GT vs SS vs SRT8?
Or, depending on who you argue with, a 64.5 model.
SUPERCHARGED RED ROCKET ------------------Master-Moderator
Joined: May 11, 2006
Posts: 10,648
Likes: 2,516
From: Carnegie, PA
Actually, there was an early '65 model from April til July and a late '65 model from August on. Most of us consider the early '65 model, which had a generator and whose side bagding was 0.5 inches smaller than the August version, to be a 64.5
Otherwise, we wouldn't be excited about 2014 and the 2009 wouldn't have been the 45th anniversary. And so and so forth repeating every five years back to 1964. But I understand.
Otherwise, we wouldn't be excited about 2014 and the 2009 wouldn't have been the 45th anniversary. And so and so forth repeating every five years back to 1964. But I understand.
SUPERCHARGED RED ROCKET ------------------Master-Moderator
Joined: May 11, 2006
Posts: 10,648
Likes: 2,516
From: Carnegie, PA
Actually, there was an early '65 model from April til July and a late '65 model from August on. Most of us consider the early '65 model, which had a generator and whose side bagding was 0.5 inches smaller than the August version, to be a 64.5
Otherwise, we wouldn't be excited about 2014 and the 2009 wouldn't have been the 45th anniversary. And so and so forth repeating every five years back to 1964. But I understand.
Otherwise, we wouldn't be excited about 2014 and the 2009 wouldn't have been the 45th anniversary. And so and so forth repeating every five years back to 1964. But I understand.
I love "useless" trivia knowledge like that about the Mustang. I wonder how many people knew that. It makes me feel good to know these kinds of things about Mustangs. I'm proud that you knew that as well Mr Rocky. 
PS- I learned that at Barrett Jackson!
PS- I learned that at Barrett Jackson!
V6 Member
Joined: September 3, 2008
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
From: Middle TN
V6 Member
Joined: September 3, 2008
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
From: Middle TN
What exactly does Challenger have standard that's an option or not available on a Mustang? I really don't know.
If you like Challenger's interior better, that's your personal opinion and I respect that. However, I'm not a fan of Challenger's interior, not just Challenger's interior, but in my personal opinion most of new Dodges have a really crappy and cheap interior.
I like Mustang's interior a lot more.
If you like Challenger's interior better, that's your personal opinion and I respect that. However, I'm not a fan of Challenger's interior, not just Challenger's interior, but in my personal opinion most of new Dodges have a really crappy and cheap interior.
I like Mustang's interior a lot more.
SUPERCHARGED RED ROCKET ------------------Master-Moderator
Joined: May 11, 2006
Posts: 10,648
Likes: 2,516
From: Carnegie, PA
I still remember to this very day, my next door neighbor's red 65 convertible and couldn't wait for him to get home from work everyday, just so that I could see his Mustang.
Needless to say, he was more than happy to take me for rides in it, and would then show/explain how each part functioned.
I was like a little kid at a candy store, and from that moment on. I became a loyal/die hard Mustang lover, and have remained so, ever since.
Last edited by m05fastbackGT; Sep 12, 2008 at 08:49 PM.
Team Mustang Source
Joined: December 23, 2004
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
From: Pacific Northwest
In most cases, there really isn't much difference between a 'good' set of seats and a lesser set in terms of cost. But until recently even ten dollars per car held a lot of sway despite what it could do to the cars appeal because a couple bucks here and a couple bucks there can easily add up to many millions of dollars over an entire production run. That said, you would probably be surprised at just how expensive some of the mediocre seats can actually be. The issue here being that you have to being quality engineering, materials, and manufacturing to every stage of seat construction if you want a truly great end product. Instead, we often have seats with great frame design, but poor execution in the areas of covering and foam. And on the flip side I have seen very well designed foam support and excellent skins rendered nearly pointless by a cheap, flat frame design. Put simply there are a lot of ways you can screw up an otherwise promising design.
Strangely, the best of the best when it comes to great seats across the lineup is, IMHO, Volvo....and by no small margin. And the recipe was no surprise, they just did it right. They designed one basic frame around the needs of the human body getting the most basic parts of the design, beginning with the frame, right from the outset. That made certain that the design would be flexible enough to be practical in every kind of application with relatively minor changes to the design. The seat itself can be made slightly smaller or larger, or given greater bolstering and more supportive foam for sportier rides or softer cushioning and a wider beam for luxury cars, with minimal fuss. Great idea, and one so obvious that I cannot understand why everybody doesn't do it. Best of all the fact that one basic seat design can accommodate so many different kinds of vehicle means economies of scale are phenomenal and long term they have actually saved money by spending the money necessary to design a great seat on the front end.
I particularly like how their seat design does such a terrific job of melding sport and luxury in the right application. For example, the seats in the S60R were perhaps the best aspect of that car. Supportive in all the right ways without being overkill for what is basically a luxury car, they were also incredibly comfortable even for long distance drives due to a great basic design and some clever tricks here and there with materials.
Strangely, the best of the best when it comes to great seats across the lineup is, IMHO, Volvo....and by no small margin. And the recipe was no surprise, they just did it right. They designed one basic frame around the needs of the human body getting the most basic parts of the design, beginning with the frame, right from the outset. That made certain that the design would be flexible enough to be practical in every kind of application with relatively minor changes to the design. The seat itself can be made slightly smaller or larger, or given greater bolstering and more supportive foam for sportier rides or softer cushioning and a wider beam for luxury cars, with minimal fuss. Great idea, and one so obvious that I cannot understand why everybody doesn't do it. Best of all the fact that one basic seat design can accommodate so many different kinds of vehicle means economies of scale are phenomenal and long term they have actually saved money by spending the money necessary to design a great seat on the front end.
I particularly like how their seat design does such a terrific job of melding sport and luxury in the right application. For example, the seats in the S60R were perhaps the best aspect of that car. Supportive in all the right ways without being overkill for what is basically a luxury car, they were also incredibly comfortable even for long distance drives due to a great basic design and some clever tricks here and there with materials.
Shelby GT500 Member
Joined: September 2, 2004
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
JSaylor. I know we've discussed the Cobalt SS before, but here you go:
LL5 MOSLER MT900S...................................2:45.9
LL3 DODGE VIPER SRT10 ACR........................2:48.6
LL5 FERRARI 430 SCUDERIA..........................2:54.6
LL3 NISSAN GT-R.......................................2:55.6
LL2 CHEVROLET CORVETTE Z51....................3:01.2
LL2 CADILLAC CTS-V..................................3:04.0
LL2 BMW M3.............................................3:0 5.6
LL2 MERCEDES-BENZ C63 AMG.....................3:06.5
LL1 CHEVROLET COBALT SS TURBOCHARGED...3:13.0
LL2 MITSUBISHI LANCER EVOLUTION MR.........3:13.3
LL2 BMW 135i............................................3: 13.7
LL2 LEXUS IS F..........................................3:14.0
LL2 AUDI S5..............................................3: 14.6
LL2 HONDA S2000 CR..................................3:15.0
LL2 DODGE CHALLENGER SRT8......................3:16.3
LL2 LOTUS ELISE SC...................................3:16.6
LL2 INFINITI G37 SPORT..............................3:17.5
LL2 SUBARU IMPREZA WRX STI.................3:19.0
LL1 DODGE CALIBER SRT4............................3:20.8
LL2 VOLKSWAGEN R32.................................3:21.8
LL2 HONDA CIVIC MUGEN Si..........................3:24.8
LL1 VOLVO C30 T5 VERSION 2.0....................3:26.6
Not bad for an economy sport compact, huh? The Camaro should be withing a 1 or 2 of the Cobalt SS.
LL5 MOSLER MT900S...................................2:45.9
LL3 DODGE VIPER SRT10 ACR........................2:48.6
LL5 FERRARI 430 SCUDERIA..........................2:54.6
LL3 NISSAN GT-R.......................................2:55.6
LL2 CHEVROLET CORVETTE Z51....................3:01.2
LL2 CADILLAC CTS-V..................................3:04.0
LL2 BMW M3.............................................3:0 5.6
LL2 MERCEDES-BENZ C63 AMG.....................3:06.5
LL1 CHEVROLET COBALT SS TURBOCHARGED...3:13.0
LL2 MITSUBISHI LANCER EVOLUTION MR.........3:13.3
LL2 BMW 135i............................................3: 13.7
LL2 LEXUS IS F..........................................3:14.0
LL2 AUDI S5..............................................3: 14.6
LL2 HONDA S2000 CR..................................3:15.0
LL2 DODGE CHALLENGER SRT8......................3:16.3
LL2 LOTUS ELISE SC...................................3:16.6
LL2 INFINITI G37 SPORT..............................3:17.5
LL2 SUBARU IMPREZA WRX STI.................3:19.0
LL1 DODGE CALIBER SRT4............................3:20.8
LL2 VOLKSWAGEN R32.................................3:21.8
LL2 HONDA CIVIC MUGEN Si..........................3:24.8
LL1 VOLVO C30 T5 VERSION 2.0....................3:26.6
Not bad for an economy sport compact, huh? The Camaro should be withing a 1 or 2 of the Cobalt SS.
Cobra R Member
Joined: September 26, 2007
Posts: 1,931
Likes: 0
From: Massachusetts
The bottom line is that the Challenger will offer something similar, yet different than what the Mustang offers. To be personally it reminds me of the 04-06 GTO(though much better looking), it is a bigger, yet more refined and luxury oriented than the Mustang. Though this car may not be as fast as the next gen Mustang, it will offer things the Mustang doesn't (IRS, true 5 passenger car,....) The point I was trying to make about the Challenger is that it offers an IRS along with a lot of other cool standard features for less than $3000. I personally think that Ford could offer an IRS with as little as a $1500 bump in the MSRP and it would be worth every penny.
Team Mustang Source
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 2,358
Likes: 1
JSaylor. I know we've discussed the Cobalt SS before, but here you go:
LL5 MOSLER MT900S...................................2:45.9
LL3 DODGE VIPER SRT10 ACR........................2:48.6
LL5 FERRARI 430 SCUDERIA..........................2:54.6
LL3 NISSAN GT-R.......................................2:55.6
.............
Not bad for an economy sport compact, huh? The Camaro should be withing a 1 or 2 of the Cobalt SS.
LL5 MOSLER MT900S...................................2:45.9
LL3 DODGE VIPER SRT10 ACR........................2:48.6
LL5 FERRARI 430 SCUDERIA..........................2:54.6
LL3 NISSAN GT-R.......................................2:55.6
.............
Not bad for an economy sport compact, huh? The Camaro should be withing a 1 or 2 of the Cobalt SS.
In fact, I said this about the Cobalt on 3/21/08......
Cobalt has a fantastic chassis and has been consistently under-rated in this regard since it's inception. The turbo model simply lets the chassis show how good it really is. In fact, I have no doubt that the Cobalt's chassis is fundamentally superior to that of the Opel Astra, and not by a small margin. Unfortunately the Cobalt's packaging, inside and out, still does it's best to hide all that goodness.
I stated the above in a post where I indicated my belief that the Camaro should be a noticeably quicker car around a high speed track like the Nurb than a Cobalt all things, including driver, stock trim, etc...being equal. To be honest nothing you have posted changes that for me. The Cobalt SS is an impressively quick car, just one which the Camaro should be much quicker than around a high speed track like the Nurb. I said it, and my opinion on the issue has yet to be swayed. Given the 8:20 the SS supposedly ran which we were discussing in the previous thread I obviously have my doubts, but GM could be sandbagging, etc.
That said, I've also stated more than once that I'm not impressed with the Nurb numbers fest, the problems with which should have been laid bare by the obvious hoo-dickery in the my ZR1 is faster than your GTR which you said faster than my Z06 even though I don't believe you soap opera. A comparison between cars like the Camaro and Cobalt at the Nurb only holds on to it's validity because they were conducted by the same auto maker presumably under the same circumstances...although I'll grant that there could be reason for some fudging of the numbers even in that circumstance.
Still, in this instance I think most of the cars trailing the Cobalt in that listing actually should be trailing the Chevy given what we know of it's handling capability...particularly on this kind of track. The only two which give me pause are the Evo MR and the S2000CR, but the Evo isn't exactly set up with top end acceleration in mind and the S2000CR is all revs and no grunt both of which are scenarios that do at least provide a plausible reason for the above....so I'm not blown away by it.
Ultimately none of my opinions regarding the Cobalt or Camaro have been changed by any of this.
Cobra R Member
Joined: September 26, 2007
Posts: 1,931
Likes: 0
From: Massachusetts
I think what may somewhat hinder the Camaro around the track is it's significant weight over the Cobalt or Mustang for that matter. I agree that the Camaro will be the superior car here but don't be surprised if it has a hard time keeping up with the lightweight turbo Cobalt around a tight course without big straights. I have been visiting my local drag strip and i'll tell you what these SS Cobalts and SRT Neons actually run right up there with the good old RWD American V8s and on the street they don't have the added weight our Mustang have.
If Ford wants the ultimate handling car, they should build a turbo AWD Focus or Fusion to compete with the STI and EVOs those guys are the true road course kings.
If Ford wants the ultimate handling car, they should build a turbo AWD Focus or Fusion to compete with the STI and EVOs those guys are the true road course kings.
Shelby GT500 Member
Joined: September 2, 2004
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
I'm still not certain how you became utterly convinced that I think the Cobalt SS is a performance turd, because you will find absolutely nothing in this forum that supports that assessment.
In fact, I said this about the Cobalt on 3/21/08......
For the record I cannot recall you heaping the same kind of praise on this car until you decided you had an issue with my take on the car's overall performance. I'm not saying you didn't, because I haven't and wont go off looking for it so I could have easily missed it, but I fail to see how I'm not giving this car credit. You seemed to get bent out of shape when I disagreed with you making my case in which I believe that the Cobalt is SS probably a 13.9x car at best in stock trim and that breaking into the 13's at all will likely prove rather difficult if the car is truly stock. I further said that I think the Camaro SS will likely be in much the same situation if you knock a digit off the three and turn it into a two, even if I do believe 12.9's in the Camaro will be just a bit easier to come by than 13.9's in the Cobalt.
I stated the above in a post where I indicated my belief that the Camaro should be a noticeably quicker car around a high speed track like the Nurb than a Cobalt all things, including driver, stock trim, etc...being equal. To be honest nothing you have posted changes that for me. The Cobalt SS is an impressively quick car, just one which the Camaro should be much quicker than around a high speed track like the Nurb. I said it, and my opinion on the issue has yet to be swayed. Given the 8:20 the SS supposedly ran which we were discussing in the previous thread I obviously have my doubts, but GM could be sandbagging, etc.
That said, I've also stated more than once that I'm not impressed with the Nurb numbers fest, the problems with which should have been laid bare by the obvious hoo-dickery in the my ZR1 is faster than your GTR which you said faster than my Z06 even though I don't believe you soap opera. A comparison between cars like the Camaro and Cobalt at the Nurb only holds on to it's validity because they were conducted by the same auto maker presumably under the same circumstances...although I'll grant that there could be reason for some fudging of the numbers even in that circumstance.
Still, in this instance I think most of the cars trailing the Cobalt in that listing actually should be trailing the Chevy given what we know of it's handling capability...particularly on this kind of track. The only two which give me pause are the Evo MR and the S2000CR, but the Evo isn't exactly set up with top end acceleration in mind and the S2000CR is all revs and no grunt both of which are scenarios that do at least provide a plausible reason for the above....so I'm not blown away by it.
Ultimately none of my opinions regarding the Cobalt or Camaro have been changed by any of this.
In fact, I said this about the Cobalt on 3/21/08......
For the record I cannot recall you heaping the same kind of praise on this car until you decided you had an issue with my take on the car's overall performance. I'm not saying you didn't, because I haven't and wont go off looking for it so I could have easily missed it, but I fail to see how I'm not giving this car credit. You seemed to get bent out of shape when I disagreed with you making my case in which I believe that the Cobalt is SS probably a 13.9x car at best in stock trim and that breaking into the 13's at all will likely prove rather difficult if the car is truly stock. I further said that I think the Camaro SS will likely be in much the same situation if you knock a digit off the three and turn it into a two, even if I do believe 12.9's in the Camaro will be just a bit easier to come by than 13.9's in the Cobalt.
I stated the above in a post where I indicated my belief that the Camaro should be a noticeably quicker car around a high speed track like the Nurb than a Cobalt all things, including driver, stock trim, etc...being equal. To be honest nothing you have posted changes that for me. The Cobalt SS is an impressively quick car, just one which the Camaro should be much quicker than around a high speed track like the Nurb. I said it, and my opinion on the issue has yet to be swayed. Given the 8:20 the SS supposedly ran which we were discussing in the previous thread I obviously have my doubts, but GM could be sandbagging, etc.
That said, I've also stated more than once that I'm not impressed with the Nurb numbers fest, the problems with which should have been laid bare by the obvious hoo-dickery in the my ZR1 is faster than your GTR which you said faster than my Z06 even though I don't believe you soap opera. A comparison between cars like the Camaro and Cobalt at the Nurb only holds on to it's validity because they were conducted by the same auto maker presumably under the same circumstances...although I'll grant that there could be reason for some fudging of the numbers even in that circumstance.
Still, in this instance I think most of the cars trailing the Cobalt in that listing actually should be trailing the Chevy given what we know of it's handling capability...particularly on this kind of track. The only two which give me pause are the Evo MR and the S2000CR, but the Evo isn't exactly set up with top end acceleration in mind and the S2000CR is all revs and no grunt both of which are scenarios that do at least provide a plausible reason for the above....so I'm not blown away by it.
Ultimately none of my opinions regarding the Cobalt or Camaro have been changed by any of this.
Swamp Donkey Aficionado
Joined: November 23, 2006
Posts: 1,863
Likes: 0
As a FYI, an 06 GT ran 3:20.9. The Cobalt is almost 8 seconds faster around VIR. The arguement was comparing the Camaro SS's handling against the GT. Judging by the Ring and VIR times, I believe that the 2010/2011 Mustang is going to have its work cutout against the SS in the turns. GM did a hell of a job with the Cobalt SS.