Re: It's almost comedy, Mustangs are the downfall to the America

Discussion in '2003 Ford Mustang Mach 1' started by PGT, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. wow! if only more people knew that..................
     
  2. Theres a problem with all forums online; ignorance is EVERYWHERE. I'm going to break down this disgusting argument piece by piece.

    "Even though GM is the Largest car company, Ford's revenue is much larger than GM, how can Ford be falling behind GM, if they sell more cars and trucks than GM and also, the blue oval is the most recognized icon in the world. Ford is a richer company than GM."

    WOW, ROFL. This is possibly the most generalized and opinionated bullshit I have ever seen in my entire life. "Ford is richer"? That makes absolutely NO SENSE. Give proof, give us some data. Of course you will find none because you made it up.

    "Also, how is Ford chasing GM, when ford is the first company to mass produce cars."

    LOLOL. What the hell does the fact that Ford was the first to mass produce cars? Let me give you an example of how to make an argument:
    in 1927 Chevrolet outsells Ford by topping 1 million units for the first time. In all but four of the next 55 years, Chevrolet is the top-selling American nameplate. Thats FACT.

    "Mustangs came out first and GM decided they wanted a piece of that market as well."

    How is this relevant in any way?

    "But even still, Mustangs outsell camaros / firebirds / firhawks / corvettes combined."

    This is only true for certain years. Ford's goal is selling cars, Chevrolet's goal is to boost its own image. Do you think Chevrolet actually makes substantial profits off of the Corvette or F-Bodies? Absolutely not, but they give the company heart and soul. This is why the Corvette will never go, Chevy has no choice but to keep it. It is the only true American sports car.

    "GM is still using Pushrod engines, ford is using modular engines, and you say Ford is far behind? Who's technology is in question."

    Again, this has nothing to do with technology. Between the LS6 and any factory Ford Mustang engine, the most technology is in the LS6 (You cannot argue against that. If you do, I will fly to whatever village in Idaho you live in and flush you down the toilet). Why don't you explain why Road and Track got 19 mpg (miles per gallon of gas) in the Camaro SS, 20 mpg in the Corvette, and a PATHETIC 12.4 mpg in the SVT Mustang Cobra!? ROFL. DON'T EVER TALK ABOUT EFFICIENCY OF CHEVY'S MOTORS EVER AGAIN!

    " If Ford is outselling Gm no matter what they got, do you think Ford cares if their SS can whoop a GT? Your not looking at the big picture here....Its a numbers game, if your product outsells the competition no matter what they have got, what reason do you have to try to out do them."

    I don't know what to say. It's becoming more and more obvious that your just CLUELESS. Read what I wrote above about the REASONS for selling these cars. The companies are in competition, but they have very different goals. The public isn't interested in the performance that GM offers. The public buys Ford's Mustang, regardless of the fact that from 1993-2002 (RIP Camaro and Firebird) the Mustangs have been no match for the F-Bodies because they like the way it looks and the name it has. Chevy has stayed true to the idea of a pony car, Ford is 98% in it for the money.

    "The 2001 Cobra...320HP from a 4.6. GM's SS 325Hp from a 5.7, who is falling behind again???"

    IGNORANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Displacement has nothing to do with anything! The fact that the LS1s have more displacement means that they only have so much more potential (specifically because they can take more boost). The only argument you could possibly have about displacement is the fact that they guzzle more gas. But in this case, THAT IS 100% NOT TRUE. As I explained above, the LS1 is much more efficient. Also, keep in mind the fact, that this 5.7 is just a detuned version of the 5.7 in the Corvette Z06 (405 hp, is that enough?). Falling behind?? ROFLMAO!!!! FORD IS AN EMBARASSMENT TO ITS HERITAGE!

    "GM is going to join the bandwagon and use a 350 cubic inch modular engine in their new camaro. Falling behind??? Where do you get your information from. "

    I don't have the nerve to go on with this BS. Just see above. Do us all a favor and don't post here again unless you have some idea of what your talking about. Sorry if I sound harsh, but it's all fact, and I just can't stand ignorance!




     
  3. i got one thing to say... #$%# all mustangs after the 60s, they're shit, ford is shit, hell even #$%# vettes they're shit too... the only american sports car worth anything is the #$%#ing viper and if you don't agree not only are you a #$%#ing dumbass but you should not be driving whatever american "sport" piece of shit you are driving. and for all you dumb bitches driving a new mustang not only did you waste your money on the biggest american piece of shit ever, you will get smoked by basically anything on the #$%#ing road. and that is all i have to say.
     
  4. Im a huge mustang fan but I will agree that a corvette zo6 or c5 (the coupe and convertible are a different story) will beat a cobra any day, but the handling comment? come on, almost everyone knows that mustangs are known for their amazing handling, now im not saying this would lead to a victory for the stang on the track but the handling of a vette doesnt compare to a stang. I know because i've driven both. But you're right, the vette and stang are in two completely different classes so shouldnt be compared.
     
  5. You, sir, are a dumbass. the viper is a disgrace to american cars everywhere, the ONLY thing it has going for it is a fast engine, but you want to hear something sad? Dodge has to use an 8L V-10 to match Ford's 5.4L V-8 in the Ford GT. so when you start talking about "sport pieces of shit" look in your driveway and direct your anger towards your little honda civic. Domestics rule all, the only good imports are Skyline R34 VSpecII, the Murcialego and the Enzo.
     
  6. WHOOOOOOAAAA THERE BUDDY. Did you just say that a the current mustang's handling is better than the current vette's? I honestly hope you are not being serious because there are no words to describe how ridiculous that sounds. Even a C4 (1984-1996) Vette's handling is FAR superior to any factory mustang, as far as handling goes. There is no competition. Maybe you had some very distorted experiences...Another thing: mustangs are not known for their amazing handling (with the exception of the GT500s, which were built for that reason) because they don't have amazing handling, even compared to the other cars in their class; maybe power (if anything). I'm just praying to God that you weren't being serious.
     
  7. Hi moron how are you doing today, did you take your stupid pills...yup looks like you did after reading that post.
    The mustang is a great handling car, older ones and newer ones. The 2003 cobra is better handling then the c4, and will give the z06 a run for its money (although it will lose to it). The cobra r, the svt cobras, and even the gt are all great handling cars, some of them being amazing handling cars.
     
  8. Resorting to namecalling? Obviously you're a very mature, open-minded, and educated person. Have you ever driven a new mustang, a C4, or a C5? From what you have written, it is clear that you have never driven a vette. You back up your "argument" with absolutely nothing. How the hell can you come on here and talk like you know anything?

    The C4 vette on its introduction was called the best handling car in the world (and held that title until the E30 M3 introduction) by Road and Track. GM's primary focus with the C4 was not power and accel, but handling. They brought back the transverse leaf spring suspension in a new high tech format. A C4 pulls .92 Gs on the skidpad where the 03 cobra (according to R&T) only pulls (a respectable) .90 Gs. A C4's slalom speed is 65.8 mph whereas the Cobra R (!!!!) is only 63.8 and the standard Cobra is just 63.5! These are the two most important characteristics (on paper) that can give you an idea of how a car handles. In both cases, the Vette outperforms the Stangs by a very significant difference. I'll finish this post later, g2g. American HP, please don't come to these forums with a shitty attitude to let out you're anger. If you want to have a decent argument, state some FACTS like I did. Show us all how mature and educated you really are. Heres your chance to redeem yourself.
     
  9. I use that only for people who deserve it, and you did.
     
  10. No response to what I wrote? No facts to defend your argument? I love the challenge FYI. And how did I deserve it?

    ANYWAY, back to bashing mustangs. OK, now that I've established the C4s supremacy, I don't have to go into detail with why the C5 would be even better, but I will anyway. The new Corvettes bring great improvements to handling and power. According to R&T, a ZO6 pulls .97 Gs on the skidpad and gets 67.5 mph on the slalom!! That is unbelieveable. Keep in mind that the slalom is not about power, its ALL about handling. One of the most underpowered cars R&T has ever tested posted one of the best slalom speeds ever - the Lotus Elise - 69.somethin mph. So don't say its the Z06's insane power, its the insane handling. Mustangs can only hold a candle to the standard vette IN A STRAIGHT LINE. No factory mustang is a match for a C5 Vette on the track. Learn your facts people.
     
  11. Mr.Bond...the c4 will get beat in a straight line and on a track when put a up against a 2003 cobra, sorry to tell ya. The z06 is still the king though. The cobra r was fords best handling mustang(when it came out) and it held its own (and even beat the z06 once or twice, the 385hp version) against the z06. The c4 is not nearly as fast or as good in the handling department, which means its slower. Fast forward to now, the svt cobra is faster and better handling then the cobra r (which would kill a c4), so why would you think that the c4 would be faster than a svt cobra? It wouldn't be. The cobra would beat it around a track, and on the drag strip.
     
  12. You've written so much, but said nothing. You can't say "Car A is better than Car B because its fact." You never even looked at what I wrote, AmericanHP. I have given you many reasons why a C4 has better handling. The reason a Cobra would win on a track is because it has more than 100 more horsepower, NOT BECAUSE IT HAS BETTER HANDLING. Again, although the current mustangs are the best handling mustangs ever, they don't necessarily handle well. The old mustangs aren't much in the handling department (by todays standards, of course), so thats not saying much. Cobra R's are as much a waste of money as Acura NSXs - way overpriced. A ZO6 would KILL a Cobra R around any track AND 0-60/quarter mile, with more refinement and luxury for $5000 less!!! For your own good, dont bring up Cobra Rs any more if you're talking about value. AmericanHP, respond to what I write if you are looking for an argument, don't just state your opinion without reading that of others OR backing your own up.
     
  13. I cant believe the amount of stupidity in this forum, please all you #$%#ed up people stop posting your crap here. No one wants to here what your mates supra or corvette or anything else can own. We dont care if you think FORD or anyother car company sux because your brain dead retards. As i am typing this shit I am ashamed to even dignify you scum with a response but hey someone needs to do it!!!!
     
  14. Yeah right, but most of you people might not know that mustangs stopped the 2003 production of the chevy camaros and the pontiac firebirds.why???maby they dont sell enough?but really all mustangs beat the crap out of those bad looking camaros..LONG LIVE MUSTANG.
     
  15. Stop it retard. I love the mustang, but the recent death of the f-body is sad. Yes the mustang did out sell them 2-1, but that doesn't mean the f-body was crap, it was a great car.
     
  16. Yeah, stop bitching. I absolutely love mustangs but the camaros and firebirds were great cars and I would be proud to drive any three of these cars.
     
  17. This is just sad...all these people comparing Mustangs to Vettes. Listen children, the fact that you're even comparing the two says something about Chevy. Mustangs were never built to run with Vettes. They were always billed as "the working man's muscle car" while Chevy sold Vettes to the highest bidder. Ford has progressed in it's design and performance while Chevy has rested on it's laurels. The new '03 Cobras will beat a C5 in the 1/4 and will give a Z06 owner something to think about at a stoplight. Look at the newer Vettes...see if you can find any similarities with older Vettes. Of course you will, because there's hasn't been a thorough design change since the 60's. And don't give me any of that "if it ain't broke don't fix it" crap. Vettes are over priced and under powered by an automotive stand point. No, a Mustang can't handle like a Vette...but what do you want for $20,000 less? Take that $20K and you'll have a car that will decimate a Corvette. As for Vipers...are you kidding me? Let me scrounge up $80K and we'll talk. They look like damn clown shoes (except for the newer models). And don't even compare them to a Mustang....compare them to other cars in their prices range like a Ferarri. Then we'll see who's all big and bad. Any European sports can in that price range will make a Viper buy it lunch. As for the GTO concept...it looks like a reworked Sunfire and anyone who thinks it'll make production with an LS1 is fooling themselves. It might be a RWD car, but it'll most likely have some form of GM's deathless 3.8L. The Mach 1 is a good looking car with a heritage. Just deal with it. So maybe it can't match the performance of a Corvette...it's not meant to. It will give those of us who don't have penis envy something to drive for $20K less than you morons paid for your C5s. Sleep tight you gotards.
     
  18. hmmm..apples to apples..the 2002 camaro ss posted a 13.25 @109 on street tires right....well this puny lil mach one with its cube deficient 4.6 and 4 cams ran a 13.117 @ 105.17 on street tires as well....seems ford doesnt need a blower to beat compareable chevrolet vehicles......as much as i like f-bodies i think u need to see the hard facts...and as for comparing a mustang to your vette....you are sadly mistaken...it takes a z-06 to beat it in the quarter mile and is only 32,000...base msrp on vettes are 46000.....you can see my point right..im not going to throw the vast tuner mustangs (roush,saleen,steeda,kenny brown,sean hyland motorsport) that offer z-06 killing performance in all aspects for lower prices.....i absolutely love the corvette...but its the ignorant chevy people out there that i hate..and the reason i will never think of owning one. Chevy people get off your high horse..quit thumbing your snobby noses at people....i think its hilarious..you go to a chevy page and u see ford and chevy people giving those cars props..you go to a ford page and us ford guys have to defend our beloved cars from the like of Fords suck and my friends corvette z-06..blah blah blah blah....not too mention the slew of civic peoples....why cant u just enjoy another type of car...in all likelyhood you have had maybe one or 2 experiences with a ford and hundreds with a chevrolet...i am willing to bet that they werent all good and all bad in both cases....why dont u grow up and broaden your horizons...why dont you just accept that this is a good cheap car in its own rights and let bygones be bygones...and ill see ya at the track
     
  19. Oh my God, I can't believe my eyes. GT40Fwhatver, you have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about. Do not attack a legend that you know NOTHING about. From what you have written, I can tell you have never gone for a ride in any Corvette, so I don't blame you for not understanding. I'm not in the mood to argue with you right now, but I have to point out two things. First, the difference in cost is only $14,700ish (base msrp for the mach 1 is 29,135 - from the Ford website, base msrp for the Corvette is 43,800 - from the Chevrolet Website). Do not make up numbers. Go back to page 6 on this thread and read my posts. Feel free to make an argument, but base it on facts. I don't care about your opinion.
     
  20. i think the mustang is the best car ever i dont no wot ur all on about sayin that it isnt good it is great if u ever drive 1 u will no wot i mean my m8 has just bought 1 3 days ago and its the best car ive ever seen in my life and they arent the downfall to the america !!!!!!!!!!
     
  21. im not defending him..but i believe he was comparing the gt's base price...i mean...the base mustang's (6cyl)cost only around 17k..but that proves nothing...so whats the as tested price??? i understand the corvettes legacy.....yes it's a great car...but its also a higher price aimed at a diff group of people......the corvette is a track car whereas the mustang was aimed more at 1/4 mile..........and yes their are vettes at the drag strip....but there are also stangs running road and track events....there is an aftermarket for both of them.....and for the price its just as cheap to own a faster mustang built for track use as it is to own a base vette...if you would like numbers for me to post prices and websites for the companies i will...they have kits for fox bodies to pull well over 1 g on the skidpad....and the sn95 was an improvement on that...and there are kits for those as well..in the end, with the mustang..it can be done cheaper....and thats where the mustang was aimed at...not an elitist crowd...but regular working stiffs who wanted bang for the buck performance...just like the f-bodies.....the reason the f-bodies went away was because they didnt offer their performance at a lower price...it became well i could have a base gt for 22 or a base z-26 for 26....and for 4 k...it gives you the option to make up the difference..any way that YOU see fit..so u get a car that in all likely hood beats a stock z-28..for its base price..with your own personal touches....so yes the f-bodies were faster....but on a personal note..have you driven one...they feel like fast tanks...with a huge dash and insanely long front end..and that single cat design with the huge hump leaves a lot to be desired....i myself have a 99 cobra convertible...and my sister has a firebird formula (ls1) and after driving both....i can see another reason y the firebirds dont sell.....it feels more like a cockpit not a driver compartment...you dont feel attached to the car...even as a driver you feel like a rider...now most of this post was not aimed at you..but at most of the bash ford people with the chevrolet banner waving high....dollar for dollar...chevy never really could compete against ford....chevy was more of a we will outperform ford at whatever price kind of thing...and ford was a company that would get our feet in the door at a lower price....i mean if you spent more money on something wouldnt you want it to better.....so how come when something is cheaper you dont hold it to a lower standard...as for your c4 debate.....i will argue tooth and nail c4 versus fox body mustang if you want....i guess it comes down to..if you dont have anything nice to say...dont say it at all..and one more question to you people......how can you argue i bought my used car for this much thing........doesnt that mean the person who originally bought that car....lost that much money in it???? so yeah u got that used "insert car here" for that cheap....but that means the orig car buyer lost everything he put into it because the car depreciated faster than he could pay it off...anyways..i guess im done ranting for now
     
  22. an First of all, I gotta thank you for making an intelligent argument rather than being a moron like the other guy. But I disagree with you on some points.

    "but i believe he was comparing the gt's base price...i mean...the base mustang's (6cyl)cost only around 17k"
    I highly doubt that because then his argument would be COMPLETELY invalid. He was talking about the Mach 1 and Cobra the entire time anyway. Sure he could bring the base model into this, but its obvious that it could not keep with a vette even with extensive moding.

    "the corvette is a track car whereas the mustang was aimed more at 1/4 mile"
    I agree that the they are aimed at different groups, but what you said here specifically is not true. The Corvette is a performance car meant to demonstrate what GM can do and be an image booster for the entire company. The car is not produced to make money, this is a common misconception. The Corvette shows that Chevy (GM) can outperform other sports cars that are much more expensive than it.
    The mustang is not aimed for the quarter mile (as much as the F-Bodies are) anymore. Fords interest is selling cars, not keeping a legacy going and boosting image. Ford is trying to make money off of a popular, cheap, entry level sports car. Its higher models offer modest performance at a decent price.

    "and for the price its just as cheap to own a faster mustang built for track use as it is to own a base vette"
    This is definitely not true. Starting from a GT it may be possible, but definitely not from the higher models. The Corvette has so much more potential, better build quality, WAY more features and built in technology that give it so many advantages over the stang that make up for the difference in price

    "they have kits for fox bodies to pull well over 1 g on the skidpad...."
    So? The lateral gs that a car can pull is only one part of what makes a car handle well. A stang pulling 1 g may have a slight (IF ANY WHATSOEVER) advantage over a stock vette. You also have to consider the fact that after you get this mod, the mustang will be horrible to drive on the road because of its sensitivity, UNLIKE the corvette which will not be AS harsh.

    "the reason the f-bodies went away was because they didnt offer their performance at a lower price...it became well i could have a base gt for 22 or a base z-26 for 26"
    Whoa. I dont know where you got your numbers. A base gt does go for 22, but a Z28 does not go for 26. When the Z28 was still in production, the base price was 23, NOT 26. You might be thinking of the SS, which costed 28. And for 1000, the GT can not meet the level of performance of a Z28. This is a commonly accepted fact and not something to argue over. The late Z28 and transam are a better deal ANY DAY than a new GT.

    "but on a personal note..have you driven one...they feel like fast tanks...with a huge dash and insanely long front end..and that single cat design with the huge hump leaves a lot to be desired"
    Well thats your opinion. My opinion is the mustang's interior feels very plasticy. But im not going to complain. Pony cars are not meant to be luxurious, theyre meant to be fast. If it means having some bump in the car, who cares? Chevy has kept true to the idea of a muscle/pony car which is PERFORMANCE at the cheapest price.

    "i will argue tooth and nail c4 versus fox body mustang if you want"
    Ok, I never said anything about a fox body mustang. A stock C4 will take your stock SVT (BEFORE 2003. If you supercharge a C4, then include 2003 as well. While your at it, include 04 and even 05. The stang will need the time) on any track, drag strip, road, etc. This is a car introduced in 1984 and that lasted to 1996 (however with a new engine, interior, and small changes to the outside...the frame and structure are identical).

    I always welcome arguments. Just remember guys, Chevy is #1 <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>.
     

Share This Page