PDA

View Full Version : Review: 2010 Ford Mustang GT - A full week changes attitudes


VH_Supra26
03-18-2009, 09:07 PM
by Jonathon Ramsey on Mar 18th 2009 at 12:01PM
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/03/2010mustanggtabg_05_opt.jpg (http://www.autoblog.com/photos/review-2010-ford-mustang-gt/1420595/)
2010 Ford Mustang GT - Click above for high-res image gallery

We spent a few precious hours in the 2010 Ford Mustang GT toward the end of last year. More recently, we were able to get a Kona Blue model in the Autoblog Garage, and this time, we spent a full week exploring the car's metropolis manners in between long rounds in the saddle, throwing the car over hill and dale... and around the track. This Mustang promises much, and on our First Drive, it delivered as promised. Follow the jump to see if it could do the same for an entire week.

This particular blogger and Autoblog photographer Drew Phillips have had a running tκte-ΰ-tκte concerning the Mustang. Phillips has extolled the car's blank-slate possibilities and massive performance for a massive bargain. I, conversely, have never really paid much attention to the Mustang, even though where I grew up they were thought so important to a young man's upbringing as to be considered one of the four food groups. Full Disclosure: I haven't even driven one since 1996, and that car was at least five years old – a GT that broke loose so quickly under my youthful foot that it's a wonder the car never wound up with the kind of body modifications you can only get from a ditch.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/03/2010mustanggtabg_06_opt.jpg

But that's in another part of the country, where the Mustang, like a horse, provides warm comfort. In Los Angeles, however, the Mustang is a rental car. Oh, there are plenty of Mustangs in the greater LA area, but if you happen to see one in the trendy parts, it's a safe bet that there's a Hertz contract in the glovebox... or else it's owned by someone who just moved out from that other part of the country.

So part of our quest was to see if the car deserves attention in The Big Smoke. The Answer? Yes. Yes, it does.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/03/2010mustanggtabg_07_opt.jpg

And that affirmation starts with the way it looks: the lines on the new Mustang are, finally, properly sorted. It's been a few generations coming, but Ford's designers have figured out which influences to use from the iconic models of the past and how to blend them without unnecessary frills. There is no part of this car's design that snagged our attention in a way that made us wonder "Why did they put that there?" What remains is a suite of firm lines and broad curves accompanied by the occasional crease that glare back as if to ask, "You lookin' at me?" The only part of the car that we kept coming back to and going "Hmmm..." is the now more rounded rear end, which in profile juts out so much it makes us think of a cantilevered shelf hanging out over a canyon. Compared to the tightly-cropped front end, it's a lot of overhang. Still, the coupe is drawn very well – the way the rear glasshouse descends into the tail and the way the car broadens from C-pillar to shoulder to wheel arch means you don't notice it unless you're looking for it.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/03/2010mustanggtabg_13_opt.jpg http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/03/2010mustanggtabg_14_opt.jpg

Inside, the well-drawn line continues, but the dissection is a little more complex. The first encounter gets a definite thumbs-up. The seats look great, the stitching is well done, the door panels have beautiful symmetry and the scalloped dash is a nice touch. The plastic surround in the center console is pedestrian, but the overall look is well done, and the layout and buttons are terrific. The steering wheel is pretty, although its buttons need a little learnin' to get a manage on.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/03/2010mustanggtabg_23_opt.jpg

And the cabin has some fantastic touches. The ambient lighting is nifty, and even though it's everywhere, it avoids being annoying or gimmicky (even though we must admit that the first time we looked down and saw our feet bathed in blue light, like something out of Close Encounters, it took a moment to digest). The word "Mustang" in the sill plates lights up in the same hue, and there are also blue light rings in the cupholders. It might sound hokey now, but if you're looking for a quarter in the cupholder late one night, all of a sudden it's genius, and the cupholder has a cover so you never even need to know things are aglow in there.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/03/2010mustanggtabg_25_opt.jpg http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/03/2010mustanggtabg_38_opt.jpg

We especially need to single out the touchscreen, which is so good that it really should make some luxury cars blush, and it couldn't be easier to operate. The reversing camera image is spectacularly bright – even at night – and comes with hash marks for range. The stereo and climate control screens feature big, simple buttons. The map resolution is first-rate and has a lane view to tell you which lane you should be in, and the navigation voice doesn't drown you with commands. The power windows are one-touch up and down for driver and passenger, the cupholders hold two full-sized drinks at the same time, and the individual taillights flash in sequence in the direction you're turning when you use the signal.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/03/2010mustanggtabg_39_opt.jpg http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/03/2010mustanggtabg_41_opt.jpg

Of course, there were a few niggles. The dome light can't be turned off if the door is open, so you can forget about doing a sneaky late night flyby at Sally's house unless she's going to hop in the car Dukes of Hazzard style. The 12-volt outlet is in the cubby behind the cupholders. If you want to charge your phone, you have to keep it in the cubby if you want to close the lid, because the lid won't close over the charger cable. But if you keep the phone in the cubby, it's hard to get to quickly. The chrome bezels on the gauges also reflect in the windshield at night, and in this author's opinion, Ford went a little too retro with the gauges. The hash marks are so close together on the speedometer, and the needle is, relatively, so big, that the best you can do is get your speed to within about +/- 3 mph unless it's a number that ends in zero.

But we can and would live with all of that. Happily. Because this car is big fun.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/03/2010mustanggtabg_34_opt.jpg http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/03/2010mustanggtabg_35_opt.jpg

Speaking of big, as America's car, the Mustang is done in big American style. Get in, and compared to some of its ostensible competition it's as if you went to the sports car drive-through and asked them to Biggie Size your grub (which is still, thankfully, a few steps down from the Dodge Challenger-size meal). The cabin is big, the seats are big, the steering wheel is big, the shifter stands tall, the shifts are long... it's all just... big. Whip it around a track after having been in a few closer-fitting cars, and getting in the Mustang feels like getting in a FedEx truck. But that initial feeling is where any comparison to a lorry ends.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/03/2010mustanggtabg_15_opt.jpg

The sound made by the Mustang's 4.6-liter V8, now rated at 315 horsepower and 325 lb-ft of torque, is outstanding, a non-stop conversation that takes place between the exhaust and your ears. There is no language involved – you start the car and your auditory canal responds with, "Oh, hello!", knowing full well in your rumbling bones that this is how an American V8 is meant to sound and how you're meant to feel.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/03/2010mustanggtabg_33_opt.jpg http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/03/2010mustanggtabg_19_opt.jpg

Throw the car in first and then, well, notice that there are only four gears after that. The idea of a five-speed transmission strikes us as archaic, but those five gears are arguably better used in the Mustang than some of the six-speed competition gets along with an extra cog. That doesn't mean it's faster, but it can be less work – on the track we shifted a lot more in other cars to stay in the power band, yet we didn't go any faster.

But it's plenty fast and a little loose – not sloppy, but yes, loose – even with the Track Pack. The additional goodies that come with the Track Pack option, like uprated brakes and dampers, a strut brace and limited-slip diff, do make a difference, but not a startling one. The regular car wallows a bit more, but the Track Pack still felt like it might be good for some extra cornering speed over non-equipped cars. Regardless, the brakes could still use some help – they won't quit on you, but they begin fading more quickly than expected when push came to shove. If you only have $1,500 to spend on making your Mustang faster, however, the Track Pack is probably worth it. If you have a little more, you're probably safe skipping it and getting your own parts – we'd start by firming up the suspension.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/03/2010mustanggtabg_01_opt.jpg

Don't get us wrong, though; the car is plenty fast – fast enough to acquit itself of some of its softer leanings. And while it might be a little cushy and the seats aren't exactly Recaros, the thing handles. Give us this car and $5,000 and we'll beat a bunch of people who spent a lot more. Give us this car and $10,000 and we'll spend part of that money painting pretty pictures on the Mustang's rear end because that's all most folks would ever see.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/03/2010mustanggtabg_02_opt.jpg

And it does have something that some of its faster-through-the-curves competition doesn't have: good highway manners due to a decided lack of frenzy. You can take a road trip in this car and emerge without that I-just-got-off-an-amusement-park-ride sensation where you bones are still jiggling hours after exiting the driver's seat. That means a lot.

All of which means that the basic Mustang template has only been expanded upon. It will still do the business at the drag strip and the Burger King on Friday night, and you can add a much wider ability to swallow town and (curved) track duty. And it's hot. And it's fast. And it's only $27,995 in base V8 GT guise. If you're looking for something not to like, best look elsewhere.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/03/2010mustanggtabg_03_opt.jpg

It's safe to assume that this car will have its home territories on lock. Will it actually get the attention it deserves in a place like LA? Well, that's for other people and their checkbooks to answer. But this blogger will admit to Mr. Drew Phillips, right here in public, "You're right about the Mustang. At least you're right about this one. I get it." We are pleased to report our week with the 2010 Mustang was spent astride one of the Four Horsemen, and his name was Conquest... well, maybe until the new Chevrolet Camaro comes along.

All contents copyright © 2003-2009, Weblogs, Inc. All rights reserved

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/03/18/review-2010-ford-mustang-gt/

LabtopThief_jr.
03-18-2009, 09:19 PM
just dont like the rear it faces upward too much and its too flat.

VH_Supra26
03-18-2009, 09:20 PM
im not feeling the rear either

fug_mo
03-19-2009, 10:50 AM
Rear sort of looks like a Tiburon, front end is a definite improvement in my opinion.

Replica
03-19-2009, 11:06 AM
I'd take it over the Camaro and Challenger.

i-vtec195
03-19-2009, 11:44 AM
I'd take it over the Camaro and Challenger.

:stupid:, despite the fact that i think those two are also pretty cool.

i actually really like the new stangs. the new gt is very nice, and the performance numbers are attractive. i also loved the shelby that they had on display at the auto show. cool car.

'89 Probe
03-19-2009, 05:45 PM
it looks pissed! but i preffer the aggressiveness of the camaro.

Happy
03-19-2009, 06:09 PM
always thought mustangs were underpowered vs competition for the price

rg3777
03-19-2009, 09:24 PM
id take a new g37 with a 328hp v6 before that :P

danyo492
03-19-2009, 10:04 PM
i like the front more than anything...it looks mean

FbodTrek
03-19-2009, 10:13 PM
It looks bad now, and what do you know, it'll look bad in 2010 too :p
TBH, the Mustangs are OK looking with the right kit and wheels, but the Challenger and Camaro are far more appealing cars all around. Besides, what 16 year old Highschool girl doesn't already have a Mustang?

FbodTrek
03-19-2009, 10:16 PM
"There is no part of this car's design that snagged our attention in a way that made us wonder "Why did they put that there?"
Except for that ridiculous quarter glass....TOTALLY FUCKING USELESS and out of place.

projecks15
03-19-2009, 10:23 PM
hmm camaro v8 400+hp or mustang v8 300+hp

FbodTrek
03-19-2009, 10:34 PM
hmm camaro v8 400+hp or mustang v8 300+hp

Tough decision huh? The best part is, FOrd will have to resort to FI to come close to Chevy AGAIN.

White94CX
03-19-2009, 11:13 PM
Tough decision huh? The best part is, FOrd will have to resort to FI to come close to Chevy AGAIN.

Your an idiot, and you have no idea what your talking about...

Your referring to a base model GT, with baseline numbers. Take a look at a GT500. 500+ (conservatively rated) 6-speed, supercharged, intercooled 32v V-8. UNDER 50K. There's not a Chevrolet that does anything close to that, that's within 20k of that.

When your done with that, go pick up a rock, and crawl under under it and stay there a while, because your just another guy that has
RICER MENTALITY...

Rybo
03-19-2009, 11:36 PM
always thought mustangs were underpowered vs competition for the price

77MstcS02Z8

Rybo
03-19-2009, 11:38 PM
Your an idiot, and you have no idea what your talking about...

Your referring to a base model GT, with baseline numbers. Take a look at a GT500. 500+ (conservatively rated) 6-speed, supercharged, intercooled 32v V-8. UNDER 50K. There's not a Chevrolet that does anything close to that, that's within 20k of that.

When your done with that, go pick up a rock, and crawl under under it and stay there a while, because your just another guy that has
RICER MENTALITY...

you can get a used c6 z06 for 50k and proceed to monkey stop all over a gt500

White94CX
03-19-2009, 11:41 PM
But this guy was talking about BRAND NEW CARS.....

Wasn't he? So before you try to interject, try to read between the lines...:facepalm:

FbodTrek
03-19-2009, 11:52 PM
Your an idiot, and you have no idea what your talking about...

Your referring to a base model GT, with baseline numbers.(NO SHIT SHERLOCK!) Take a look at a GT500. 500+ (conservatively rated) 6-speed, supercharged, intercooled 32v V-8. UNDER 50K. There's not a Chevrolet that does anything close to that, that's within 20k of that.

When your done with that, go pick up a rock, and crawl under under it and stay there a while, because your just another guy that has
RICER MENTALITY...

Oh!1!!!!! You mean the two base model V8 cars performed the same? Oh WAIT, you fail.

The Cobra was needed to outrun the NATURALLY ASPIRATED LS motor, that BTW, TOTALLY DESTROYED the 4.6 in every aspect. So feel free to re-educate me hotshot. Ford had to BUILD a special model to compete with Chevrolet's base model ( The Cobra )...or is a supercharger the same thing as breathing in atmo?


Ford can't even match the 4thGEN N/A performance with 4 valves (300 hp to the LS1's 320). Mind you, this is todays Mustang and Yesterdays Camaro...if we compare current models...yeah.

ALSO take into consideration that the GT500 is NOT a fucking production car. It's a special Build vehicle. That would be like Comparing a Ligenfelter Vette to a stock Mustang GT. Want to settle the argument? I will bring a stock Camaro to you when they come out, and you get to race me VS a Stock GT- you're gonna get raped. If you need to go out to Shelby's place and drop 50 grand to walk me, I could just dump that 15-20k I saved by NOT buying the Ford, and put Cam, heads, Nitrous and slicks on the GM pushrod motor and peddle on by.

FbodTrek
03-19-2009, 11:56 PM
But this guy was talking about BRAND NEW CARS.....

Wasn't he? So before you try to interject, try to read between the lines...:facepalm:

No...he actually hit the nail on the head... It's obvious that my original statement went totally over your head.

Perf_White_GT
03-20-2009, 03:19 AM
Before answering your questions... I will say this as pleasantly as possible...

shut the fuck up... you dont know anything...

The Cobra was needed to outrun the NATURALLY ASPIRATED LS motor, that BTW, TOTALLY DESTROYED the 4.6 in every aspect. So feel free to re-educate me hotshot. Ford had to BUILD a special model to compete with Chevrolet's base model ( The Cobra )

03-04 cobra > SS camaro stock for stock...

dont use the imfamous "it has a s/c excuse" its faster... period so stfu

cause with a 01 cobra and a 01 camaro its a drivers race... period


by the way... when they "built" the special model mustang... camaro was already a thing of the past...

Ford can't even match the 4thGEN N/A performance with 4 valves (300 hp to the LS1's 320). Mind you, this is todays Mustang and Yesterdays Camaro...if we compare current models...yeah.

99/01 cobra had 320rwhp... so i wont go into discussion on that...

bam..

ALSO take into consideration that the GT500 is NOT a fucking production car. It's a special Build vehicle. That would be like Comparing a Ligenfelter Vette to a stock Mustang GT.

the GT500 IS a production car you fucking retard... 100% designed by a partnership between shelby and ford. made on a assembly line in romeo, Mich by ford workers... now when we're talking the super snake or the KR.. then yes those are made in las vegas.. otherwise you just got proven wrong you gm cock rider

I could just dump that 15-20k I saved by NOT buying the Ford, and put Cam, heads, Nitrous and slicks on the GM pushrod motor and peddle on by.

and then successfully snap the irs or that weak ass 10 bolt (depending upon which camaro you're talking about) meanwhile afore mentioned shelby owner can kick back and pully/blower swap/nitrous his way to outpedal the camaro.. since i comes with a 31splice solid axle/forged internals/sc... hmmmm

i-vtec195
03-20-2009, 08:04 AM
Before answering your questions... I will say this as pleasantly as possible...

shut the fuck up... you dont know anything...



he sure has been dropping some doosies lately. :rofl:

Replica
03-20-2009, 08:26 AM
Oh!1!!!!! You mean the two base model V8 cars performed the same? Oh WAIT, you fail.
It's disappointing when people rate cars based on horsepower. Most current Camaro and Mustang I've driven were 99-01's or so. The Camaro had alot more power, but I always found myself enjoying the Mustang more. It seemed a bit sharper and better made. The brake pedal didn't require the excessive force the F-bodies did, they were smaller (a plus to me) and it felt more connected to the road than the F-body. Also, Mustangs were usually a little cheaper. So sure, I'll take the car I PREFER to own and be entirely happy with it.

I like that no one mentioned we're comparing a 4.6L to a 5.7L. Must have slipped everyone's mind.

FbodTrek
03-20-2009, 09:08 AM
It's disappointing when people rate cars based on horsepower. Most current Camaro and Mustang I've driven were 99-01's or so. The Camaro had alot more power, but I always found myself enjoying the Mustang more. It seemed a bit sharper and better made. The brake pedal didn't require the excessive force the F-bodies did, they were smaller (a plus to me) and it felt more connected to the road than the F-body. Also, Mustangs were usually a little cheaper. So sure, I'll take the car I PREFER to own and be entirely happy with it.

I like that no one mentioned we're comparing a 4.6L to a 5.7L. Must have slipped everyone's mind.

Comparing a 2000 Mustangs interior with that of the same year Camaro, and YEAH. The previous gen F-bodys had TERRIBLE interior, good thing GM doesn't build shit like that anymore. No, the displacement didn't slip anyones mind. We're comparing a technologically advanced engine to one that uses a 50 year old concept, so displacement becomes kind of a non-point, and equalizer. Overhead cam designs and extra valves ina cylinder head make a HUGE potential difference for engine efficiency.

Replica
03-20-2009, 09:12 AM
Comparing a 2000 Mustangs interior with that of the same year Camaro, and YEAH. The previous gen F-bodys had TERRIBLE interior, good thing GM doesn't build shit like that anymore. No, the displacement didn't slip anyones mind. We're comparing a technologically advanced engine to one that uses a 50 year old concept, so displacement becomes kind of a non-point, and equalizer. Overhead cam designs and extra valves ina cylinder head make a HUGE potential difference for engine efficiency.
All we can do right now is compare generation for generation. Hopefully the newest Camaro will close the gap or do even better than the current Mustang. I hope so, progress is a good thing for the entire market.

HPorkchopD
03-20-2009, 09:17 AM
4.6 v8 w/ 315hp compared to 6.0 pushing 400...seems like Ford is getting their moneys worth out of those blocks. I like the front...not so much on the rear...also like the interior...really clean looking.

I think it would be kickass if they made a fastback edition...with no rear quarter windows.

FbodTrek
03-20-2009, 09:18 AM
Before answering your questions... I will say this as pleasantly as possible...

shut the fuck up... you dont know anything...(Apparently I can STILL manage to tell that when someone says "Ford will resort to FI to come close to Chevy"
Was talking about the motors they choose and their power figures.



03-04 cobra > SS camaro stock for stock... (Kindly re-read the original post, I said they needed forced induction to keep up, and you proved me right).

dont use the imfamous "it has a s/c excuse" its faster... period so stfu

cause with a 01 cobra and a 01 camaro its a drivers race... period

(OH look, you validated my original post again)

by the way... when they "built" the special model mustang... camaro was already a thing of the past...



99/01 cobra had 320rwhp... so i wont go into discussion on that...

bam..



the GT500 IS a production car you fucking retard... 100% designed by a partnership between shelby and ford. made on a assembly line in romeo, Mich by ford workers... now when we're talking the super snake or the KR.. then yes those are made in las vegas.. otherwise you just got proven wrong you gm cock rider

It's a stretch but sure, why not. I'll ride the cock of the better engine builder, sure.

and then successfully snap the irs or that weak ass 10 bolt (depending upon which camaro you're talking about) meanwhile afore mentioned shelby owner can kick back and pully/blower swap/nitrous his way to outpedal the camaro.. since i comes with a 31splice solid axle/forged internals/sc... hmmmm (With an extra 15-20 grand, if you think I wouldn't fix the weak links you'd be mistaken, mind you this is a 10 year old car we're talking about now.

Now, did Ford did use forced induction to compete with the performance of the F-body? Are you gonna further ignore my POINT, or do you want to piss some more?
If folks could read, we wouldn't have this problem.

HPorkchopD
03-20-2009, 09:19 AM
It's disappointing when people rate cars based on horsepower. Most current Camaro and Mustang I've driven were 99-01's or so. The Camaro had alot more power, but I always found myself enjoying the Mustang more. It seemed a bit sharper and better made. The brake pedal didn't require the excessive force the F-bodies did, they were smaller (a plus to me) and it felt more connected to the road than the F-body. Also, Mustangs were usually a little cheaper. So sure, I'll take the car I PREFER to own and be entirely happy with it.

I like that no one mentioned we're comparing a 4.6L to a 5.7L. Must have slipped everyone's mind.

Lol damn I posted before reading this.

Replica
03-20-2009, 09:20 AM
Now, did Ford did use forced induction to compete with the performance of the F-body? Are you gonna further ignore my POINT, or do you want to piss some more?
If folks could read, we wouldn't have this problem.
Power is power, I don't care how it's made. Be it displacement (GM) or boost (Ford).

FbodTrek
03-20-2009, 09:21 AM
4.6 v8 w/ 315hp compared to 6.0 pushing 400...seems like Ford is getting their moneys worth out of those blocks. I like the front...not so much on the rear...also like the interior...really clean looking.

I think it would be kickass if they made a fastback edition...with no rear quarter windows.

Yeah, if it weren't for the quarter glasss, there would be one sitting in my driveway...I just can't get over how out of place that shit looks.

HPorkchopD
03-20-2009, 09:23 AM
Definitely...I would be fkin kickass looking though.

FbodTrek
03-20-2009, 09:24 AM
Power is power, I don't care how it's made. Be it displacement (GM) or boost (Ford).

And I agree somewhat. This was about FOrd using Forced induction to compete with GM's Naturally aspirated engine, that's pretty much all there is to it.

HPorkchopD
03-20-2009, 09:25 AM
Put this front fascia on it...minus all the fkin fog lights...and you win. Well at least minus the upper fog lights on the grille.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/03/2010roush427r_04.jpg
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/03/2010roush427r_03.jpg

Replica
03-20-2009, 09:31 AM
And I agree somewhat. This was about FOrd using Forced induction to compete with GM's Naturally aspirated engine, that's pretty much all there is to it.
Are you implying it's a crutch?

FbodTrek
03-20-2009, 09:44 AM
Are you implying it's a crutch?

In my original comment it was intended as a humorous jab :Goofy:...then somebody got butthurt so I figured a flame war while baked would be fun.
Now it's just funny at this point. I Love forced induction and think it should be used in more production cars, I drive a home boosted 240 ffs.
I DO wish Ford would pull their thumbs out of their asses and give me a revised 302....I hate Ford for taking away that engine. Overhead cams don't belong on a musclecar engine IMO- it's just not right to me :p

HPorkchopD
03-20-2009, 10:17 AM
In my original comment it was intended as a humorous jab :Goofy:...then somebody got butthurt so I figured a flame war while baked would be fun.
Now it's just funny at this point. I Love forced induction and think it should be used in more production cars, I drive a home boosted 240 ffs.
I DO wish Ford would pull their thumbs out of their asses and give me a revised 302....I hate Ford for taking away that engine. Overhead cams don't belong on a musclecar engine IMO- it's just not right to me :p

why do you think they use them? I would imagine they cost more correct?

Perf_White_GT
03-20-2009, 06:00 PM
Now, did Ford did use forced induction to compete with the performance of the F-body? Are you gonna further ignore my POINT, or do you want to piss some more?
If folks could read, we wouldn't have this problem.


yea i said a 01 cobra and a 01 camaro is a drivers race....

i stand by that because of the simple fact that there isnt a supercharger on the 01 cobra only the 03-04 cobra and the gt500's

the 01 cobra was a naturally aspirated 4v 4.6 with 320rwhp... the same as the camaro.

so thank you for proving my point

Boma
03-20-2009, 06:21 PM
GT500 Shelby Mustang is a production car!!!! Whoever said it wasn't a production car is dead wrong.

mr.hatch
03-20-2009, 06:36 PM
Tough decision huh? The best part s, FOrd will have to resort to FI to come close to Chevy AGAIN.



Ricers make excuses, go cry to gm.....oh wait you wont be able to in a few more months bwahahahahahaha :facepalm:




Camaro what? From the looks of it; its becoming more and more like a myth :roflmao:

super cirrus
03-20-2009, 08:23 PM
yea i said a 01 cobra and a 01 camaro is a drivers race....

i stand by that because of the simple fact that there isnt a supercharger on the 01 cobra only the 03-04 cobra and the gt500's

the 01 cobra was a naturally aspirated 4v 4.6 with 320rwhp... the same as the camaro.

so thank you for proving my point

01 cobra's are no where near 320whp. MAYBE 270-280, after being "fixed".

xjxpert
03-21-2009, 12:36 AM
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p278/threedguru/123-1.jpg
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p278/threedguru/1234.jpg

Notice these two guys drive Fords and have no idea what real power is. Lets just ask most Ford guys which motor they would rather have in the car. Lets also ask what most hotrod and resto guys put in there projects and rods. The answer to all of this is Chevrolet. The motors from Chevy have always been more reliable and better performers. Compare any year (93-02 for the camaro, and 94-02 for the mustang) camaro or mustang and then compare there base models to gt/ss models. Gm has the upper hand each time.

And this guy is just a douche bag!
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p278/threedguru/12345.jpg

mr.hatch
03-21-2009, 04:23 AM
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p278/threedguru/123-1.jpg
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p278/threedguru/1234.jpg

Notice these two guys drive Fords and have no idea what real power is. Lets just ask most Ford guys which motor they would rather have in the car. Lets also ask what most hotrod and resto guys put in there projects and rods. The answer to all of this is Chevrolet. The motors from Chevy have always been more reliable and better performers. Compare any year (93-02 for the camaro, and 94-02 for the mustang) camaro or mustang and then compare there base models to gt/ss models. Gm has the upper hand each time.

And this guy is just a douche bag!
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p278/threedguru/12345.jpg




Really Really? did you just notice that? Did you also notice that I have a cock? Im sure you did.

Oh yeah I drive a ford and I have no idea what real power is??? You sir are a fucking moron. Keep jacking off over lt1 motors, kthnx.

uXxYDBUrzYU

FbodTrek
03-21-2009, 07:55 AM
Pushrod FTW...
Oh, and Yankees fail at making horsepower :p

FbodTrek
03-21-2009, 07:59 AM
Ricers make excuses, go cry to gm.....oh wait you wont be able to in a few more months bwahahahahahaha :facepalm:




Camaro what? From the looks of it; its becoming more and more like a myth :roflmao:
Excuses? What excuses? Chevy makes a fuckton better/more N/A power than Ford...that's kinda what this little fagspat is all about...:facepalm:
Still mad that a car from a failing company will STILL be making the Mustang it's bitch? It's ok, you can just strap a few more turbos on or something, it'll go faster, I promise.
:Slow:

xjxpert
03-21-2009, 08:59 AM
Really Really? did you just notice that? Did you also notice that I have a cock? Im sure you did.

Oh yeah I drive a ford and I have no idea what real power is??? You sir are a fucking moron. Keep jacking off over lt1 motors, kthnx.

uXxYDBUrzYU

Haha you proved Fbodytrk point that thing is not n/a

94egg
03-21-2009, 12:31 PM
frontend :rock:
rear :facepalm:

Perf_White_GT
03-21-2009, 07:15 PM
Excuses? What excuses? Chevy makes a fuckton better/more N/A power than Ford...that's kinda what this little fagspat is all about...:facepalm:
Still mad that a car from a failing company will STILL be making the Mustang it's bitch? It's ok, you can just strap a few more turbos on or something, it'll go faster, I promise.
:Slow:

You know why no one care about your opinions... cause you dont know anything... not a single thing

ricer excuse...

"you only win cause you have a supercharger... oh noes... if you didnt have a s/c you'd lose"

Perf_White_GT
03-21-2009, 07:18 PM
01 cobra's are no where near 320whp. MAYBE 270-280, after being "fixed".

01 cobras had 320 bhp
01 camaro had 320 bhp.... sorry i stand corrected...


but the 01 cobra never received the "fix" only '99's did

FbodTrek
03-21-2009, 10:37 PM
You know why no one care about your opinions... cause you dont know anything... not a single thing

ricer excuse...

"you only win cause you have a supercharger... oh noes... if you didnt have a s/c you'd lose"

Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall...

Did you even read the shit? Or did you pick out key things?
Christ, i give up...the English language obviously hates you.

mr.hatch
03-22-2009, 02:08 AM
Excuses? What excuses? Chevy makes a fuckton better/more N/A power than Ford...that's kinda what this little fagspat is all about...:facepalm:
Still mad that a car from a failing company will STILL be making the Mustang it's bitch? It's ok, you can just strap a few more turbos on or something, it'll go faster, I promise.
:Slow:

It dont matter cause its still coming around that ass, have fun with that fbody dash falling to pieces and windows not rolling up when it gets drug. end / kthnx


ohhh dont forget that 10 bolt falling to pieces after rolling out from a stop light bwahaha

FbodTrek
03-22-2009, 08:03 AM
Whatever helps you sleep at nite holmes. CObra owners are like Superchargers, lots of blowing, and lots of whining :p

rompeculo
03-22-2009, 10:21 AM
It dont matter cause its still coming around that ass, have fun with that fbody dash falling to pieces and windows not rolling up when it gets drug. end / kthnx


ohhh dont forget that 10 bolt falling to pieces after rolling out from a stop light bwahaha
sound like your talking about my mustang, have you seen me in it...its an exact description lol....


and am seious... but i still like lol

tommyboy
03-23-2009, 11:39 AM
fixed :thumb:

Whatever helps you sleep at nite holmes. CObra owners are like Superchargers, lots of blowing, and lots of whining, while blowing past lsx's!

Replica
03-23-2009, 11:43 AM
Still mad that a car from a failing company will STILL be making the Mustang it's bitch? It's ok, you can just strap a few more turbos on or something, it'll go faster, I promise.
:Slow:
Mustangs have usually been about a half second slower than Camaro/Trans AM's. So what? The Mustang does quite well with a fraction of the power.

Fast forward to current day, the 2010 Camaro and Mustang are pretty competitive in 0-60 times so far. It's pretty cool the stang still hangs in there with 110 less hp, but it also does weigh 400 POUNDS less.

Pick your poison. Both are fun cars with a similar purpose.

tommyboy
03-23-2009, 11:47 AM
Mustangs have usually been about a half second slower than Camaro/Trans AM's. So what? The Mustang does quite well with a fraction of the power.

Fast forward to current day, the 2010 Camaro and Mustang are pretty competitive in 0-60 times so far. It's pretty cool the stang still hangs in there with 110 less hp, but it also does weigh 400 POUNDS less.

Pick your poison. Both are fun cars with a similar purpose.

probably not going to get through to him, he's got an obvious deep rooted emotional issue with mustangs :crazy:

i-vtec195
03-23-2009, 12:14 PM
Mustangs have usually been about a half second slower than Camaro/Trans AM's. So what? The Mustang does quite well with a fraction of the power.

Fast forward to current day, the 2010 Camaro and Mustang are pretty competitive in 0-60 times so far. It's pretty cool the stang still hangs in there with 110 less hp, but it also does weigh 400 POUNDS less.

Pick your poison. Both are fun cars with a similar purpose.

which camaro are we talking about? the ss, or the one that's not going to make production? :hsugh:

mofoD
03-23-2009, 12:28 PM
lol @ the part about the mustang being a rental car in LA. YUP.

Replica
03-23-2009, 01:09 PM
which camaro are we talking about? the ss, or the one that's not going to make production? :hsugh:
The SS. The Z28 is TOO FAST to go into production apparently.

Happy
03-23-2009, 01:15 PM
The SS. The Z28 is TOO FAST to go into production apparently.

rofl

i-vtec195
03-23-2009, 02:00 PM
The SS. The Z28 is TOO FAST to go into production apparently.


too much of an icon for the american people to handle. :Ohnoez: