Which is Better All Car vs. Car Topics

Camaro - Is this 1993 all over again?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Oct 19, 2008 | 08:34 PM
  #21  
05fordgt's Avatar
Team Mustang Source
 
Joined: June 19, 2004
Posts: 6,840
Likes: 2
From: Phoenixville, PA
Originally Posted by Red Star
I wouldn't be surprised if Ford cancels that idea. Heck, they already canceled 6.2.
Zoran, I highly doubt that. The 4.6L is pretty much at its end of its lifecycle.
Reply
Old Oct 19, 2008 | 08:37 PM
  #22  
Zastava_101's Avatar
TMS Post # 1,000,000
Serbian Steamer
 
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 12,636
Likes: 0
From: Wisconsin / Serbia
I hope you're right.
Reply
Old Oct 19, 2008 | 09:32 PM
  #23  
m05fastbackGT's Avatar
SUPERCHARGED RED ROCKET ------------------Master-Moderator
 
Joined: May 11, 2006
Posts: 10,648
Likes: 2,514
From: Carnegie, PA
He's right, Zoran
Reply
Old Oct 20, 2008 | 03:06 AM
  #24  
metroplex's Avatar
Legacy TMS Member
 
Joined: October 2, 2006
Posts: 4,777
Likes: 16
From: Southeast Michigan
Originally Posted by wjones14
Funny how fast things change though. Gas here in CT is less than $3/gallon today.

Personally, I think the Camaro instrumentation and interior lighting is pretty cool. Granted I have only seen the publicity pictures, but there's a futuristic feel to the whole thing, especially the way even the door trim lights up when you turn the lighting on.
Yep, it does look modern but the speedo gauge seems illegible and the 4-gauges are useless behind the shifter. It doesn't feel as inviting as the S197 interior but GM may change that on the actual car.
Reply
Old Oct 20, 2008 | 08:10 AM
  #25  
bob's Avatar
bob
Legacy TMS Member
 
Joined: May 16, 2004
Posts: 5,206
Likes: 18
From: Bristol, TN
Well historically (as in 1967+) the Camaro has always offered the better performing package at a higher price point as well. Occasionally the Mustang would sneak in a sucker punch but for the most part the Camaro has been the faster better handling car.

IMO eventually you either realize the numbers aren't really that important, or you stop letting them bother you. For all of the F-bod's prowess its pretty much inaccessible beyond a few moments at a time (same for the Mustang as well) for most people. We are by and large bench racers.
Reply
Old Oct 20, 2008 | 09:11 AM
  #26  
metroplex's Avatar
Legacy TMS Member
 
Joined: October 2, 2006
Posts: 4,777
Likes: 16
From: Southeast Michigan
The cool thing is that you can't really complain about the manual transmission offerings anymore... The Challenger SRT-8, Corvette, and GT500 all have the same TR-6060.

Now, what would be interesting is if we installed the LS3 into a S197 GT mated with the TR-6060:
The Ford Mustang GT SS LT4!
Reply
Old Oct 20, 2008 | 11:27 AM
  #27  
Vermillion06's Avatar
Cobra Member
 
Joined: May 16, 2006
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 0
From: NV
Originally Posted by bob
Well historically (as in 1967+) the Camaro has always offered the better performing package at a higher price point as well. Occasionally the Mustang would sneak in a sucker punch but for the most part the Camaro has been the faster better handling car.
I agree, and would like to add that having better performance has not necessarily equaled better sales, which is what really matters to Ford and GM.
Originally Posted by bob
IMO eventually you either realize the numbers aren't really that important, or you stop letting them bother you. For all of the F-bod's prowess its pretty much inaccessible beyond a few moments at a time (same for the Mustang as well) for most people. We are by and large bench racers.
You've pretty much summed up this whole debate with that paragraph!

Last edited by Vermillion06; Oct 20, 2008 at 11:29 AM.
Reply
Old Oct 20, 2008 | 11:43 AM
  #28  
future9er24's Avatar
Post *****
 
Joined: May 13, 2004
Posts: 18,616
Likes: 3
From: Berkeley/Redwood City, CA
Originally Posted by metroplex
The cool thing is that you can't really complain about the manual transmission offerings anymore... The Challenger SRT-8, Corvette, and GT500 all have the same TR-6060.

Now, what would be interesting is if we installed the LS3 into a S197 GT mated with the TR-6060:
The Ford Mustang GT SS LT4!
I'm afraid that would be heresy

The Mustang Gods from above would rain down a fiery wrath from the heavens above to pummel you into submission





Reply
Old Oct 20, 2008 | 07:47 PM
  #29  
awakeinAZ's Avatar
Mach 1 Member
 
Joined: May 16, 2006
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by metroplex
The cool thing is that you can't really complain about the manual transmission offerings anymore... The Challenger SRT-8, Corvette, and GT500 all have the same TR-6060.

Now, what would be interesting is if we installed the LS3 into a S197 GT mated with the TR-6060:
The Ford Mustang GT SS LT4!
You must not have seen the banter about the Shelby TSB for clutch issues. All 07,08 and most 09's
are affected. So, it's not all that pretty tranny wise.
Reply
Old Oct 21, 2008 | 02:54 AM
  #30  
metroplex's Avatar
Legacy TMS Member
 
Joined: October 2, 2006
Posts: 4,777
Likes: 16
From: Southeast Michigan
I wasn't aware of the TSB. What does it say and what is affected?
Reply
Old Oct 21, 2008 | 07:02 AM
  #31  
cobalt's Avatar
GT Member
 
Joined: April 22, 2006
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Since the Mustang GT coupes premium package cars are delivered at around 3415lbs, and supercharged with better wheels, tires and brakes still weigh around 3550, with changed out suspensions, these cars are still very fast and handle great. We all know that all these cars mentioned handle like pigs without changed out and balanced suspensions.

The problem is that everyone and the magazines keep comparing stock Mustangs to more expensive cars that weigh more.

If you take a stock Mustang GT coupe premium package, add engine bolt ons to get up to 305 310rwhp or so N/A, minus some weight for a suspension change out (including watts link) your still at about $36,500, and will eat those other cars for lunch on corners and equal their power at 355hp @ 3390lbs, except the Corvette of course, which will still cost you $8-9,000 more than your modded Mustang. Just my 2cents. Erik
Reply
Old Oct 21, 2008 | 07:25 AM
  #32  
metroplex's Avatar
Legacy TMS Member
 
Joined: October 2, 2006
Posts: 4,777
Likes: 16
From: Southeast Michigan
So you mean the stock Mustang GT coupe can't outrun a Bugatti Veyron?!??
Reply
Old Oct 21, 2008 | 07:27 AM
  #33  
cobalt's Avatar
GT Member
 
Joined: April 22, 2006
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
It might if it was in a straight fall from 30,000 feet, but the flat front grill area would still be a dis-advantage I'm afraid. Erik
Reply
Old Oct 21, 2008 | 11:58 AM
  #34  
97GT03SVT's Avatar
Cobra R Member
 
Joined: September 26, 2007
Posts: 1,931
Likes: 0
From: Massachusetts
I think part of why the Mustang is getting bashed in comparison to the new Challenger and Camaro is that it is old. Remember when the 05' Mustangs first came out and all you read was about how stiff of chassis the convertible has and how great the Mustang handled. Now just a couple years later these are the sticking points that the journalists use to put down the Mustang, that and it's huge HP disadvantage to the competition in both V6 and V8 forms.

I think the only initial criticisms for the 05' Mustang was the cheap material used for the interior and many disliked the back end styling. For 10' Ford did address both of these areas. My only gripe at this point is that Ford has done a poor job in the improvement area. It seems that little to nothing has been done to the 09' compared to 05' models. I understand that the total restyle is just around the corner but I think they should have done little things like add 15-20HP here or there or maybe tweak the suspension a bit. The perfect example is to look at the major improvements Chevy made to the Corvette for 08'. Though it is the same body style as the original 05' C6 it saw a host of improvements including more HP, suspension and steering improvements and even a mid-cycle interior upgrade. Think about it why buy a loaded 09' GT for over $30,000 when you can get a low mile 05' GT for under $20,000....... Thats just how I see things.
Reply
Old Oct 23, 2008 | 12:47 PM
  #35  
exgto's Avatar
Bullitt Member
 
Joined: October 5, 2006
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
In my opinion Ford has a great opportunity. Keep the 2010 Mustang lighter by several hundred pounds, and they would have a distinct advantage over the heavy Camaro. Price it under the Camaro, and give it a better aesthetic design. Lastly, provide an engine with forged internals on the standard GT.

With that, the Mustang will maintain dominance.
Reply
Old Oct 23, 2008 | 01:20 PM
  #36  
jsaylor's Avatar
Team Mustang Source
 
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 2,358
Likes: 1
2010 may be a bit like the 1993 speaking strictly in terms of performance. However, 2011 will be absolutely nothing like 1994.
Reply
Old Oct 23, 2008 | 02:15 PM
  #37  
Knight's Avatar
Needs to be more Astony
 
Joined: October 4, 2004
Posts: 8,610
Likes: 5
From: Volo, IL
Originally Posted by jsaylor
2010 may be a bit like the 1993 speaking strictly in terms of performance. However, 2011 will be absolutely nothing like 1994.
You mean the 2011 won't be slower then the 2010 like the 94 was to the 93?!?! What is Ford thinking!?!

Reply
Old Oct 23, 2008 | 03:21 PM
  #38  
jsaylor's Avatar
Team Mustang Source
 
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 2,358
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Knight
You mean the 2011 won't be slower then the 2010 like the 94 was to the 93?!?! What is Ford thinking!?!

Ah, leave it to Chris to dredge up the painful things we would all sooner forget.
Reply
Old Oct 23, 2008 | 10:01 PM
  #39  
hi5.0's Avatar
FR500 Member
 
Joined: August 15, 2005
Posts: 3,084
Likes: 0
From: Honolulu
Originally Posted by jsaylor
Ah, leave it to Chris to dredge up the painful things we would all sooner forget.
better than '96...
Reply
Old Oct 23, 2008 | 10:17 PM
  #40  
future9er24's Avatar
Post *****
 
Joined: May 13, 2004
Posts: 18,616
Likes: 3
From: Berkeley/Redwood City, CA
They fixed it all eventually
Reply



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:14 PM.