My under 46,000 mile Factory Turbo Diesel 2005 F-450 has had the original turbo dissembled and cleaned, put back on, used again for a while, then it was replaced, all at Ford Motor Companies expense. Between that and the EGR valve, unless they come up with some drastic improvements, I wouldn't buy a factory turbo again.

Seriously though could there be a LESS HOSPITABLE environment to demand flawless performance form close tolerance parts and high speed bearings?

 

Agreed. Horsepower and quartermile times are only part of the equation. Styling matters. The hemi-engined Charger is fast but ugly. The Camaro looks like it's following the same path. The new Challenger looks great but who knows. Lately Chrysler seems to be having the same quality control problems that Ford had in the early eighties.

 

The Camaro is not ugly. The concept looks great in person and the pre-production pieces look like they are following VERY closely to the production version (something the Mustang failed at). Sure, it might not be to everyone's taste (nothing is), but it certainly can't be called ugly.

Well, the pre-pro interior is, honestly, quite ugly -- I have to admit that.

Also, the car all but exists right now. It will use the G8 chassis, but be smaller and lighter. It will also use a derivative of the LS motors that have been around forever (and are clearly better (hp/weight/mpg) than the Ford modular engines straight out of the box).

And, let's not forget, the Camaro has pretty much always been faster than the Mustang. In everything but sales, that is. ;-)

Heck, the GT500 can't even keep up with the base Vette (not to start another GT500 v. Vette debate), so I think it is safe to expect the Camaro will be a faster, better performing car.

However, does that make the Camaro a better car?
No.

That will be up to all the intangibles and what each person thinks makes a car better (there is a whole lot more to a car than hp numbers and 0-60 times).

 

Yes it's ugly.

Which production Mustang didn't keep keep up with the pre-production version? Certainly you aren't referring to the S197.



The Camaro has always been pretty much faster than the Mustang?

in 1974 sure.

 

I disagree, I really like the exterior IMO, on the interior however, I have to agree with you.


Yes, the S197. Well, if you're going from the Concepts, which were sort of concurrent with the development. I think the Camaro is really close to the exterior from concept to production. But if Rampant is referring to the S197 concepts that did the auto show tour (I'm saying this simply because this IS what Ford chose to show the world as our glimpse of what they were going to give us), the concepts had a lot of differences to the final product (hood line, GT500 grill face, tail lights, etc). I think there were a lot more differences from the S197 concept to delivery. I'm not willing to say the S197 FAILED in it's delivery, but it did look a bit different. However I will say the S197 maintained it's important styling cues.

That's not opinion, that's verified fact. I don't know about ALWAYS faster, but just looking at the numbers online, it looks like the 454 can take a Boss 429 in 1970, for instance. I'm not claiming to be an expert here, but there are lots of model to model matchups where the equivalent Camaro comes out on top. I'm not saying Chevy is better (I DID buy an S197...), but I'm not going to trash another car's reputation just because I like the history of mine. Think about it, it's kind of a compliment in a way. Mustang is really the best, because it's the car everyone targeted originally, and it's still a huge benchmark in it's class and among performance cars. I've always felt that the Camaro was more of a fill-this-niche-of-the-market response, instead of GM ever really trying to initiate something new, and I don't think that has changed now either. Besides, Ford's attempt at keeping up and regaining the lead led to cars like the Mach 1 (the 69 is one of my all time favs) and the Boss's among others. For that, I thank GM and Chrysler.

 

Obviously some people will love the new Camaro.

Lets hope we haven't been seeing anything close to a production interior.




Remember the S197 was designed pretty much in secret. A basically production car was sent to California and customised which is what was shown and why so many writers thought the 'concept' was so close to the production car.
Also why it seems the concepts were concurrent with development.

Others shown were styling exercises, parts of which we've seen show up such as the GT500 front facia.





Looking at numbers on line isn't exactly verified fact.
Were there Camaros faster than Mustangs? Yes. Were there Mustangs faster than Camaros? yes

The suggestion was that "the Camaro has pretty much always been faster than the Mustang. In everything but sales"
That is opinion and too general a statement.

"but I'm not going to trash another car's reputation just because I like the history of mine"
The Camaro's reputation was not being trashed. Not by me.

If anything the Mustang's reputation was being trashed over the Camaro's.

 

I so totally agree with you. I hate the current version.

Again, that's why I included the fact that the concepts weren't the exact S197, but just concocted facsimiles, however, they were what Ford threw out there for the viewing public, and what the magazines showed us was in the works. I'm just saying that if Ford is willing to throw that out there, then that's the concept the production version will be compared to. However, you're right, the concepts weren't the exact S197, so it there's definitely a big caveat there.

Hehe, thought you might say that. The website I was looking at seemed to site sources from the period, however they aren't manufacturer (which could be better or worse depending on your opinion, manufacturers aren't always honest for various reasons). Here's the site, take it for whatever it's worth. Like I said, I'm definitely NOT an expert, I was just suggesting that a Camaro could beat a Mustang before 1974...

http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/M...d/7269/vs.html

Agreed.

Your comment struck me as kind of one sided, and unfortunately, I've seen too much trash talking on You Tube apparently. Didn't mean that to sound harsh and I apologize.

I guess I didn't see that. But I think things will all be easier when the Chevy guys admit we win. Especially considering a statistic most people don't quote...the number of years there was no Camaro to compare to a Mustang! You can't win if you don't have a car!

 

no need to apologise. It's not easy to make accurate interpretaions of what's written on forums.



If you take what i wrote in context of the post I was replying to?

Anyway. The Camaro guys have a lot to thank the existence of Mustang for.

 

I was told by one of the vp's at ford during the showing of the 500 tour in tampa that it would be a boss and it would be a 5.0. Also the s197 concept was designed after the production design was signed off on. This platform was supposed to debut in 2004.

Roger

 

WHY ... (ROFLMAO) ... because since 1971 everything GM has produced (Camaor/Firebeird/Vette) has been so much faster than any mass-produced Mustang.

They've ALWAYS offered bigger engine options.

How would you compare the performance of a Mustang II with that of the Camaros, Firebeirds, and Vettes of that same time? This is where it all comes from.

 

I didn't think you were a kool-aide drinker.


Mustang II? you must have missed this the wonder is they still sold so many

 

It aint no wonder ... it was the only choice to a foreign car. Back then, every foreign car sold in the U.S. knocked 6 Americans out of work. Sales of the Mustang II sure didn't hurt Z28 and Trans Am sales ... (ROFLMAO) ... YOU need to quit spiking your cool-aid ...

 

(ROFLMAO)

You think Z28 and Trans Am of the same years were anything to brag about? Pieces of crap.

and you were there too.

I'll always wonder on the numbers of Mustang IIs sold.
They should have signalled the end of the Mustang. They did anything but.

 

This type of comment only serves to reinforce your desperation to sell cars that could've been built better and with more options that would've helped sell the volume of numbers that YOU can only live to dream of. Just in where I work alone, FORD has lost 6 BULLITT sales because of the lack of performance. That is 6 you'd love to sell as opposed to paying taxes on while they sit on a lot.

The numbers of Mustang II(s) sold ... WONDER ON ... WHO CARES ... ???

That was the only so-called "Mustang" ever sold that rotted-out from the windshield pillars FIRST ... and the Pinto(s) didn't even do that ~ !!! They were worse than the 71-73 taillight panel problems!

The Mustnag II WAS THE END of the Mustang at least until 1979 (and there wasn't much to holler about then). It was nothing more than Pinto (remember those explosions ... and the lawsuits that followed ... can't holler too much about quality when you're paying an enormous settlement). I only cite the 1979 Fox body because at least you could put a 351-W in there (and because YOU HAD TO because FORD was too cheap to offer it themselves while GM was still offering big blocks more a couple of more years to come).

Yes ... I was there then ... and NO ... we had no problems keeping the Z-28(s) and Trans Am(s) running and looking good. At least when you could still get a big block and when you bought a V-8 at LEAST you got a 4-V carb ... not just some lousy 302 CID 2-V motor that was smogged and bogged.

If you thought the Z28(s) and T-A(s) were junk it's probably because you don't know anything about cars or at least you didn't then and didn't know what you were doing when you tried to turn a wrench.

Face it ... FORD SCREWED UP by not offering the bigger enigne option for the BULLITT and GT(s) and have not sold as many as they could because they didn't. With Ford's (and other like-minded individuals) attitude the current platform never has really stood the honest chance for sales and fame that it actually could have if FORD would've done only a few more things like they did 40 years ago.

 

Most of what I have seen/read regarding the performance statistics for mid-to-late 1970's (1977 as an example) have the v8 II's running rather close, if not the same 1/4 times as 350 Camaros. Seems most run around 17.4 - 17.7.

And how do you qualify your above statement? Granted there were years Camaros/Firebirds were faster than Mustangs, but there were also years Mustangs were faster than Camaros/Firebirds. (Just talking 1/4 times to have a base.)

 

I'm sorry you are so out of touch in your little fantasy world.

Why don't you get yourself a nice fast '74 - '79 Z28 or T/A and be happy?

 

Easily ... 1974 Mustang II had no V-8 whatsoever. This was not the case when the big blocks were still available in the GM muscle cars.

Maybe you get your data from sources you consider reliable but I seriously doubt a stock mid to late 70(s) era 302 2-V is going to give the 350 4-V in a Camaro a good run for it's money.

 

302's already exist thru Saleen

 

And they cost more than GT500s.
Was your point that since Saleen can make it, so could Ford?
Or that 302s would be too cost-prohibitive to make?

 

HMM ok now ill be waiting for a 2011 5.0 boss....hopefully at least 450hp. Id like to have a boss that runs close to 550 or so. If saleen puts out a ramairsupercharger for the 2011's then thad be very realistic. A modern boss is something i think everyone would want and i think ford will make it affordable for most as well. hopefully im not dreaming here if ford had a 5.0 boss that had GDI and was DOHC along with some of the other advancements maybe IRS thad be a keeper for sure. ESPECIALLY IF THE BOSS DECALS WERE PAINTED NOT VYNIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!