leaks
10/14/10, 03:43 PM
#181
Team Mustang Source
10/14/10, 05:43 PM
#182
Cobra R Member
Join Date: September 26, 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess we have to agree to disagree on the whole definition of what a "real Mustang" is and how bad the competition is. You seem to have a set opinion on that and that is fine.
As far as bashing the GM engine family I have to disagree. Sure the Mustang puts out slightly better MPG numbers in both V8 and V6 trim but only by a small margin. Keep in mind that both GM engines are more powerful and have a lot more weight to carry. SO at the end of the day a push rod engine still kicks a$$ tell that to a Ferrari owner who just got his back side handed to him by a ZR1. Also keep in mind that the new CTS-V is quicker than the GT500.
I think your push rod engine reference is kind of similar to the GM guys bashing Ford's solid rear. Just because something is old tech does not mean that it necessarily bad. I think it is unfair to bash the GM engines while forgiving Ford for having a solid rear.
Here are the 2011 V8 Camaro and Mustang numbers.
Camaro SS MPG 17/28 Mustang 5.0 MPG 19/29
As far as bashing the GM engine family I have to disagree. Sure the Mustang puts out slightly better MPG numbers in both V8 and V6 trim but only by a small margin. Keep in mind that both GM engines are more powerful and have a lot more weight to carry. SO at the end of the day a push rod engine still kicks a$$ tell that to a Ferrari owner who just got his back side handed to him by a ZR1. Also keep in mind that the new CTS-V is quicker than the GT500.
I think your push rod engine reference is kind of similar to the GM guys bashing Ford's solid rear. Just because something is old tech does not mean that it necessarily bad. I think it is unfair to bash the GM engines while forgiving Ford for having a solid rear.
Here are the 2011 V8 Camaro and Mustang numbers.
Camaro SS MPG 17/28 Mustang 5.0 MPG 19/29
10/15/10, 09:06 AM
#185
Bullitt Member
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10/15/10, 09:12 AM
#186
Bullitt Member
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10/15/10, 09:16 AM
#187
Bullitt Member
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10/15/10, 10:03 AM
#188
Bullitt Member
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What did the Contemporary styling get them? Actually the 1999-2004 Mustang had higher sales numbers for the first 2 years then the 2005 S197. 166,915 and 173,676 to the S197's 160,975 and 166,530. Overall From 1999-2004 the "contemporary" looking Mustang had more sales then the S197 did from 2005-2009. 964,155 to 620,005. That's over 344,150 more New Edge Mustangs sold then S197's. If the Mustang remained Contemporary who knows what would of really happened. Why did Ford go Retro? Simple, to appeal to the baby boomers right at the prime opportunity. The Mustang has always had a distinct look.
The styling of the '05 S197 didn't save the Mustang period. The Mustang wasn't sinking like the Camaro in it's last years before it was temporarily halted. As I mentioned before Sales numbers prove your opinion completely wrong.
Too much good competition? From who? At the time the Camaro was long gone along with the firebird and the Challenger wasn't even around.
If Ford went with a more contemporary design they might of sold more cars, however the retro theme sparked some energy with the baby boomers. The SN95 and New Edge stood out very well during there times, in fact they still stand out very well even today. They were original and forward in design direction, without reverting to the retro look.
I don't think a Mustang will ever go without at least one V-8 option. Those Pushrod two-valves namely the LS3 are great engines. For the power they produce they're light, efficient and easier to build then a DOHC engine. The LS1 was MUCH faster then a comparable 2 valve OHC 4.6
The new 5.0 is a great engine and looks like it is very capable of some impressive numbers as proven already from the many dyno runs and drag racer's who have been testing with them.
It certainly is very advanced and well designed. I'm sure it'll get GDI in the future.
Not sure why it being offered in a 2011 F-150 is important to this topic? Yes it has better numbers then those choices from GM and Dodge...
It's relatively friendlier to the environment then previous engines yes. It's still a performance V8, not some sort of super green machine. Most engines today have the capability of lasting a very long time.
American based Automobile company- Every car company is Global now.
As far as being the technological leader I'd say Ford is very progressive in it's efforts, however just because one company uses a Pushrod design over DOHC for some of it's engines certainly doesn't make it behind the times. The C5 Corvette got better gas mileage then the SN95-New Edge Mustang and today with the C6 it probably still does. Ford, GM and Chrysler are all building some very impressive technologically backed cars.
The new 5.0 will be tweaked and refined over the next few years as competition heats up. Right now in Europe and the rest of the world a 5.0 is considered large in the realm of overall displacement. Here in the U.S. where larger displacement engines are abundant it fits in pretty good.
How do you know what size and weight GM's next generation V8 will be? Last I heard it's dropping to a 5.5 for the 6th gen. Camaro. I don't know what Chrysler is doing in the near future for the next Challenger. I will say, neither company will have obsolete powertrains when compared to what Ford will be coming out with. GM is working on it's own version of Ecoboost.
3. "Is it getting to be too much car at this point?" This is a really difficult prognosis to make. Truthfully, I don't know--the market is notorious for moving on to "the next big thing", for better or for worse. Think how big the musclecars were at one time. Back around 1969, one third of all Plymouth intermediates (Belvederes, I believe they were--or maybe Satellites. Who cares?) sold were the "Road Runner" performance model. SUVs, currently in trouble in the marketplace, were once the hottest vehicles in the market. Full-sized vans with lots of custom touches were big before that. Minitrucks had their day in the limelight, too. Electric vehicle manufacturers are hoping their heyday is just ahead. Mustangs have survived where so many, many others have come and gone. You know the history: the originals, the Mustang IIs, the fox bodies, yada yada yada. The S197 of today is the second-biggest Mustang ever--but it is also far and away the best Mustang ever produced. Great basics, great options, great acceleration/braking/handling, great looks, great safety, great environmental compliance, great value--if it is great, it is probably offered in a Mustang. Offering all this greatness requires some volume to contain the roomiest Mustang interior ever, the most crashworthy Mustang ever, the most advanced Mustang powertrains ever, the best-handling Mustang ever, the fastest-accelerating Mustang ever, possibly the most economical Mustang ever, probably the best-braking Mustang ever, certainly the most comfortable Mustang ever, the most utilitarian Mustang ever, and the lowest emissions Mustang ever. Yeah, all this in a two-feet shorter, one-foot narrower, four inches lower, and four-hundred pounds lighter Mustang would please us all--but what would you have to give up to get those specifications? Or what would you have to pay to get those specifications without having to give up some of the greatness? Ford is steadily improving the Mustang while trying to keep it affordable--This year you got the TiVCT 5.0L V8 and a choice of two six-speed transmissions plus dozens of detail improvements for an additional $1100. Chevy & Dodge would maybe throw in a stripes-wheels-and-upgraded-upholstery-trim package for $1100 in their POS imitations...
The next Mustang will be smaller. It will be lighter. And contrary to popular belief the next Mustang will be a much better car then the great car we have today. Chevrolet and Dodge do not have POS imitations. Yes the Camaro and Challenger are exactly original like the Mustang, but they both have their own personalities and character just like the Mustang.
The Mustang made such an overwhelmingly great impression when first introduced that you would have to be stupid not to come up with a competitor. The Camaro and Challenger are hardly imitations. They share the basic proportions, Engine choice and size, aside from this they are completely their own style. The Mustang set the tone for what would be an incredibly popular segment almost 50 years later.
All three companies make great cars
Greg "That's all I have to say about that" Ates
The styling of the '05 S197 didn't save the Mustang period. The Mustang wasn't sinking like the Camaro in it's last years before it was temporarily halted. As I mentioned before Sales numbers prove your opinion completely wrong.
Too much good competition? From who? At the time the Camaro was long gone along with the firebird and the Challenger wasn't even around.
If Ford went with a more contemporary design they might of sold more cars, however the retro theme sparked some energy with the baby boomers. The SN95 and New Edge stood out very well during there times, in fact they still stand out very well even today. They were original and forward in design direction, without reverting to the retro look.
I don't think a Mustang will ever go without at least one V-8 option. Those Pushrod two-valves namely the LS3 are great engines. For the power they produce they're light, efficient and easier to build then a DOHC engine. The LS1 was MUCH faster then a comparable 2 valve OHC 4.6
The new 5.0 is a great engine and looks like it is very capable of some impressive numbers as proven already from the many dyno runs and drag racer's who have been testing with them.
It certainly is very advanced and well designed. I'm sure it'll get GDI in the future.
Not sure why it being offered in a 2011 F-150 is important to this topic? Yes it has better numbers then those choices from GM and Dodge...
It's relatively friendlier to the environment then previous engines yes. It's still a performance V8, not some sort of super green machine. Most engines today have the capability of lasting a very long time.
American based Automobile company- Every car company is Global now.
As far as being the technological leader I'd say Ford is very progressive in it's efforts, however just because one company uses a Pushrod design over DOHC for some of it's engines certainly doesn't make it behind the times. The C5 Corvette got better gas mileage then the SN95-New Edge Mustang and today with the C6 it probably still does. Ford, GM and Chrysler are all building some very impressive technologically backed cars.
The new 5.0 will be tweaked and refined over the next few years as competition heats up. Right now in Europe and the rest of the world a 5.0 is considered large in the realm of overall displacement. Here in the U.S. where larger displacement engines are abundant it fits in pretty good.
How do you know what size and weight GM's next generation V8 will be? Last I heard it's dropping to a 5.5 for the 6th gen. Camaro. I don't know what Chrysler is doing in the near future for the next Challenger. I will say, neither company will have obsolete powertrains when compared to what Ford will be coming out with. GM is working on it's own version of Ecoboost.
3. "Is it getting to be too much car at this point?" This is a really difficult prognosis to make. Truthfully, I don't know--the market is notorious for moving on to "the next big thing", for better or for worse. Think how big the musclecars were at one time. Back around 1969, one third of all Plymouth intermediates (Belvederes, I believe they were--or maybe Satellites. Who cares?) sold were the "Road Runner" performance model. SUVs, currently in trouble in the marketplace, were once the hottest vehicles in the market. Full-sized vans with lots of custom touches were big before that. Minitrucks had their day in the limelight, too. Electric vehicle manufacturers are hoping their heyday is just ahead. Mustangs have survived where so many, many others have come and gone. You know the history: the originals, the Mustang IIs, the fox bodies, yada yada yada. The S197 of today is the second-biggest Mustang ever--but it is also far and away the best Mustang ever produced. Great basics, great options, great acceleration/braking/handling, great looks, great safety, great environmental compliance, great value--if it is great, it is probably offered in a Mustang. Offering all this greatness requires some volume to contain the roomiest Mustang interior ever, the most crashworthy Mustang ever, the most advanced Mustang powertrains ever, the best-handling Mustang ever, the fastest-accelerating Mustang ever, possibly the most economical Mustang ever, probably the best-braking Mustang ever, certainly the most comfortable Mustang ever, the most utilitarian Mustang ever, and the lowest emissions Mustang ever. Yeah, all this in a two-feet shorter, one-foot narrower, four inches lower, and four-hundred pounds lighter Mustang would please us all--but what would you have to give up to get those specifications? Or what would you have to pay to get those specifications without having to give up some of the greatness? Ford is steadily improving the Mustang while trying to keep it affordable--This year you got the TiVCT 5.0L V8 and a choice of two six-speed transmissions plus dozens of detail improvements for an additional $1100. Chevy & Dodge would maybe throw in a stripes-wheels-and-upgraded-upholstery-trim package for $1100 in their POS imitations...
The next Mustang will be smaller. It will be lighter. And contrary to popular belief the next Mustang will be a much better car then the great car we have today. Chevrolet and Dodge do not have POS imitations. Yes the Camaro and Challenger are exactly original like the Mustang, but they both have their own personalities and character just like the Mustang.
The Mustang made such an overwhelmingly great impression when first introduced that you would have to be stupid not to come up with a competitor. The Camaro and Challenger are hardly imitations. They share the basic proportions, Engine choice and size, aside from this they are completely their own style. The Mustang set the tone for what would be an incredibly popular segment almost 50 years later.
All three companies make great carsGreg "That's all I have to say about that" Ates
A few more points:
1. If the 2004-2007 resurrected GTO had been more retro in its styling (my personal favorite was the '68s, but going with styling based on the '66s mighta been the best for sales), the GTO and possibly even Pontiac might still be with us today. At the very least, the GTO woulda survived until the lights went out last year...
2. If the 2004-2006 (was it?) Thunderbirds had been more retro in their styling instead of going retro with little more than the proportions (height to length, hood length/passenger area length/trunk length), the T-Bird might be with us today. Styling errors: NOT using the F-86 Sabrejet-styled headlight nacelles of the '55s-'57s; not using the "jet-exhaust-styled" taillight enclosures of the '55s-'57s; coming up with a front end that looked more early-'Vette than it did early-'Bird; and going with Buick-like front fender vent trim instead of the stamped louvers on the front fenders of the early-'Birds. The resurrected Thunderbird failed for not going retro enough...But I will concede that the resurrected T-Bird was more "contemporary"!
3. The 2004-2006 Ford GT was a no-holds-barred retro styling job (maybe 108-110 percent scaled-up from the GT-40s of the 'Sixties) and it was an enormous success for a $130,000 Ford!
4. Immediate sales are important, but they aren't everything. Truthfully, which will cease production the soonest--the Mustang, or the resurrected Camaro and resurrected Challenger? You know the answer to that every bit as well as I do
Once the flashiness wears thin, customers will keep buying the better car, and that's clearly the Mustang. I confidently predict that fewer combined resurrected Camaro and resurrected Challenger owners will buy Camaros or Challengers for their NEXT cars than the numbers of current Mustang owners (Note that I did NOT have to say "resurrected Mustang owners") that will buy Mustangs for their next cars.
Those of you who may disagree with that have been sucking hard on the GM/Chrysler dick. Here, have a little Kool-Aid with that dick
I mentioned the F-150 as being a boost to the longevity of the DOHC TiVCT 5.0L V8 because there is safety in numbers--the more vehicles that use an engine, the longer the engine tends to remain in production. And numbers have lots of benefits--a second source for used parts down the road, a second "proving ground" for long-term reliability of the engine's shared components, and a second "development mule" for modifications that may improve all the 5.0 engines (and further developments may occur if the 5.0 winds up in Panoz vehicles, Koenigsegg vehicles, the Matech Ford GTs that are performing so strongly in the FIA GT3 class, GARRA's Daytona Prototype vehicles, et al). Australia is using the 5.0 in their Ford FPV musclecars as well.
And finally, there really is nothing wrong with pushrod engines, either--Ford built millions of 'em. Just as there's nothing wrong with the Biblical Creation that took God six days to complete. Believe in pushrods--God created them, too, y'know.
But God swapped out the 289 in His '65 G.T. 350 for a DOHC TiVCT 5.0L back in September and since then He's been meltin' the gold pavement every evening after He gets off work.
For those who think this is fanboyism, I should point out that I liked the '70-and-a-half Camaro much better than the '71-'73 Mustangs. But that's damning with faint praise...In fact, there are only four Mustangs that I'd buy: The '05 coupe, the '65 fastback (in GT or G.T. 350 configurations), the '69 fastback ("Sportroof" may have been what the fastbacks were called by 1969 back in the day--especially the Boss 302s and Boss 429s), and the '67 fastback (a '67 G.T. 350 would be exquisite). "The 2000 Cobra R is an alternate if you haven't got one of the other four to hang in my Christmas stocking", he hinted with a broad wink.
Last edited by Eights; 10/15/10 at 10:56 AM. Reason: It needed sayin'.
10/15/10, 12:34 PM
#189
GTR Member
Greg, Sir, you are truely on form at the moment 
For what it's worth, I agree with you on your 4 points above. Keep the responses coming, they're brilliant.
Greg "you won't read anything more entertaining today" Ates.
For what it's worth, I agree with you on your 4 points above. Keep the responses coming, they're brilliant.
Greg "you won't read anything more entertaining today" Ates.
10/15/10, 12:43 PM
#193
MOTM Committee Member
Greg "I will donate all my money to stangfoeva's mustang mod fund" Ates...
Sorry, I've always wanted to do one of my own
back on topic
If we are getting 3 different roof choices, I'm wondering why that decision was made. That's more crash testing and more development $
Sorry, I've always wanted to do one of my own
back on topic
If we are getting 3 different roof choices, I'm wondering why that decision was made. That's more crash testing and more development $
10/15/10, 12:54 PM
#194
Cobra R Member
Join Date: March 12, 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 1,560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only other car I can think of that came in 3 different roofs is the C5 corvette. Coupe, Fixed Roof Coupe (FRC), and Convertible. The FRC later transformed into the Z06. They axed the FRC with the release of the C6. I don't really see the point of two different coupes on the Mustang. More than likely one will be very popular, and Ford will phase out the other.
10/15/10, 01:21 PM
#196
MOTM Committee Member
The only other car I can think of that came in 3 different roofs is the C5 corvette. Coupe, Fixed Roof Coupe (FRC), and Convertible. The FRC later transformed into the Z06. They axed the FRC with the release of the C6. I don't really see the point of two different coupes on the Mustang. More than likely one will be very popular, and Ford will phase out the other.
10/15/10, 01:52 PM
#197
Cobra Member
Join Date: June 25, 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think Ford has the resources for both a notch and a hatch. Plus, I don't see a market for it. Waste of money IMO.
Same with a Lincoln Coupe. As nice as it sounds, Ford will lose money. There isn't a market for it. Let Europe and GM build those types of cars.
When the company and the economy are in better shape, then fool around and make a car like that.
Same with a Lincoln Coupe. As nice as it sounds, Ford will lose money. There isn't a market for it. Let Europe and GM build those types of cars.
When the company and the economy are in better shape, then fool around and make a car like that.
10/15/10, 01:58 PM
#198
GTR Member
10/15/10, 02:38 PM
#199
Cobra R Member
Join Date: September 26, 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few more points:
1. If the 2004-2007 resurrected GTO had been more retro in its styling (my personal favorite was the '68s, but going with styling based on the '66s mighta been the best for sales), the GTO and possibly even Pontiac might still be with us today. At the very least, the GTO woulda survived until the lights went out last year...
2. If the 2004-2006 (was it?) Thunderbirds had been more retro in their styling instead of going retro with little more than the proportions (height to length, hood length/passenger area length/trunk length), the T-Bird might be with us today. Styling errors: NOT using the F-86 Sabrejet-styled headlight nacelles of the '55s-'57s; not using the "jet-exhaust-styled" taillight enclosures of the '55s-'57s; coming up with a front end that looked more early-'Vette than it did early-'Bird; and going with Buick-like front fender vent trim instead of the stamped louvers on the front fenders of the early-'Birds. The resurrected Thunderbird failed for not going retro enough...But I will concede that the resurrected T-Bird was more "contemporary"!
3. The 2004-2006 Ford GT was a no-holds-barred retro styling job (maybe 108-110 percent scaled-up from the GT-40s of the 'Sixties) and it was an enormous success for a $130,000 Ford!
4. Immediate sales are important, but they aren't everything. Truthfully, which will cease production the soonest--the Mustang, or the resurrected Camaro and resurrected Challenger? You know the answer to that every bit as well as I do
Once the flashiness wears thin, customers will keep buying the better car, and that's clearly the Mustang. I confidently predict that fewer combined resurrected Camaro and resurrected Challenger owners will buy Camaros or Challengers for their NEXT cars than the numbers of current Mustang owners (Note that I did NOT have to say "resurrected Mustang owners") that will buy Mustangs for their next cars.
Those of you who may disagree with that have been sucking hard on the GM/Chrysler dick. Here, have a little Kool-Aid with that dick
I mentioned the F-150 as being a boost to the longevity of the DOHC TiVCT 5.0L V8 because there is safety in numbers--the more vehicles that use an engine, the longer the engine tends to remain in production. And numbers have lots of benefits--a second source for used parts down the road, a second "proving ground" for long-term reliability of the engine's shared components, and a second "development mule" for modifications that may improve all the 5.0 engines (and further developments may occur if the 5.0 winds up in Panoz vehicles, Koenigsegg vehicles, the Matech Ford GTs that are performing so strongly in the FIA GT3 class, GARRA's Daytona Prototype vehicles, et al). Australia is using the 5.0 in their Ford FPV musclecars as well.
And finally, there really is nothing wrong with pushrod engines, either--Ford built millions of 'em. Just as there's nothing wrong with the Biblical Creation that took God six days to complete. Believe in pushrods--God created them, too, y'know.
But God swapped out the 289 in His '65 G.T. 350 for a DOHC TiVCT 5.0L back in September and since then He's been meltin' the gold pavement every evening after He gets off work.
For those who think this is fanboyism, I should point out that I liked the '70-and-a-half Camaro much better than the '71-'73 Mustangs. But that's damning with faint praise...In fact, there are only four Mustangs that I'd buy: The '05 coupe, the '65 fastback (in GT or G.T. 350 configurations), the '69 fastback ("Sportroof" may have been what the fastbacks were called by 1969 back in the day--especially the Boss 302s and Boss 429s), and the '67 fastback (a '67 G.T. 350 would be exquisite). "The 2000 Cobra R is an alternate if you haven't got one of the other four to hang in my Christmas stocking", he hinted with a broad wink.[/quote]
First off I'd like to say I love debating with you. Though I am not a wordsmith like you I'll try to continue the debate.
1. The problem with the GTO was not it's lack of retro styling it was simply the lack of styling. The GTO was based off of it's Australian twin that dates back to 1997. The GTO looked 10 years old when it came out, and lets be honest even though I like the GTO it kinda reminded me of a Cavalier on steroids.
2. Are you kidding me with the T-Bird? More retro? the T-bird was just as retro as the 2005 Mustang. I agree that it was not defined as well as the Mustang (looked just as much like a first gen Vette) but the car was clearly retro. I think the failure of the last gen T-Bird was two fatal errors. It was overpriced and underpowered. The car cost as much as a Corvette and it performed worse than a Mustang GT. Others feel that like the PT Cruiser and VW Bug, retro styling for these cars often have a short life span. The T-Bird was a very desirable car back when it launched in 2000?
3. Retro styling did not hurt but it was also Ford's first exotic super car since..... the Last Ford GT40.
4. Agree 100% no argument there.
5. The F-150 will not have the 5.0 instead it will have a 6.2 designed for the trucks. If Ford is putting a 5.0 in the F150 it is opposite of everything I have seen. I heard Ecoboost and the 6.2
6. I'm a Ford guy but I feel that the Camaro's motor is just as good as the 5.0. IT makes more power and has that fun down low grunt. The Camaro with an extra 500 or so extra lbs is still is within striking distance of the Mustang GT in both 1/4 times and MPG numbers. The fact that the motor of this car can move that fat pig as well as it does is a borderline miracle.
1. If the 2004-2007 resurrected GTO had been more retro in its styling (my personal favorite was the '68s, but going with styling based on the '66s mighta been the best for sales), the GTO and possibly even Pontiac might still be with us today. At the very least, the GTO woulda survived until the lights went out last year...
2. If the 2004-2006 (was it?) Thunderbirds had been more retro in their styling instead of going retro with little more than the proportions (height to length, hood length/passenger area length/trunk length), the T-Bird might be with us today. Styling errors: NOT using the F-86 Sabrejet-styled headlight nacelles of the '55s-'57s; not using the "jet-exhaust-styled" taillight enclosures of the '55s-'57s; coming up with a front end that looked more early-'Vette than it did early-'Bird; and going with Buick-like front fender vent trim instead of the stamped louvers on the front fenders of the early-'Birds. The resurrected Thunderbird failed for not going retro enough...But I will concede that the resurrected T-Bird was more "contemporary"!
3. The 2004-2006 Ford GT was a no-holds-barred retro styling job (maybe 108-110 percent scaled-up from the GT-40s of the 'Sixties) and it was an enormous success for a $130,000 Ford!
4. Immediate sales are important, but they aren't everything. Truthfully, which will cease production the soonest--the Mustang, or the resurrected Camaro and resurrected Challenger? You know the answer to that every bit as well as I do
Once the flashiness wears thin, customers will keep buying the better car, and that's clearly the Mustang. I confidently predict that fewer combined resurrected Camaro and resurrected Challenger owners will buy Camaros or Challengers for their NEXT cars than the numbers of current Mustang owners (Note that I did NOT have to say "resurrected Mustang owners") that will buy Mustangs for their next cars.
Those of you who may disagree with that have been sucking hard on the GM/Chrysler dick. Here, have a little Kool-Aid with that dick
I mentioned the F-150 as being a boost to the longevity of the DOHC TiVCT 5.0L V8 because there is safety in numbers--the more vehicles that use an engine, the longer the engine tends to remain in production. And numbers have lots of benefits--a second source for used parts down the road, a second "proving ground" for long-term reliability of the engine's shared components, and a second "development mule" for modifications that may improve all the 5.0 engines (and further developments may occur if the 5.0 winds up in Panoz vehicles, Koenigsegg vehicles, the Matech Ford GTs that are performing so strongly in the FIA GT3 class, GARRA's Daytona Prototype vehicles, et al). Australia is using the 5.0 in their Ford FPV musclecars as well.
And finally, there really is nothing wrong with pushrod engines, either--Ford built millions of 'em. Just as there's nothing wrong with the Biblical Creation that took God six days to complete. Believe in pushrods--God created them, too, y'know.
But God swapped out the 289 in His '65 G.T. 350 for a DOHC TiVCT 5.0L back in September and since then He's been meltin' the gold pavement every evening after He gets off work.
For those who think this is fanboyism, I should point out that I liked the '70-and-a-half Camaro much better than the '71-'73 Mustangs. But that's damning with faint praise...In fact, there are only four Mustangs that I'd buy: The '05 coupe, the '65 fastback (in GT or G.T. 350 configurations), the '69 fastback ("Sportroof" may have been what the fastbacks were called by 1969 back in the day--especially the Boss 302s and Boss 429s), and the '67 fastback (a '67 G.T. 350 would be exquisite). "The 2000 Cobra R is an alternate if you haven't got one of the other four to hang in my Christmas stocking", he hinted with a broad wink.[/quote]
First off I'd like to say I love debating with you. Though I am not a wordsmith like you I'll try to continue the debate.
1. The problem with the GTO was not it's lack of retro styling it was simply the lack of styling. The GTO was based off of it's Australian twin that dates back to 1997. The GTO looked 10 years old when it came out, and lets be honest even though I like the GTO it kinda reminded me of a Cavalier on steroids.
2. Are you kidding me with the T-Bird? More retro? the T-bird was just as retro as the 2005 Mustang. I agree that it was not defined as well as the Mustang (looked just as much like a first gen Vette) but the car was clearly retro. I think the failure of the last gen T-Bird was two fatal errors. It was overpriced and underpowered. The car cost as much as a Corvette and it performed worse than a Mustang GT. Others feel that like the PT Cruiser and VW Bug, retro styling for these cars often have a short life span. The T-Bird was a very desirable car back when it launched in 2000?
3. Retro styling did not hurt but it was also Ford's first exotic super car since..... the Last Ford GT40.
4. Agree 100% no argument there.
5. The F-150 will not have the 5.0 instead it will have a 6.2 designed for the trucks. If Ford is putting a 5.0 in the F150 it is opposite of everything I have seen. I heard Ecoboost and the 6.2
6. I'm a Ford guy but I feel that the Camaro's motor is just as good as the 5.0. IT makes more power and has that fun down low grunt. The Camaro with an extra 500 or so extra lbs is still is within striking distance of the Mustang GT in both 1/4 times and MPG numbers. The fact that the motor of this car can move that fat pig as well as it does is a borderline miracle.
Last edited by 97GT03SVT; 10/15/10 at 02:41 PM.
