Re: Why? These make me dislike american cars

Discussion in '1994 Ford Mustang GT' started by 94stang5L, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. Again with the insults, but no hard facts, how does it feel to be a hypocrite?

    It's Amoeba by the way.

    Still, the fastest time I've seen for the GT is 5.6, you still haven't shown me this 5.4 0-60 time yet, despite my having asked you (you did show the link for 13.7 though, so you're beginning to get a good start).
  2. Like I stated in my earlier post: A mustang GT runs 0-60 in 6 flat and the quarter in 14.7. Those numbers come right out of car and driver. A 300zx runs 0-60 in 5 flat and the quarter in 13.7. Which equals out to be 1 second faster than the mustang. It's simple subtraction.

    I Don't work much because most of my "work" takes place in my basement while on the computer, making it unessessary to leave my house to work very often.

    I'm still awaiting a credible source for your information.
  3. Do you all these lines from personal experience? You seem to have a lot of them.......
  4. Amoeba...looks better then what I posted.
    If you people need the info so bad, look through the older mustang gt threads, me and many other people have already posted them 100's of times. I am not looking them up again.
  5. "Why is it they always seem to have a shifting problem when they "say" they were on a record breaking run. (IE We would have had a 13.7 run, but misshifted into 4th......)"

    Because the mustang has one of the worst positioned shifters. Many aftermarket kits take care of this, but stock many people have complaints about them.
    Next, maybe they have sligthly faster times because all they do is drive mustangs for a living (and some other ford products). Magazines like Car and Driver have tons of cars to drive, and probably don't get the cars full potential all of the time.
  6. That is why most people who quote magazine stats quote C&D. Their stats offer the most realistic numbers for real world drivers. I'm willing to bet that you have not pulled times as fast as those laid down by MM&FF, they are most likely slower than the C&D times too but whos counting. you have gotten owned by 3 different people in the same thread.

  7. But I don't suppose it has ANYTHING to do with the fact their LIVELIHOOD DEPENDS on people enjoying and believing the Mustang is a "fast car".
  8. It helps when they have cornered the market in selling something to people whos perspectives of reality are a little askew. Some people think that a car with a loud V8 is going to be fast. Where as people like me and you know that small displacment turbo charged cars that are very nice and quiet have a huge advantage over the mullet crowd.
  9. Uh huh. Something you forgot to mention is that lots of "loud v-8's" are fast am I talking to a kid in first grade...?
    Mustang GT: 13.7 in the quarter mile.
    Mustang mach 1: 13.1
    SVT Cobra: 12.6
    Camaro SS: 13.3
    z06: 12.4
    Ligthning: Mid 13's (this is for a very heavy truck)

    Ummm...those numbers don't look slow to me.

    "Where as people like me and you know that small displacment turbo charged cars that are very nice and quiet have a huge advantage over the mullet crowd."
    That has got to be one of the most unintellignet and ignorant post I have seen in a while. Maybe at some point in your life some guy with a mullet and a truck stole your girlfriend and now you're pissed at anything with big displacement, cause if thats not the reason then you are the biggest idiot ever for that statment.
    Sure small displacement turbo cars are nice no doubt (something domestic cars have been doing well for a long time, svo mustang, dodge daytona, turbo coupe, grand national, etc...).
    But larger displacement v-8's also are nice. You seem to forget that imports are using higher and higher displacement engines all the time to get more hp and torque, something that domestics have been doing for a long time already.
    Please, for the last time SuperIdiotOne, don't come back until you hit at least 16 and can drive.
  10. How is the mustang not a fast car...? My god you people are completely brain dead....
  11. Not one of your examples is is at all impressive, they performed alright (still didn't handle all that well), but not all that well for a Turbocharged, small displacement engine, perhaps if they performed that well as NA engines then those performance figures would have been somewhat impressive, but not at all for a Turbocharged engine.

    P.S. the Daytona is notorious for being "a fast car from the factory, but after a few years offering little more performance than the generic econo-box, engine degredation is atrocious" - Straight from Phil Edmunston. I can provide you with other issues that would dispute your claim that small displacement turbocharged cars are "something domestic cars have been doing well for a long time".
  12. Never said it wasn't. But MMFF live and die by convincing others it's faster than it is.
  13. I owned an 89 dodge daytona es turbo edition, and guess what, after 100,000 miles the only thing wrong with it was the timing belt (it snapped). Performance wasn't at all affected after driving the car for a ton of miles.
    The thunderbird turbo coupe was fast, as was the svo mustang. The grand national is still faster then most of the turbo charged cars of today. How the hell is that not impressive? And remember, all the examples I gave you are from the early to late 80's, and back then they were considered very fast.
    Now take the srt-4 neon, fastest car for under $20,000, not bad. The reason why more american cars aren't coming from factory with turbos is that most people would rather have a nice v-8 under the hood (by most people I'm talking about people who buy American cars).
    Me, I like either, I love my mustang, but I miss my Daytona. The newer neon sounds nice, as do many of the imports.
    But to say that none of the examples I mentioned are not impressive is silly. The grand national alone is still to this day impressive...
  14. It's not hard to convince people that it's a fast car when it REALLY is a fast car. I can't help you out since you are a biased idiot.
  15. Uh-huh, perhaps you just didn't notice the decrease in power, or perhaps you sold it before the approximate 5 year mark. Engine performance begins degrading within the first year, by 5 years (approx 100,000 kms - or 60,000miles) the degraded performance is very noticeable.

    I've seen a lot of Daytonas that were under 100,000km and they were VERY slow. In fact, a girl I used to work with paid $10,000 (cdn) for a 1990 Daytona (if I'm not mistaken, that's the last year they were made, wasn't it?), not only was it one of the ugliest cars I'd ever seen (it was thoroughly done up, but how can one possibly make a body style like that look good?) but despite the low kms (75,000, being less than 1/2 what it should be on a 10 yr. old car), her car was incredibly slow. How do I know? Simple - I had to deliver some produce to a restaurant for my job (my car was uninsured at the time), 30km away, I had plenty of opportunities to test the acceleration, and I must say, no matter how I tried, redlining it before starting, powershifting, staying in the low end of the powerband (thinking it might have decent torque), etc. the best time I could manage was about 15-18 seconds, which is about 2/5 more time than it takes to accelerate to 100km/h in my car.

    Meanwhile, I paid $6,500 ($7,400 with tax)(cdn) for my little NA 1990 Civic SI, she'd always teased me about having a little econobox, I never argued because I thought her car (being a "sports car" that's turbocharged) might be faster, but after experiencing the lacklustre performance, I told her to drive my car, a month later, when I had it insured again (once I was able to afford it), we went for a drive in my car, she stalled it 3 times before she finally just popped the clutch, leaving half of what was left of my winter's in the parking lot (with a higher compression engine, and quick gear ratio, the Civic SI is much more difficult to get going without stalling - unless you're used to it<A BORDER="0" HREF=""><IMG BORDER="0" SRC=""></A> - than the Daytona). She wore a huge grin on her face, until near the end of the drive and she gradually began to scowl more and more. Two month's later she turned around and sold it for $4,500, then bought a '91 Civic CRX SI....odd huh? Going from an "awesome sports car", to a "ryced out little econobox", it just doesn't make sense, particularly when it's someone who likes performance<A BORDER="0" HREF=""><IMG BORDER="0" SRC=""></A>. Oh, wait, perhaps it's because the engine performance in her Daytona was so degraded that a Civic SI seemed VERY fast (although fairly quick, it's not quite sports car level performance).

    I dunno about the Grand National (haven't even heard of it before), but the Thunderbird and SVO were not impressively fast, I can think of faster cars with little displacement that were Turbocharged and were around at the time.

    Did you lose your virginity in the back of your Daytona or something? Because in all honesty, there's no other reason I can see for someone to have such a sentimental attachment to such an ugly and unimpressive car. BTW - out of curiosity, what years did you own your Daytona?

    As I said earlier, I dunno about the Grand National, so I couldn't really say about that one, but the others, although pretty good for their time, they're still quite unimpressive, and fail to act as evidence that American manufacturers have proven to be VERY good at making turbocharged, small displacement cars.

  16. You actually like the looks of the older civics, yet the Daytona is ugly to you..uh huh. Yes the base model Daytona’s are ugly, but the other models (ES, SHELBY) are very nice. Their are so many other cars on the road (even to this day) that are alot uglier then the Daytona was, but then again it’s all opinion with the looks.
    Next, I believe you on the times you posted on your friends Daytona as much as I trust a drug addict selling me a Rolex. 15-18, how did you measure it, with a stopwatch...haha, whatever.
    My Daytona was an 89, I owned it around 97-98 (when a girl pulled out in front of me, totaling my Daytona), and it had plenty of power. I never raced it at a track, but I did street race it a couple of times and it performed extremely well. Other then my mustang, it was the fastest car I have owned to date, and most reliable to boot. I didn't lose my virginity in my Daytona, it's just my opinion, it's a great looking car (again, the base models are ugly).
    The 4 cylinder Daytona with turbo was eliminated in 90, but the Daytona lasted up until around 93-94, with the higher levels having a 3.0liter v-6. I actually didn't like the newer body style they gave the Daytona’s after 90 nearly as much as the late 80's had.

    Now unto the Grand National. It was a turbo charged v-6 coupe, about the same size as a late 80's Monte Carlo. I don't know exact times for it, but I'm willing to guess it was pulling low 13's in the quarter mile. Very nice and rare cars. They all came in black.

    Here are some pictures of Daytona's, they are not mine, mine was white with t-tops and leather interior.
  17. Your numbers are stil la second off for the mustang GT. As bored up said "MM&FF tries to make the mustang seem faster than it is" If a mustang GT ran those times stock for stock it would have been able to hang with me about a year ago. Even stock I could lay the smack down on a mustang GT with ease.

    "turbo cars are nice no doubt (somrthing domestic cars have been doing well for a long time)"
    When was the last time you saw a stock turbo charged V6 come from a domestic factory with 300HP? Never? Yet the only problem with your daytona was a broken timing belt and a trashed engine? Thats good?

    Imports are using higher displacment? yeah nissan's 350Z with a 3.5L engine is pretty hugh compared to the 5.7L ofa Z28.

    I'm sorry to keep making you look like a fool, just admidt that you bought a wanna be sports car WHICH IS NOT FAST! (at least by mine standards and those who drive turbocharged cars)
  18. Do you still ride the short bus moron? I mean it's cool and all, this is a public forum, so even retards are allowed on like yourself I guess...
    My numbers are just fine for the mustang Gt., high 13's to very low 14's are the norm, go to any mustang website and you'll see. A second off, maybe if we were talking about pre 99 mustangs, get your facts straight idiot.
    "Yet the only problem with your Daytona was a broken timing belt and a trashed engine? That’s good?"
    I said my Daytona had a broken timing belt...I had that fixed and it worked does that equal a trashed engine moron...? One minor problem (timing belt) with over 100,000 miles on the car is not bad at all. The car got "trashed" when some dumb ***** pulled out in front of me from her driveway. Can you read? I highly doubt it, since you can't understand simple conversation like this.
    Yes imports are using higher displacement, the new WRX STI is bumped up to a 2.5 liter, that’s just one example. Sure it's not nearly as big as a v-8, but even the imports seem to now you can only go so far with a certain size then you need to make it bigger to extract more hp and torque.
    Come on, we all know SuperAssOne that the only fool here is you and your biased stupid opinions. A wanna be sports car...haha...the only wanna be sports car I see is the 300zx that you wished you drove...Your only cars with a turbo can be real sports cars huh...haha...damn you're getting more stupid by the moment aren't you? I really feel sorry for you, please get down from the high altitude that you live's starting to effect your brain, it seems to me it's not getting enough oxygen.

  19. The Dodge Daytona es Turbo was fast? All 150HP of it? DET Silvia's the same year were making over 200HP. The R32 was making an underrated 280hp and running sub 13 quarters in 1989. (which would go down as one of the highest HP ratings of the non-exotics that year...and for some years to come)....

    And I bet that 61/39 weight distribution (along with its poor rigidity) made its handling great too..... Oh...I get I understand why you think the Mustang is such a great handler....LOL.
  20. Guess what jackass...we never had the silvia, no one cares about it.
    All 150hp...that was the base turbo model, they also had a version that made 174hp and one (oh my god) that made 220hp and 217lb ft of torque. Now thats fast.
    Mine was the latter.
    As for wasn't bad at all. I feel bad for people like yourself that can't drive a car if it's not pulling over 1g and has perfect weight distribution. Must suck since you'll never own a car like that. Maybe you think your ranger can do talk about great handling cars and how great imports are and you drive a ranger...thats to funny...(I'm not making fun of the ranger for anybody to dumb to see the real humor here).
  21. Now that was one worthless post.

    Get my facts stright? I posted my numbers right out of C&D. Sad thing is those numbers were for the 2001, which you own. Congrats you own a car that does 14.7 in the quarter mile. Do you still think V8's kick ass? <A BORDER="0" HREF=""><IMG BORDER="0" SRC=""></A>
  22. Worthless post, you're the king of them.

    Yes you do need to get your facts straight. Here's what [email protected] said about the STILLEN SMZ 300ZX, which has around an extra 60hp and 40lb ft or torque.

    Power (mfr's estimate) . . . . . . . . . . 365 bhp 6400 rpm
    Torque (mfr's estimate) ... . . . . . . 332 lb-ft 3500 rpm
    Curb weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3602 lb
    Zero to 60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 sec
    Zero to 100 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.5 sec
    Zero to 130 mph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.8 sec
    Street start, 5 to 60 mph . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 sec
    Standing 1/4-mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.0 sec 102 mph
    Top speed (governor limited) . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 mph
    skidpad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.92 g
    C/D observed fuel economy . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 mpg

    Seems to me that your times are off on the stock 300zx, or [email protected]'s times might be off a bit, you pick.
    And if their times are off on this car...don't you think they might be off on other cars? Maybe like the mustang.
    Mustang GT quarter mile times ARE HIGH 13's and very low 14's.
    The only sad thing here is you lack of intelligence.
    14 seconds flat in the quarter mile with thats sad. Do you still think cars with turbo's kick
  23. #48 27GTR, Feb 25, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Not in 89 it didn`t (220 HP that is). And why is it the 2.2L Turbo made 174, but the 2.5L Pacifico (ES) only put out 150? There`s a question for the ages....
    They made about 300 of the 220HP versions, and they made the run to 60 in 6.3 secs.....Tearing up the street! The more common 174 HP versions made the run in 7 secs. Compare that to the MR2-T, whose base price was 500 dollars less (18,572 R/T vs 18k MR2) and a mid-engined car to boot. By the way...I owned a `94 Turbo back in High School....absolutely wonderful car...great handling...terrific to throw around.

    Yeah...I drive a Ranger....and I like my truck for what it is...a truck.

    You neglected to mention my other car, an import, a 500HP R32......which at this moment pulls greater than 1g on the skidpad (not that I take stock in Skidpad anyway).....How now Brown cow?
  24. Ahh, I see you are taking your lessons from spyder by posting the SMZ article. When bothered by proof that's what he tries to pull out of his ass. Go onto any 300zx forum and you will notice how that article was a fluke. C&D tested a stock 300zx and got 13.7's and 13.9's all day long. So either they had somebody like you test the car(which means he couldn't drive worth a shit) or there was something seriousy wrong with the car (vaccum line popped off). Now you must think the times for the Mustang GT are off because the times for the SMZ are obviously askew. Well take the 1999 and the 2002 mustang GT's for example. Both ran withen .2 seconds of the 2001 which ran a 14.7. Now that is what I call consistant. Lets have a look at the kenny brown 320X shall we?

    Kenny Brown Mustang GT 320X
    1/[email protected]

    So it takes 315 horse power and even more torque to run the time you say, but still slower. Any more bright ideas or lame wanna be insults?
  25. Ummm...6.3 seconds would be tearing up the streets, even in todays world of cars. Many imports today are slower then that yet hailed as great and fast cars.
    And you have a 500hp r32, ummm, I'll beleive it if I see it.
    As far as the 2.5 putting out less hp, their are lots of reasons why it might not have performed as well, not having as much boost is probably the main one.

Share This Page