Due to the new 5.0 Mustang
Subscribe
Quote:
Ahhh, didn't see the other 2 pages. Originally Posted by rockville,Oct 25 2010, 05:30 PM
I'm not disagreeing with you. However, read the article. The design brief that was originally written in the mid 50's outlined the basic shape that became the Mustang and well, the basic shape of many BMWs. It's a good read.
It is a good read. The similarities are quite funny actually.
Registered User
Quote:
It is a good read. The similarities are quite funny actually.
Make sure you get this page, it's easy to miss:Originally Posted by RC 94,Oct 25 2010, 08:08 PM
Ahhh, didn't see the other 2 pages. It is a good read. The similarities are quite funny actually.
http://imgup-lb.automotive.com:8080/f/3085...ar-proposal.pdf
I guess I would have to test drive a Mustang 5.0 to know for sure, but as a general rule I overwhelmingly prefer lighter, lower hp cars over heavier (anything over 3200 lb), higher hp cars. As it currently stands I'd pick a Mini JCW... fwd and all.
Registered User
i built a 5.0 the way i would want it, Track Package, better gear ration, HID's, Nav, Sync, and it came out to $40k. I think its a great car and has come miles since the late 90's early 2000's, but for $40k i found 20 used Caymans comfortably in that range. Not to mention for $5-$8k CHEAPER i found 5 Z4M Coupes with less than 15k miles.
If the Stang had a full independant rear and lost a bit in the dimensions it would get my attention. As many have said above i just prefer the "feel" of a smaller more nimble package. The car doesn't have to give me pavement ripping power. Just excellent Steering feel, and i have to "fit" the car not just go for a hell of a ride.
If the Stang had a full independant rear and lost a bit in the dimensions it would get my attention. As many have said above i just prefer the "feel" of a smaller more nimble package. The car doesn't have to give me pavement ripping power. Just excellent Steering feel, and i have to "fit" the car not just go for a hell of a ride.
Registered User
Dav,
If the solid axle works well I won't knock it but I get your point. I would like to see the car shrink back to it's 1965 dimensions. I can't see how Ford could keep a rigid axle and still have decent rear seat and cargo room if the car shrinks to the 1965 dimensions so I guess I also would expect to see IRS. It will be interesting to see where the size of the next gen car goes. I really don't expect it to get smaller even though I wish it would.
If the solid axle works well I won't knock it but I get your point. I would like to see the car shrink back to it's 1965 dimensions. I can't see how Ford could keep a rigid axle and still have decent rear seat and cargo room if the car shrinks to the 1965 dimensions so I guess I also would expect to see IRS. It will be interesting to see where the size of the next gen car goes. I really don't expect it to get smaller even though I wish it would.
Quote:
If the M3's $0 maintenance costs (for the first 4 years) are too much for you, forget about the Mustang!Originally Posted by fishfryer,Oct 25 2010, 04:41 PM
With that said, gimme the 'stang, M3s are too much money to buy and maintain.
Quote:
BTW, based on this article it's possible to argue that the Mustang showed BMW the light when it comes to the basic shape of the M3 (that isn't a knock against either car).
http://www.automobilemag.com/features/by_d...tang/index.html
Quite a good read, thanks for posting. The its interesting to see a GM proposal 8 years earlier.Originally Posted by rockville,Oct 25 2010, 08:52 PM
Did the other Mustang thread get completely removed rather than edited? Anyway, there was a comment that the Mustang would never look as good as a BMW M3. I'm not sure about that. The original Mustang certainly looks better than perhaps any M3. The current car looks great to me even if it's clear that the car isn't as expensive as the BMW.BTW, based on this article it's possible to argue that the Mustang showed BMW the light when it comes to the basic shape of the M3 (that isn't a knock against either car).
http://www.automobilemag.com/features/by_d...tang/index.html
Registered User
Nobody cross-shops the BMW 3 series with the Ford Mustang. The typical Mustang GT buyer wants M3 performance for a blue-collar price. I know, I was one of them.
Many people choose the Mustang GT simply because it provides the most performance for the dollar. They may dislike the body style a little, maybe even hate the interior. They'll still buy it though just because of what it's capable of. Again, I was one of those people.
On the other hand, somebody who wants an M3 has considered the package as a whole. I seriously doubt people buy M3s for performance alone.
Many people choose the Mustang GT simply because it provides the most performance for the dollar. They may dislike the body style a little, maybe even hate the interior. They'll still buy it though just because of what it's capable of. Again, I was one of those people.
On the other hand, somebody who wants an M3 has considered the package as a whole. I seriously doubt people buy M3s for performance alone.
Quote:
So you'd spend 18-20g's on an already expensive to maintain car and then make it far more unreliable with an 8g+ turbo kit? Originally Posted by Ryan2949,Oct 25 2010, 08:07 PM
I'd rather a used E46 M3 for 18-20g's and slap on a HPF turbo.
Also, what scares me is when in 5-7 years the 5.0 Mustang drops down to 15-20k and 18 year old kids everywhere start getting their hands on them in droves...