And so it begins...
8/28/08, 07:39 AM
#44
<And topping it all off, the Camaro essentially blows away its competition - the Ford Mustang and Dodge Challenger seem positively primitive in comparison, a couple of rough-edged, cost-cut, sedan-derived chunks of ordinary. >
Whatever
Chevy and Camaro-soon-to-be owners should drop to their knees and thank two groups -
A - Holden in Australia for the friggin Zeta platform the car sits on
B - Ford and MUSTANG owners
Because the ONLY reason the Camaro is back at all is because of the S197 and what a total HIT the car was
That was the kick in the tail for GM to rush it into development and into Production so they could compete
[because even if they had a plan floating around back in 04-05, it would have still floated around for another two years or so if the S197 hadn't come on the scene - and then if someone HAD decided to move forward with it, it probably would have started and then gotten killed due to the state of the car industry today and the moving away from RWD vehicles like that. Every 09 Camaro owner should shake the hand of an S197 owner and say 'thank you for giving me my car back'.]
Whatever
Chevy and Camaro-soon-to-be owners should drop to their knees and thank two groups -
A - Holden in Australia for the friggin Zeta platform the car sits on
B - Ford and MUSTANG owners
Because the ONLY reason the Camaro is back at all is because of the S197 and what a total HIT the car was
That was the kick in the tail for GM to rush it into development and into Production so they could compete
[because even if they had a plan floating around back in 04-05, it would have still floated around for another two years or so if the S197 hadn't come on the scene - and then if someone HAD decided to move forward with it, it probably would have started and then gotten killed due to the state of the car industry today and the moving away from RWD vehicles like that. Every 09 Camaro owner should shake the hand of an S197 owner and say 'thank you for giving me my car back'.]
8/28/08, 08:31 AM
#45
Needs to be more Astony
I think Ford needs to stop making improvements that add cost. Any improvements should be done to be able to make the car more efficently to decrease the price of the car. The musatng is pricing itself outta its own market.
Yeah that is funny, but just to point out the GTO despite looking like a bigger car has a much smaller trunk then the stang.
Back in 04' Motor Trend pitted the 04' Cobra up against the new for 04' GTO. Despite the fact that the Cobra and even a lesser Mach1 could spank the goat in every performance category the GTO was deemed the winner. I guess a bigger trunk and interior quality outweigh acceleration, handling, braking, looks etc.....
Last edited by Knight; 8/28/08 at 08:32 AM.
8/28/08, 08:43 AM
#46
Cobra Member
Join Date: June 25, 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To paraphrase a bit:
As I would rate the current Mustang, its strengths are pretty much the opposite: very good power/acceleration; so-so handling, especially on less than smooth roads; and mediocre at best brakes. Were I king of Ford, I'd address these aspects of its performance envelope starting with the weakest first.
As for the "raw" aspect, that all too often verges into defining a car by its weaknesses, or lack of engineering, rather than truly enjoyable qualities, especially in regards to a daily driver rather than Sunday track star. Perhaps "tactile," "full of control feedback" or "communicative" might be better involving criteria for a performance car. My daddy's International Harvester Low Boy tractor was as "raw" as it gets, as was that '71 F-100 pickup with 200+K on the clock, but neither was particularly enjoyable to drive (outside of doing donuts in the fields with the pickup that is :-). The "raw" qualities of the current Stang's suspension and brakes really reflects more a simple lack of performance capability than anything else IMHO.
I think this "acceleration" subject is a bit overrated. Yes, I would like the Mustang to have 400hp, but unless you are drag racing, does it really matter? An "improved" 4.6 3V should be good enough, until the new 5.0 is ready. Better brakes will solve a lot of issues as well.
If you are a classic 289 K-Code GT, Pony Car lover, HP isn't the most important thing. A lot of people like that "balanced" feel. That's the main reason they purchase these kinds of cars. It's a Mustang after all, not a Mercury Marauder.
Of the two, a lotta horsepower or a lotta handling capability, I think it is the latter that is far more usable, not to mention safer, to enjoy outside of a track environment. Of course, the ideal is to have a well balanced and matched combination of both, not to mention perhaps most imporatantly, excellent brakes. As for actual fun, its not necessarily how fast a car goes, but how a car goes fast.As I would rate the current Mustang, its strengths are pretty much the opposite: very good power/acceleration; so-so handling, especially on less than smooth roads; and mediocre at best brakes. Were I king of Ford, I'd address these aspects of its performance envelope starting with the weakest first.
As for the "raw" aspect, that all too often verges into defining a car by its weaknesses, or lack of engineering, rather than truly enjoyable qualities, especially in regards to a daily driver rather than Sunday track star. Perhaps "tactile," "full of control feedback" or "communicative" might be better involving criteria for a performance car. My daddy's International Harvester Low Boy tractor was as "raw" as it gets, as was that '71 F-100 pickup with 200+K on the clock, but neither was particularly enjoyable to drive (outside of doing donuts in the fields with the pickup that is :-). The "raw" qualities of the current Stang's suspension and brakes really reflects more a simple lack of performance capability than anything else IMHO.
We all want a better product. As I have stated before, I doubt we see IRS until the new RWD platform. But,"handling" has never been the selling point of this car or "Muscle cars" in general. There is a reason the Detroit 3 places V8's in these cars. There is a reason classic muscle cars like the Shelby's & Hemi's sell for $150k-$500k or more at Barrett-Jackson. Don't underestimate straight line acceleration. 0-60 & Quarter mile times do mean a lot in this genre!
8/28/08, 11:42 AM
#48
Cobra R Member
Join Date: September 26, 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't flame me for this, i'm a gen X guy giving my point of view why these classic muscle cars are selling for so much money. There are a lot of rich baby boomers that want to keep these classic rides exclusive to themselves. These are the same guys paying 20k above sticker for the GT500. Obviously i'm not referring to all people, but it's crazy that a Hemi Challenger, Shelby or SS Chevelle sells for more money than a classic Vette, Ferrari of Mercedes of the same era. My father was lucky enough to purchase a 70' Boss 302 before all this hype it's just too bad that the average Mustang fan will never own a classic era (65-73) Mustang. In 30 years will a GT500 be worth more than a superior Z06???
8/28/08, 11:46 AM
#50
Cobra Member
Join Date: May 16, 2006
Location: NV
Posts: 1,322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Automobile and Popular Mechanics have thier reviews out as well
http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews...onclusion.html
http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews...onclusion.html
And topping it all off, the Camaro essentially blows away its competition - the Ford Mustang and Dodge Challenger seem positively primitive in comparison, a couple of rough-edged, cost-cut, sedan-derived chunks of ordinary.
.
8/28/08, 12:26 PM
#51
Team Mustang Source
I think Ford needs to stop making improvements that add cost. Any improvements should be done to be able to make the car more efficently to decrease the price of the car. The musatng is pricing itself outta its own market.
Yeah that is funny, but just to point out the GTO despite looking like a bigger car has a much smaller trunk then the stang.
Yeah that is funny, but just to point out the GTO despite looking like a bigger car has a much smaller trunk then the stang.
8/28/08, 05:17 PM
#52
Legacy TMS Member
The Camero must rattle alot. They have black duck tape holding down the center console. 
OOPs
http://image.motortrend.com/f/108175...v6+cockpit.jpg
OOPshttp://image.motortrend.com/f/108175...v6+cockpit.jpg
LOL
I missed that... Nice catch...
8/31/08, 08:54 AM
#55
Don't flame me for this, i'm a gen X guy giving my point of view why these classic muscle cars are selling for so much money. There are a lot of rich baby boomers that want to keep these classic rides exclusive to themselves. These are the same guys paying 20k above sticker for the GT500. Obviously I'm not referring to all people, but it's crazy that a Hemi Challenger, Shelby or SS Chevelle sells for more money than a classic Vette, Ferrari of Mercedes of the same era. My father was lucky enough to purchase a 70' Boss 302 before all this hype it's just too bad that the average Mustang fan will never own a classic era (65-73) Mustang.
As for baby boomers with disposable income driving the prices of the GT500, to be blunt who did you think buys 40k+toys? Look into the cab of a new Audi RS4, BMW M5, Corvette Z06, Porsche 911, or even Z51 Corvette and you'll notice one thing they all have in common........most of the folks driving them are 40 or above. Why would this surprise anybody? By and large these are the folks who have the disposable income to buy these cars so, yeah, that is going to be the largest market audience. There are exceptions to this rule, the Japanese cars mentioned above are typically bought by a slightly younger set of folks. But I doubt this exemplifies a notably greater interest in Japanese high performance among todays youth so much as it demonstrates the complete lack of interest in the same among baby boomers...a side effect of which is the relatively small amount of cars which were actually built in the first place.
As for whether the GT500 will go for more than a 'superior' Z06. The difference between the Z06 and the GT500 right now is that Ford did a better job of directing their car at the target audience. When the Z06 debuted it was far too harsh a ride for the market which would and could actually buy it. To be blunt Chevy screwed up, and most of the folks I know who own a Vette (nearly all of whom could have easily afforded the Z06) bought a run of the mill C6 or C6.5 because it was a better car to actually drive every day (Ironically, that is exactly what Jeremy Clarkson said about the C6 model cars btw) GM built a Corvette equivalent of the 911 GT3, but wanted it to sell the car in numbers a 70k weekend only toy could like the C6 Z06 never hope to hit. By the time GM revisited the suspension and NVH turning the car into something more than a weekend toy, it was too late. Buyers had already lost interest and the Z06 was doomed to sales mediocrity.
So I guess all of this depends on your definition of superiority. The Z06 is the faster car, but I would argue that the superior car is the one which actually accomplished what it needed to in order to be a sales and marketing success.
In 30 years will a GT500 be worth more than a superior Z06???[/quote]
8/31/08, 05:37 PM
#56
Legacy TMS Member
Thread Starter
I can't say which faction is right, but I dont think Ford would have kept the car SRA if they thought it would have been a dertiment to sales.
When the F5 Camaro hits we will have to see how things go and not just in the spring of 2009, the F5 is supposed to come in with in a coupla thousand of the Mustang at each price point - 422hp M6, and an IRS for under 30k is a darn good deal - and if its got the goods it will really hit hard into Mustang sales until the GRWD platform arrives.
9/1/08, 07:08 AM
#57
Bullitt Member
Join Date: January 10, 2006
Location: Big D
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think all of us would appreciate it if the mustang had better handling, more power, and a nicer interior but for some reason when someone else says it (like MT, C&D, or a Camaro fan) we get pissed off.
9/1/08, 08:42 AM
#58
Cobra Member
Join Date: August 2, 2004
Location: West Kelowna, British Columbia
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
These two magazines officially have little to no credibility. Hooray for independent and objective journalism! Why not just let Chevy write the review themselves...oh wait, that's pretty much what they did.
And please stop comparing the future Camaro to the current Mustang. It's pointless.
And please stop comparing the future Camaro to the current Mustang. It's pointless.
If you look at the Edmund's review on the new Challenger it shoots holes through the two magazines editorials. It will be a long while before the Challenger and the Camaro catch up to the S197 performance levels. People that write this crap should do their research before their fingers touch the keyboards of their computers.
9/1/08, 04:30 PM
#59
Cobra R Member
Join Date: September 26, 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose my problem with arguments like this is that people only tend to point out the stupidity of those involved when it's American cars which are the subject of the latest 'frenzy'. For example, for those who remember classic Ferraris reached pricing levels which were genuinely incredible ...and unsupportable......back in the early 90's, only for the bottom to eventually fall out. We then saw a mini version of the same thing with late model Japanese iron like the 300ZX, Supra, and RX7 where low mileage last gen versions of each were and still are commanding prices close to what they went for when new. Chew on the fact that the price for a nice, low mileage, 4th gen Supra Turbo will nearly get me into a well kept Ferrari 355 Spyder with about 50k on the clock and you have to ask yourself just how much appeal arcade game styling and three foot tall wings truly have for some folks.
As for baby boomers with disposable income driving the prices of the GT500, to be blunt who did you think buys 40k+toys? Look into the cab of a new Audi RS4, BMW M5, Corvette Z06, Porsche 911, or even Z51 Corvette and you'll notice one thing they all have in common........most of the folks driving them are 40 or above. Why would this surprise anybody? By and large these are the folks who have the disposable income to buy these cars so, yeah, that is going to be the largest market audience. There are exceptions to this rule, the Japanese cars mentioned above are typically bought by a slightly younger set of folks. But I doubt this exemplifies a notably greater interest in Japanese high performance among todays youth so much as it demonstrates the complete lack of interest in the same among baby boomers...a side effect of which is the relatively small amount of cars which were actually built in the first place.
As for whether the GT500 will go for more than a 'superior' Z06. The difference between the Z06 and the GT500 right now is that Ford did a better job of directing their car at the target audience. When the Z06 debuted it was far too harsh a ride for the market which would and could actually buy it. To be blunt Chevy screwed up, and most of the folks I know who own a Vette (nearly all of whom could have easily afforded the Z06) bought a run of the mill C6 or C6.5 because it was a better car to actually drive every day (Ironically, that is exactly what Jeremy Clarkson said about the C6 model cars btw) GM built a Corvette equivalent of the 911 GT3, but wanted it to sell the car in numbers a 70k weekend only toy could like the C6 Z06 never hope to hit. By the time GM revisited the suspension and NVH turning the car into something more than a weekend toy, it was too late. Buyers had already lost interest and the Z06 was doomed to sales mediocrity.
So I guess all of this depends on your definition of superiority. The Z06 is the faster car, but I would argue that the superior car is the one which actually accomplished what it needed to in order to be a sales and marketing success.
In 30 years will a GT500 be worth more than a superior Z06???
As for baby boomers with disposable income driving the prices of the GT500, to be blunt who did you think buys 40k+toys? Look into the cab of a new Audi RS4, BMW M5, Corvette Z06, Porsche 911, or even Z51 Corvette and you'll notice one thing they all have in common........most of the folks driving them are 40 or above. Why would this surprise anybody? By and large these are the folks who have the disposable income to buy these cars so, yeah, that is going to be the largest market audience. There are exceptions to this rule, the Japanese cars mentioned above are typically bought by a slightly younger set of folks. But I doubt this exemplifies a notably greater interest in Japanese high performance among todays youth so much as it demonstrates the complete lack of interest in the same among baby boomers...a side effect of which is the relatively small amount of cars which were actually built in the first place.
As for whether the GT500 will go for more than a 'superior' Z06. The difference between the Z06 and the GT500 right now is that Ford did a better job of directing their car at the target audience. When the Z06 debuted it was far too harsh a ride for the market which would and could actually buy it. To be blunt Chevy screwed up, and most of the folks I know who own a Vette (nearly all of whom could have easily afforded the Z06) bought a run of the mill C6 or C6.5 because it was a better car to actually drive every day (Ironically, that is exactly what Jeremy Clarkson said about the C6 model cars btw) GM built a Corvette equivalent of the 911 GT3, but wanted it to sell the car in numbers a 70k weekend only toy could like the C6 Z06 never hope to hit. By the time GM revisited the suspension and NVH turning the car into something more than a weekend toy, it was too late. Buyers had already lost interest and the Z06 was doomed to sales mediocrity.
So I guess all of this depends on your definition of superiority. The Z06 is the faster car, but I would argue that the superior car is the one which actually accomplished what it needed to in order to be a sales and marketing success.
In 30 years will a GT500 be worth more than a superior Z06???
I respect and understand your opinion but I guess we have to agree to disagree. Yes baby boomers have more money, but these 60s muscle cars like Mustangs and Camaros are not all that rare. Sure Shelbys, Bosses and big block Mach1s were fairly low volume cars. Yet a common car like the 351 Mach1 is also worth big money these days. People pay more money for a big block Camaro than a big block Corvette!?! This really puzzles me, that cars not that rare (65-66 Mustang, 67-69 Camaro are commanding huge prices.
As for the GT500 vs. Z06 debate, lets scratch the Z06 and replace it with the Z51 package C6 Corvette. It is actually cheaper than a GT500 and once again outperforms it in almost all levels. Keep in mind i'm partial to the GT500, but it is simply outclassed by the Vette. Now with the new Vette adding more power, a more refined interior, shifter..........Chevy has improved an already great car. Ford's GT500 has remained pretty much the same. I love the GT500 but the car is not the bargain people would expect from a Mustang. In the end a base Vette is more of a bargain. It seems like the only main advantage the GT500 has is a back seat and look at me styling. I have driven a couple GT500s quite a few times (my neighbor and family friend both own them) and I really don't want to bash this car but the level of performance isn't what you would expect from a 500HP car.
9/2/08, 08:18 PM
#60
Legacy TMS Member
Thread Starter
I wouldn't have a problem if it was less sensational, the way the bulk of the articles read, it really comes across as if GM has paid out major bucks to make sure the right words made it into print, and I'm not saying GM didn't do a good job on the F5, its going to be a really nice car.