legacycentral bbs

Brat4by4 wrote:and please don't tell me about their special packages that cost more than an entry level Vette .

I'm not really a Ford guy, but I gotta ask, which packages are you talking about??? The SVT Cobra is the most expensive Mustang you can buy(from Ford, not talking Saleen or anything here) and its 15K less than an entry level C5, not to mention that it performs as well or better, and is light years ahead of GM technology-wise. As for the 4G F-Bodies, the LS1 powered ones were cool but I don't think F-Bodies ever could escape the stigma associated with them...

The SVT Cobra is the most expensive Mustang you can buy(from Ford, not talking Saleen or anything here) and its 15K less than an entry level C5, not to mention that it performs as well or better, and is light years ahead of GM

You should really check your numbers. The price difference is about right, but the supercharged SVT only pulls about a 14.2 in the quarter. Only does .88 G's on the skidpad. And takes 137 feet to stop from 60. A no-frills C5 eats all of these numbers up (13.5's, .97+, ~105') and has better technology (the rest of GM is a different story).

and the $50,000 Rousch Stage III only manages a 13.8 in the quarter mile... that's pitiful if you ask me. A Saleen would get spanked by a WRX and a full exhaust would put you neck to neck with a $50k V-8 "sports" car.

in comparos you never hear the mustang matched against anything but a camaro. you see the z06 going up against NSX's, 911 Turbos, Vipers, etc... and holding its own.

Sorry, you should check your numbers, look here
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp ... e_number=2
Car and Driver article for 03 SVT Cobra, pulls 0.90g on the skidpad, and runs 12.9@111...

Hmmm... they improved it a lot, I could only find numbers for 2001.

Well that's good that they finally have something that does 12's for less than $55k.

The 03 SVT Cobra uses a supercharger and has 390 hp so it is quite a different machine then previous or later models

Brat4by4 wrote: and the $50,000 Rousch Stage III only manages a 13.8 in the quarter mile... that's pitiful if you ask me. A Saleen would get spanked by a WRX and a full exhaust would put you neck to neck with a $50k V-8 "sports" car.

stock wrx 1/4 = 15.0
if the 0-60 of the wrx and sprots car X are the same, the wrx is gonna trail waaay behind after 60.

You know all those 60s muscle cars that gearheads have tinkered with until they pull fantastic times on a skidpad and are wickedly fast? Well, the last chassis update for the mustang was in 1972. No benefits of CAD. I'd like to meet the person who understands cars and owns a new escort, contour, cougar, taurus. focus fans are numbers junkies.

Not to disagree with you, but the chassis upgrade thing isn't entirely right. The 03+ Cobras have multi link IRS as opposed to all the other Mustangs which still have a live axle.

91White-T, I don't have the article in front of me, but Automobile tested the Vette Z06 against the Cobra R.

Your first inclination would be that the R would kick the Vette's ass, since it's stripped out with no A/C, no radio, no backseat, no nuttin. Plus it had similar engine sizes and power outputs...

Get this: The Z06 trounced the R in every single test! I don't care what it was: acceleration, top speed, slalom, lateral g's, I don't care. I couldn't believe it myself, I checked every last test. And this will blow you away. The Z06 with A/C, radio, full package weighed 300 lbs less than the R!

While I will admit that the new blown Cobra is a sick car (12-sec stock), no matter what, GM has WAAAY better technology and R&D than Ford does...

Isn't this great? A ford chevy "discussion" (quibble, argument, whatever...) on our little Subaru Legacy board.

The new mustangs are still based on the Fox body. I had a guy at work that was scared to death in my car accelerating past 70. He used to have a v-8 mustang and wrecked it on a wet road . I was trying to explain to him that he is in AWD, 4-channel ABS, fully independent suspension, air bag, highway speed stable sedan... how could he be so scared when he used to go fast in something that has nothing more than a modified rear leaf spring? (That was just to bust his balls... he'd be like "they don't have leaf springs!")

IMHO, Mustangs are called "pony" cars for a reason. I'll stick with thorough-breds if I have to buy American muscle. They are under-powered underperformers if you ask me, using sports car and Mustang in the same sentence is a travesty and a mockery of anything truly sporty. Hopefully they can recreate the latest SVT results and improve the brand...
But why do their owners fight tooth and nail over putting in a rear independent suspension? Maybe they just need new owners...

I love what I started! IMO the only Mustang that could be qualified as a sports car was the 1st series Shelby GT350. And that Fox chassis...anyone remember the Fairmont? Not exactly advanced tech even back in the mid seventies. You think they paid for their R&D on that yet?

Steve

subyluvr2212 wrote: Your first inclination would be that the R would kick the Vette's ass, since it's stripped out with no A/C, no radio, no backseat, no nuttin. Plus it had similar engine sizes and power outputs...

The Cobra R was way overrated, didn't even have IRS! I would definitely expect the Z06 to win!

While I will admit that the new blown Cobra is a sick car (12-sec stock), no matter what, GM has WAAAY better technology and R&D than Ford does...

No way, you're not gonna tell me that a car company that offered a carbureted V8 until 1988, and that still, even to this day, has PUSHROD V6's in most of their crap has better technology than Ford. In fact I can't even think of one new GM car outside of the Vette that I would even want to own!

Has better technology, yes. Uses that technology to their full advantage, hell no.

I remember the big hoopla that went around when GM's CEO was asked if he was a car guy. He said something along the lines of "define car guy." If you hafta ask that kind of a question, then you are definitely NOT a car guy!

That said, I really think GM is more of a conglomerate big corporation whose one goal is to make money, and do it as soullessly as possible. They put absolutely no enthusiasm into their work at all. While I think FORD means Fix Or Repair Daily, they and Chrysler put a little more of themselves into the cars they make.

Toyota is also a largely passionless concern out to make money (with the possible brief exception of their founder), but look at their success and how well-deserved it is. They earn every dollar they make even if their cars are, IMO, mostly soulless exercises in high quality manufacturing. But that's OK, that's ultimately what this business is about - they can't all be TVRs (thank god, I guess). But that's why I drive Subarus - quality with personality - the best of both worlds.

GM is the same type of concern as Toyota, but they no longer deserve to even be in business as their quality is terrible and anything that's so-called enthusiast directed is nothing more than a cynical marketing campaign (how long did it take them to realize the Corvette's importance and look how they neglected the Camaro). Like the impression I got in Egypt that many of its inhabitants would raze the ancient landmarks if they didn't make them money, GM would have killed the Vette by now if it weren't for decades of being pounded in the head by internal enthusiasts on its importance. Bob Lutz is the only dim glimmer of light from the whole corporation.

Steve

True, but the '02 outperforms the '03 by slim margin - stock. Must be because the engine is smaller on the '03's.

If you mean the 02 Cobra, you're wrong, the 03 was the first year they were supercharged, had 70 more hp/tq than 02's...

Yes, I was talking about the '02 cobra and I was originally responding to a post by Matt. I guess I lost my place in the thread. Either way, I'm sorry, you must be misinformed. In a recent issue of 5.0 Mustang and Super Fords magazine (not sure which issue) that I was reading just the other day they had road test data comparisons on the 2 years mentioned and the NA '02 bested the '03 supercharged car in NEARLY EVERY CATEGORY. If you don't believe me look up the issue for yourself. There's a big picture of a yellow Cobra on the cover. I'm pretty sure that I read in there about the '03 having more torque but in this case for whatever reason it apparently wasn't enough to make a difference.

I can't find any info for a 2002 Cobra, only 2001 which was more than half a second slower than an 03.

I don't know what to say. I'll try to go check the magazine website again later and see if I can get a back issue. I have no doubt about it being true though because I was kind of shocked that it was. The issue was laying around here at the place I work at. I looked for it at lunch today but had no luck. I have no desire to argue about it. All I know is that's what the article said. If the article was somehow flawed, and I guess it could be, then maybe they are wrong but not me in any case.

I don't wanna argue with you either, it doesn't really matter anyway, they're both fast lets just leave it at that.

I think it was Hotrod magazine that did a shootout between new svt Mustang and WRX. WRX beat stang in quarter and in slalom.

See above... We've been over this, 03 SVT runs high 12's, you're probably thinking STi...