Shelby's built this year and don't expect them to go for MSRP or anywhere near it....There gonna get marked up big time. My dad bought his Z06 for alitte over $68,000...which is right around MSRP.

Also what are you talking about the Shelby without the standard supercharger, you can't get any type of Mustang with a Naturally-Aspirated 5.4......yet, but look for around 385HP out of the N/A 5.4 when it comes out in the new Mach 1 or Boss, which ever they decide to call it.

quads14589

06-27-2006, 07:56 AM

sned me a link of the shelby 500gt

Iliketogofast

06-27-2006, 08:05 AM

Yeah, the Corvette does look more like a supercar than the Stang does. The Shelby does have a really great styling improvement over the standards and Cobras, but it doesn't match up to the sexy lines of the 'Vette.

What I didn't mention is the Saleen S281-E Mustang. It has a nearly identical pricetag to the Z06, but it is even faster than the Shelby. It makes 550HP at the wheels and 500 lbs.-ft. of torque, making use of a highly upgraded and supercharged 4.6 in a 3500 pound package. It also has some sweet but expensive factory options, such as an optional full-glass roof and color changing paint.

http://saleen.com/s281_e.htm

Iliketogofast

06-27-2006, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Dale512
I disagree, somebody in the market for a Corvette isn't going to consider a mustang of any type or vice-versa. Not too mention the fact that theres only gonna be 9,000 of the Shelby's built this year and don't expect them to go for MSRP or anywhere near it....There gonna get marked up big time. My dad bought his Z06 for alitte over $68,000...which is right around MSRP.

Also what are you talking about the Shelby without the standard supercharger, you can't get any type of Mustang with a Naturally-Aspirated 5.4......yet, but look for around 385HP out of the N/A 5.4 when it comes out in the new Mach 1 or Boss, which ever they decide to call it.

That info came from an article Ford produced, it had something to do with prototype track testing. I didn't really understand why they would have tested it without the forced induction, but they did.

And you are partially right - somebody who is looking for a 'Vette or vice versa specifically isn't going to be persuaded otherwise, but what about people that are just wanting a fast car for cheaper than a European car like Ferrari or Porche? They will go for the Shelby now, because it's cheaper.

Slinky

06-27-2006, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Iliketogofast
That info came from an article Ford produced, it had something to do with prototype track testing. I didn't really understand why they would have tested it without the forced induction, but they did.

And you are partially right - somebody who is looking for a 'Vette or vice versa specifically isn't going to be persuaded otherwise, but what about people that are just wanting a fast car for cheaper than a European car like Ferrari or Porche? They will go for the Shelby now, because it's cheaper.

the shelby's wont be cheaper...i bet you wont be able to buy one for any less than 80k....they will be like the Ford GT's prices are marked up over 250k for them now. Yes people are going to want these cars, for this reason they will be selling for no where near the MSRP

juiced450r

06-27-2006, 11:25 AM

I will almost bet the new GT500 will actually have more than 500 horse considering the 03-04 Cobra were rated at 390 hp at the flywheel but were actually pushing 380-385 hp at the wheels on the dyno. The Z-06 in 2003 was rated at 400hp yet the best et I seen from one on slicks was 12.6 @ 110. My 03 bone stock down to the stock air filter with supposedly 390hp went 12.1 @ 113.8 with slicks. The vette is even a lot lighter. If you want all out power, straight line performance, and a ton of aftermarket to support it the new GT500 will rule but the Corvette does handle a lot better I will give it that.

Dale512

06-27-2006, 11:34 AM

You sure when they said without the standard supercharger that they didn't mean the twin-screw from the GT that they used throughout most of the testing, before using a single-screw blower on the production models? Theres no way it went 11's without the blower. It was rumored to be in the 11's during testing...but once again that was with the straight 5.4 out of the Ford GT supercar...with the Twin-Screw Supercharger, more boost, and different engine internals than the production GT500.

Stock Z06's are dynoing around 475HP & Torque at the wheels, don't expect much more from the stock GT500. With the new SAE rating standards for HP & Torque it's not as easy for Manufacturers to underrate their engines as it's been in the past.

Juiced, my uncles '02 Z06 went 12.2@119mph on street tires bone stock....just throwing that out there to ya. Maybe it's the elevation difference between PA and Indiana? for the times to be so much different.

PowerJunkie

06-27-2006, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by mjpridered10
i love mustangs and i agree with what ya said but corvettes look nicer IMO

i disagree i think the shelby looks better.

i know these pics isnt a shelby but this car is so nice

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h25/west_a_town/f1_4.jpg

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h25/west_a_town/56_4.jpg

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h25/west_a_town/45_4.jpg

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h25/west_a_town/8d_4.jpg

Alberta_Qaudin

06-27-2006, 02:41 PM

now i dont have a dyno in my garage, nor have i ripped either a Z06 or a GT500 around a track, but you can pump all the horses you want into any car and it will snort, if you want an aerodynamic car that hugs the road and was rated by 3 different reputable (sp) car mags. as the best all round sports car you go with the vette, and i agree also that you will never convince a person out to buy a vette into a mustang.

now that said i think the new stang's have an amazing look, and hell yea 500hp is impressive and may give a good run on the strip but in cornering ect i think the vette would capitalize

i think they are in a different class from each other now, stang= back to roots look and muscle, vette= new school high performance + aerodynamics

CHEVYZ

06-27-2006, 08:39 PM

I was reading about the Stang a few days ago..... I thought it was kind of weak. Not a bad price tag, but a vette will put the smack down on that thing. I am much more of a Chevy person though... dig my "User" name.:devil: ;)

juiced450r

06-27-2006, 08:49 PM

I doubt a vette will even touch that the GT500 at all. I know it will not. It will kill the vette in any test but handling and braking. All you chevy guys are living in a dream world. :D It will go mid to high 11s stock on slicks.

Dale512

06-27-2006, 09:08 PM

um...I've ran my dads '06 Z06 bone stock on street tires, 12.1@117mph with a 2.0 60-foot time...the traps are there for high 11s, I just babied it on the start since it's not my car.

juiced450r

06-27-2006, 09:19 PM

So what is your point. In drag racing every tenth dropped off your 60ft is 2 tenths in the quarter. So if your 500hp 3200lb vette had a 1.85 60 ft it would run 11.8 in the quarter. A stock 03 with 390 hp that weighs 3700 lbs(every 100 pounds is a tenth of a second) went 12.1 with a 1.85 60 ft. In all reality which is actually faster. My 03 went 12.4 on street tires with a 2.05 60 ft. stock!!! That was a 4.6 liter. The GT500 is a 5.4 liter with a better blower. Now which do you think is going to be faster??

Dale512

06-27-2006, 10:06 PM

I have yet to see a stock 03 Cobra go any better than 12.6 bone stock with a 1.9 60-foot, don't forget elevation has alot to do with it. The only real way to settle something is head to head.

I'm not arguing, just throwing my experiences out there.

06-27-2006, 10:22 PM

I kind of like the idea of getting an older one and putting the 500 horses in instead of buying it like that.

ITSTOCK

06-27-2006, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by Dale512
I have yet to see a stock 03 Cobra go any better than 12.6 bone stock with a 1.9 60-foot, don't forget elevation has alot to do with it. The only real way to settle something is head to head.

I'm not arguing, just throwing my experiences out there.

I went 12.6@113 at Atco raceway, BONESTOCK, eagle F1's, stock air filter, when I state bonestock I mean it. With slicks, I have no doubt I could have improved upon my 2.0 60' and ran some real low 12's. However, that would no longer be bonestock :p Evan smith ran a 12.4, and I believe somebody holds the fastest TRUE BONESTOCK 03/4 Cobra record at 12.3, I'll see if I can find the magazine articles. I am just stating facts here by pointing out evan smith, so don't get upset...they have gone faster than 12.6. I no longer own my 03 cobra though, although if you are on car boards you might have seen it.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=6236&item=4631850384

ITSTOCK

06-27-2006, 10:31 PM

That's nothing too impressive (although I don't know which track you race at....elevation has a LOT to do with it). My friends bonestock 02 Z06 ran a 12.0@117 first at Atco, than backed it up at E-town a couple of weeks later. When my friend ran the 12.0, there was also ANOTHER bonestock 02 Z06 than ran an 11.98@117. The NEW Z06's are EASY 11 second rides.

Originally posted by Dale512
um...I've ran my dads '06 Z06 bone stock on street tires, 12.1@117mph with a 2.0 60-foot time...the traps are there for high 11s, I just babied it on the start since it's not my car.

juiced450r

06-27-2006, 10:32 PM

Dale512

06-28-2006, 08:13 PM

Um, ITSTOCK I wasnt trying to impress, trust me if I wanted to I could have been well into the 11's in the Z06, like I said I pretty much babied the thing since it's not my car.

Iliketogofast

06-28-2006, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by Dale512
You sure when they said without the standard supercharger that they didn't mean the twin-screw from the GT that they used throughout most of the testing, before using a single-screw blower on the production models? Theres no way it went 11's without the blower. It was rumored to be in the 11's during testing...but once again that was with the straight 5.4 out of the Ford GT supercar...with the Twin-Screw Supercharger, more boost, and different engine internals than the production GT500.

Stock Z06's are dynoing around 475HP & Torque at the wheels, don't expect much more from the stock GT500. With the new SAE rating standards for HP & Torque it's not as easy for Manufacturers to underrate their engines as it's been in the past.

Juiced, my uncles '02 Z06 went 12.2@119mph on street tires bone stock....just throwing that out there to ya. Maybe it's the elevation difference between PA and Indiana? for the times to be so much different.

Nope, it said "without a supercharger". I can't find the article now, I don't remember how I stumbled on it. I thought that was amazing too.

FasstMidnightZ

06-28-2006, 09:35 PM

I'm diggin the S7..only has 750hp. And, can go ove 200mph :D

Iliketogofast

06-28-2006, 09:37 PM

Yeah I like the S7 too :D

Check out the specs at www.saleen.com.

Carbon fiber this, titanium that... Sexy.

JForestZ34

06-29-2006, 06:41 AM

It's funny how ford has to put a supercharger on there mustangs to get it to keep up with a vette. When chevy had the camaro you could race a stock mustang and almost beat it everytime. Stock vs Stock. I know the chevy's had 350's in it and ford only had the 302. Ford got to step up alittle bit and put a bigger motor in there cars. Ok the new vette has a 7.0. In order for ford to even keep up with it it needs to add a supercharger, to me that's just showing me already which one is the more dominent(sp) car in this situation. To me ford has always been behind chevy when it comes to power. They came out with the cobra's, but if you take off the supercharger the car is a dog. The charger is what is making it the car it is.

James

Chicksdigme423

06-29-2006, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by JForestZ34
It's funny how ford has to put a supercharger on there mustangs to get it to keep up with a vette. When chevy had the camaro you could race a stock mustang and almost beat it everytime. Stock vs Stock. I know the chevy's had 350's in it and ford only had the 302. Ford got to step up alittle bit and put a bigger motor in there cars. Ok the new vette has a 7.0. In order for ford to even keep up with it it needs to add a supercharger, to me that's just showing me already which one is the more dominent(sp) car in this situation. To me ford has always been behind chevy when it comes to power. They came out with the cobra's, but if you take off the supercharger the car is a dog. The charger is what is making it the car it is.

James

wow man... it's funny how you think ford is trying to keep up with the corvette with the mustang... first off i'd have to say for this whole thread corvettes and mustangs are on two different levels... the corvette is in some aspects considered a "super car" and the mustang is simply a "sports car".... the mustang is a 4.6... the corvette is a 7.0... that is enough reason to think taht the vette is faster... if you wanna compare ford and chevy, compare the camaro and mustang... not the mustang and the vette

ford isnt trying to keep up with the corvette with the mustang... the mustang is supposed to be an economical sports car... so they're not "keeping up" with a supercharger... they're jsut making a bit more power and saving mpg... if they wanted to they could put a 750 hp motor in the mustangs... why dont they? cause it would get horrible gas milage and it's an economy car... wow dude your comparing apples and oranges with the vette and mustang

06-29-2006, 07:16 AM

mustang gets better gas milage with that 5.4 also :macho

ITSTOCK

06-29-2006, 01:13 PM

WOW.

Chevy=big cubes+high compression
Ford=little cubes+low compression+supercharger

If you take the supercharger off, and add a little compression, you have the Mach 1. The mach 1 is BARELY behind the LS1 (and I do mean barely), and it does it with 80 cubes less and less compression than the LS1 (or ls2, whatever you want to talk about). PLEASE SHUT YOUR MOUTH, you sound stupid.

Originally posted by JForestZ34
It's funny how ford has to put a supercharger on there mustangs to get it to keep up with a vette. When chevy had the camaro you could race a stock mustang and almost beat it everytime. Stock vs Stock. I know the chevy's had 350's in it and ford only had the 302. Ford got to step up alittle bit and put a bigger motor in there cars. Ok the new vette has a 7.0. In order for ford to even keep up with it it needs to add a supercharger, to me that's just showing me already which one is the more dominent(sp) car in this situation. To me ford has always been behind chevy when it comes to power. They came out with the cobra's, but if you take off the supercharger the car is a dog. The charger is what is making it the car it is.

James

JForestZ34

06-30-2006, 06:44 AM

I'm not going to argue about which car is faster or which car is better, but ford has always been behind when it comes to the camaro and mustang showdown. Okay like I said before the chevy has more cubic inches than the mustang but who's fault is that, not chevy, ford wants to put that motor in there car so that when another car comes up along side like a camaro with the bigger engine that's everybodys fault because ford wanted to put an economical enigne in a sports car.

And as for the current mustang they are far from economical when you have to pay about $10000 over sticker price for a GT around here in Jersey. I went to a couple of dealers looking at them and I could not even touch one for MSRP. I also thought that the 4.6 in the mach was a duel overhead cam engine, or is it SHO.

James

ITSTOCK

06-30-2006, 11:15 AM

Once AGAIN, you are clueless. Ford was WELL ahead of cheavy for a period of about 10 years, or specifically we will just go with 87-93. They out did chevy's 350 camaro by a LONGSHOT, and the little 302 put the 305 to shame. GM finally came out with the LT1, which put the f bodys on top, while Ford dicked around, put the 302 in the heavy *** sn95's, than in 96 dropped cubes to 281's. The Mach 1 was introduced almost 5 years ago, which compared to the LS1, put in the vettes in 97 and the fbods in 98. Than 2003 came, and ford decided to keep their little cube motors, and stick a supercharger on it to make an EXTREMELY fast and "economical" car (msrp wise, cheap car for what you are getting). If you recall, GM stopped building the fbodys in 02, so ford had nothing to even compare to GM with. The vette is a purebread sports car, while the mustang is a 4 seater, heavy "muscle" car.

If you want to compare big cube engines, they BOTH had their fair share of big cube motors, and NEITHER were ever "behind" on power.

Now on to your next idiotic comments. FORD USES A SUPERCHARGER INSTEAD OF USING HIGH COMPRESSION AND BIG CUBES. Are you THAT stupid to not understand the concept of how horsepower is mad????? Do you NOT realize that putting the supercharger on it, is techincally adding cubes and increasing cylinder pressure, effectively increasing compression?? Do you really not understand how all this works??? There are MULTIPE ways to make the same power, neither one is "better" (well actually a supercharger is better in a lot of ways, but I won't go on this debate this time around). Now yes, the Mach 1 is the dohc, just like the 03/4 cobra. So I still don't see your point??? However, it's quite simple (if you had half a brain) to understand that there are multiple ways of achieving horsepower, all of which ultimately result from the same method.

As to not being economical, just compare prices (which is yet another thing to even discuss, especially between two so very drastically different cars). The GT500 with it's markup will be around 50grand when it first starts selling. The Z06 was over 80grand. So YES, I would say that compared to a Z06, the GT500 IS in fact the economical choice, although still in a different league. Now, you state that you were at dealers looking at them and they were 10grand over sticker? WTF are you on?? IF you are talking about the GT500, they aren't at the dealers. IF you are talking about the regular mustang GT's, you were reading the wrong price. A 10 grand markup on literally one of the most sold cars in america?? GET A CLUE!! My unclue bought it for 4 grand under, and my neighbor got his for sticker. I have NO CLUE of where you are making up, or getting your info, but please stop posting. You REALLY don't know what the **** you are talking about.

Originally posted by JForestZ34
I'm not going to argue about which car is faster or which car is better, but ford has always been behind when it comes to the camaro and mustang showdown. Okay like I said before the chevy has more cubic inches than the mustang but who's fault is that, not chevy, ford wants to put that motor in there car so that when another car comes up along side like a camaro with the bigger engine that's everybodys fault because ford wanted to put an economical enigne in a sports car.

And as for the current mustang they are far from economical when you have to pay about $10000 over sticker price for a GT around here in Jersey. I went to a couple of dealers looking at them and I could not even touch one for MSRP. I also thought that the 4.6 in the mach was a duel overhead cam engine, or is it SHO.

James

JForestZ34

06-30-2006, 06:46 PM

I'm not here to argue about which piece of #$%# car is better. I'm just stating fact's that FORD HAS ALWAYS BEEN BEHIND AND ALWAYS WILL PERIOD. That's my opinion. I'm not even going to entertain this theard anymore. I've seen the facts and having a couple of both, the camaro and mustangs.

James

Iliketogofast

06-30-2006, 08:16 PM

Ford isn't behind. What does Chevy have that can beat the GT? I always thought of the Camaro as the Mustang's competitor. After all, they have around the same price and similar engine options. The GT is supposed to be against the Camaro SS while the Shelby is designed to face off Vs. the 'Vette.

And it doesn't really matter whether it's supercharged or not, but you treat it like a bad thing. Ford chose to go with a smaller motor than the LS1 and force feed it. They could have made the descision to go with a bigger bore motor, but they didn't.

Trust me, they've been around for nearly 100 years. They know what they're doing.

ITSTOCK

07-01-2006, 11:56 AM

I've owned both also, I don't think you really have though :o If you did, you wouldn't sound like such a moron and you would agree with everything I have stated, since I'm not picking sides or using opinion. You aren't stating facts, you're just spewing bull**** and we both know that.

Originally posted by JForestZ34
I'm not here to argue about which piece of #$%# car is better. I'm just stating fact's that FORD HAS ALWAYS BEEN BEHIND AND ALWAYS WILL PERIOD. That's my opinion. I'm not even going to entertain this theard anymore. I've seen the facts and having a couple of both, the camaro and mustangs.

James

Chicksdigme423

07-02-2006, 03:04 PM

JForestZ34 you have been

07-02-2006, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by JForestZ34
FORD HAS ALWAYS BEEN BEHIND AND ALWAYS WILL PERIOD.

how do you come up with that? they were the first automobile company, so I have to disagree with them always being behind.

ELewandowski

07-02-2006, 03:39 PM

were they the first? or just the first to mass produce with the production line. I thought there was a european company before Ford. I could be wrong though.

Iliketogofast

07-02-2006, 05:14 PM

Well, judging by his name he drives a Chevy Z34 something... Lumina, Cavalier, whatever. I'll be the first to say that my Mustang is never going to be anywhere "behind" THAT.

MXracer16

07-02-2006, 06:51 PM

Why are you guys talking about those years? The true Muscle Cars were made in the mid to late sixties, and some of them were still nice in 70 and 71.

Id have to agree, the Mustang and the Vette are in different leagues.

INSTOCK, whats the deal with all the negativity and namecalling? Its NOT needed.

Iliketogofast

07-02-2006, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by MXracer16
Why are you guys talking about those years? The true Muscle Cars were made in the mid to late sixties, and some of them were still nice in 70 and 71.

Id have to agree, the Mustang and the Vette are in different leagues.

INSTOCK, whats the deal with all the negativity and namecalling? Its NOT needed.

I agree. I like your point of view (because it's the same as mine :D ) but name calling is a good way to get the thread locked.

Slinky

07-03-2006, 04:17 AM

Originally posted by Iliketogofast
Well, judging by his name he drives a Chevy Z34 something... Lumina, Cavalier, whatever. I'll be the first to say that my Mustang is never going to be anywhere "behind" THAT.
If its a Z34 its either a lumina or a monte carlo.
and for your information, my 96 monte carlo Z34, with exhaust, intake and some porting would give lot of stock mustangs a run for their money. I wouldnt be able to compete with a moded one, but its heavier car anyways and only had 215 hp, maybe 230 with my mods.
Mustangs always have and always will be very quick straight line cars.

JForestZ34

07-03-2006, 07:36 AM

I used to have a Lumina Z34 so the name kind of stuck with me right now I'm driving a 05 F-150. And yes I have to agree with what mxracer16 said the true muscle cars where in the 60's and 70's. Yes through the years Ford has sold alot more mustangs than any other chevy car. Back in that day which ford mustang did they have that could keep up with the chevelle ss. Right now I can't think of any. And yes I know the chevy has a bigger motor but that's not chevys fault, If ford really wanted to compete they would have put bigger cubes in their rides.

Now when it comes to trucks Yes Ford has always been up on chevy or dodge.

To me forced induction is a easy way to make up what is lacking in the power department. Not to say I wouldn't put charger on something if I could .

James

JForestZ34

07-03-2006, 08:07 AM

I thought you guys would like this video.

http://www.spdkilz.org/Video-Audio/My%20Z06/SLR%20Video.wmv

James

Also check out this website really cool vids

http://www.mustangforums.com/forumid_32/tt.htm

ITSTOCK

07-03-2006, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by JForestZ34

Now when it comes to trucks Yes Ford has always been up on chevy or dodge.

To me forced induction is a easy way to make up what is lacking in the power department. Not to say I wouldn't put charger on something if I could .

James

Have you heard of the Cummins??? To state that "ford is ahead of dodge" is another ignorant stupid. Take it for what it's worth, but you aren't seeing the point of all this. For each flaw you find on one brand name car, you are going to find another on the next brand. It's tough to say "ford has always been ahead of chevy or dodge with trucks", and argue, at the same time, that "ford has always been behind chevy with cars". If you haven't noticed, it's because you own a ford truck (makes ford the better truck), and don't own a ford car (or specifically a mustang), which makes them suck compared to chevy (just so happens that you owned a chevy). This is what is referred to as brand blindness/loyalty. Get over it!!!

Now you go on to state that superchargers just show they are behind in the power department?????? We have already showed you that they aren't, so I don't have the need to respond farther, not to mention you state that "if you could" (if you had the money) you would put a supercharger on it to. That's kind of bassackwards if you ask me :eek2:

Here's a quick video of my lowly STOCK LONGBLOCK car that couldn't make power without a blower, so ford gave me a blower, and I added nitrous :o effectively increasing cylinder pressure, just like those big cube, high compression motors.

http://home.comcast.net/~sjvhsr/NitrousdynoPREport.wmv

neworleans400ex

07-03-2006, 09:04 AM

When I sell my truck I wanna get a mustang. It's not gonna be any Eleanor though lol.

MOFO

07-03-2006, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by ITSTOCK

Now you go on to state that superchargers just show they are behind in the power department?????? We have already showed you that they aren't,

I agree with you on this point. Superchargers/Turbochargers are VERY effective and efficient ways of producing horsepower. To say they are not is just... :huh

crday98

07-03-2006, 10:56 AM

one of the funniest and most truthful things i read in a mustang / f-body debate was..... "it is pretty sad that the only time ford was ever able to produce a mustang faster than the f-body was the year gm stopped making f-bodies.":D

JForestZ34

07-03-2006, 11:41 AM

Look this is the last thing I'm going to say about this subject. My opinion is exactly what I said in my other post. By the way when these cars where out you were only 10 years old so what the F do you now about them besides what you've read or heard about them. I grew up on these cars I KNOW what both can do, like I said before I've had both of them I KNOW what they have and don't have. SO grow up Junior and only talk about what you know. The cars that came out about 4 years ago.

Certain brands have better quality than others. I've had all kinds of cars and trucks. I've had dodge and chevy trucks. Now I have a Ford truck. And my experience with them all ford is better on trucks. And chevy had the sports car scene. Oh lets not forget that chevy might be coming out with another camaro, oh but wait that's ford's fault for chevy putting a bigger motor in there car, Right. Just like the dodge charger, so it has a hemi it would still smoke a mustang. If ford want to keep up they have to put bigger engines in there cars.

End of Story..

And Crday98 is right...

James

ITSTOCK

07-03-2006, 11:50 AM

It's possibly I have owned an 86 notchback that I put a 351 in, a 91 lx hatch with a 306 and spray, a 94 Z28 with spray, and an 03 cobra. But you are right, I will take my advice on the very cars we are talking about (which I have OWNED) over somebody who considers a Z34 a sports car, and compares it to the above. I have also grown up with my old man owning everything from 60's chevelles, camaros and mustangs, to his 396 nova, to his turbo t/as and late 80's mustangs, to his 87 grand national, the 99 z28 and an 00 WS6...etc etc. etc. You can stick to growing up with these cars, but you haven't owned them. I have grown up with all of the lancers, evo's, wrx's, but I will NEVER claim to know anything about them, or try arguing a subject about them. You on the other hand, surely would.

Please enlighten me on what you have owned, and/or post pictures to back it up. I can surely back up all the cars I stated, but I bet you can't.... http://www.exriders.com/vbb/images/smilies/eek2.gif Stick to arguing about those z34's, I don't even care what the hell they are though.

Originally posted by JForestZ34
Look this is the last thing I'm going to say about this subject. My opinion is exactly what I said in my other post. By the way when these cars where out you were only 10 years old so what the F do you now about them besides what you've read or heard about them. I grew up on these cars I KNOW what both can do, like I said before I've had both of them I KNOW what they have and don't have. SO grow up Junior and only talk about what you know. The cars that came out about 4 years ago.

End of Story..

And Crday98 is right...

James

JForestZ34

07-03-2006, 11:57 AM

YOu show me where in any of my post that I said a Z34 is a sports car. Not one post did I say that it was. Let's just do this for kicks.

Ford cars that could compete stock vs stock with chevy.

Ford

Mustang

Ford Super Car

Ford GT

Now for chevy

SSR

Impalla SS (yes it could probably beat a new mustang.

Same with the new monte carlo

And now chevy super car that spanked the ford gt

Z06

James

JForestZ34

07-03-2006, 12:03 PM

With the cars you mentioned that your father has owned. Your telling me that ford had anything up on chevy when It came to the chevelle's or even his nova. COme on back in the muscle car era chevy had the GTO, chevelle, camaro. Ford had the mustang, thunderbird, and probalby a couple that I can't think of. Right now Ford only has the mustang. Chevy has some midsize cars like the Monte Carlo and Impalla SS, that could beat a new mustang. And there not considered a sports car. Okay the SSR is alittle different but still could hold more than it's own.

And I'm done with this Thread.

James

bwamos

07-03-2006, 02:00 PM

I'd rather have an Ariel Atom. ;)

350hp
456kg (1005 lbs)
0-60mph 2.9 seconds
0-100mph 6.8 seconds
0-100-0 10.88 seconds
top speed 155mph
$55k

Compare that to an ATV.

350lbs (+150lbs rider) @ 50hp modified = 0.10hp per pound.

1005lbs (+150lbs rider) @ 350hp = 0.30hp per pound.

Basically the equivalent power to weight ratio of a 152hp 450r/yfz.

Compare that to the Mustang...
curb weight 3600lbs (+150lbs driver) @ 500hp = 0.13hp per pound.

For the same power to weight ratio your stang would have to put out 1125 hp.

07-03-2006, 03:14 PM

Mustang and the Vette both suck, the STI will run rings around both of them!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_7K8ZF2aYY&search=STI

Iliketogofast

07-03-2006, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Slinky
If its a Z34 its either a lumina or a monte carlo.
and for your information, my 96 monte carlo Z34, with exhaust, intake and some porting would give lot of stock mustangs a run for their money. I wouldnt be able to compete with a moded one, but its heavier car anyways and only had 215 hp, maybe 230 with my mods.
Mustangs always have and always will be very quick straight line cars. Or a Cavalier - my best friend's girlfriend has one.

ak_stick

07-03-2006, 03:24 PM

The Z06 takes the Shelby, read the new car and driver...

And yeah, you might be able to mod an STI to outrun a Z06, but at the end of the day, its still just a modded WRX, and the Vette is still a Vette.

Thats kinda like the guys with the worked Civics trying to beat up on a guy who drives a BMW, yeah, you might out run his bimmer, but at the end of the night, his car doesn't cry to itself that its only a Civic.....

Vette's are more than just cars, they're symbols. I see punk kids everywhere today, driving Mustangs and WRX's and Evo's, Celicas, Preludes, and Civics, yeah, they're all fast if you work them right, but a Vette is so much more.

07-03-2006, 03:29 PM

400HP + in a rear wheel drive car is worthless!! Real sports cars with that much horsepower are AWD!!

Oh, and I can buy two STI's for the price of one Vette!!

Iliketogofast

07-03-2006, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by Kyle_TQRA
400HP + in a rear wheel drive car is worthless!! Real sports cars with that much horsepower are AWD!!

Oh, and I can buy two STI's for the price of one Vette!!

Or you could buy an STi and make it fast enough to smoke a Ferarri.

250R-Dee

07-03-2006, 04:07 PM

STi's are weaksauce! Especially with those aluminum foil transmissions that break if you look at them wrong. Since we are getting off topic, here are TWO 8Second street legal GTR's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUtBlIIrDEw&search=skyline):eek2: :eek2:. Videos of both cars competing at the HKS drags can be seen on the drag version of Option Video. Street legal GTR's were running 8's 10 years ago when the Scoobies were barely breaking the 11sec mark.

Chicksdigme423

07-03-2006, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by JForestZ34
With the cars you mentioned that your father has owned. Your telling me that ford had anything up on chevy when It came to the chevelle's or even his nova. COme on back in the muscle car era chevy had the GTO, chevelle, camaro. Ford had the mustang, thunderbird, and probalby a couple that I can't think of. Right now Ford only has the mustang. Chevy has some midsize cars like the Monte Carlo and Impalla SS, that could beat a new mustang. And there not considered a sports car. Okay the SSR is alittle different but still could hold more than it's own.

And I'm done with this Thread.

James

did anyone else notice he said chevy gto??? haha wow... the GTO is pontiac skippy... ford also had the torino and dodge, lets not forget about the dode charger, the challanger, dart...

do some research before you start spouting off about what you know and dont know... pontiac, chevy, oldsmobile, buick, caddies... i think there are more... but if your gonna argue about this, atleast get your manufacturers correct

JForestZ34

07-03-2006, 09:03 PM

Okay what two manufacturers are we talking about Ford and GM. We're not talking about dodge or any other manufacturer. Oh so I made a mistake and said a GTO was a chevy ohh what a mistake that was being that it's made by GM. Still not a ford product. Okay as for oldsmobile and buick still a GM product. What did ford have besides the mustang the torrino. I'm sure they had a couple of cars in their stable that could compete with the GM cars. The only exciting year the ford put out an outstanding mustang was the 03/04 cobra. That's was it other than that put a stock GT mustang up against a camaro SS or even an older Firebird Formula and the GM would win Stock for stock or even the camaro iroc z vs mustang showdown that went on when those cars were selling at the dealers. And yes I know the engine sizes are different so yes the GM's would have the slight advantage but that would mean if Ford wanted to be on top they would have beefed up their motors alittle bit like they did for the cobra's. All I'm saying is that yes Ford has sold alot more mustangs than GM has sold camaro's GTO's Firebirds, Grand Nationals, or even Olds 442. With that being said I'm just stating that GM has always had a better standing when it came to power output. And it stills looks that way.

James