I can certainly relate to where your coming from, as I'm currently on my second S-197 Mustang.. And yes I do agree they are big when compared to the first generation 65-70 models and especially the Fox bodies in which I owned 3 of them.. My last fox body was a black 93 SVT Cobra that I had for 9 years until I traded it in for my first S-197, which was a 2005 torch red GT..

Needless to say, it took quite awhile getting used to the size difference but when compared to build quality, the way the S-197 platform handles, performs over the Fox bodies.. I don't regret my choice for trading in my Cobra for a moment..

Although I would had preferred having the S-197 body style smaller in comparison to the last 2004 Mustang ? I can certainly understand the purpose behind Ford increasing the size, as they needed to comply with our increasing govt crash safety requirements which include all cars and not just the Mustang..

But in the end, you just can't beat the advance technology and build quality in today's cars and as much as I really hate to say this, they're light years ahead of those 1st generation Mustangs I grew up with and really loved back in the day

 

I agree with you completely. But it's not what I want in a mustang. The technology and refinements I can do without. It's not a daily commuter or road trip car. Budget hot rod is all the mustang badge will ever mean to me. Maybe I'm just a gear head purist. But any 05-up mustang better have at least 500hp or I may as well buy a Buick. The mustang is a true American icon vehicle, not because of a horse badge but what it's supposed to be. And it's just not that car anymore. The only vehicles this car should ever be compared to are the Camaro and the Challenger.

 

If you guys think a modern Mustang is too big then hold onto your hat when you drive a Challenger. It's a much harder car to drive imho because it feels bleeping huge.

 

If you can turn you ain't going fast enough in a straight line. Ha ha

 

I've been saying this in different posts/threads for quite sometime now, however I do agree and understand where Al is coming from though.. As surely there's enough advance technology to build cars that are much safer without turning them into over sized barges

 

I do understand what you mean... I haven't driven the Hellcat yet, but I've driven enough to know that it would be a heck of a ride.

Perhaps I have... even 400hp is hard to put down to the rear wheels without them spinning. As fun as burnouts are, they are NOT the fastest way to get to speed, so keeping wheel spin to a minimum is the key. At some point, it becomes a math equasion of tire size, tread pattern, road surface, etc. The power has long since passed the point where that is the shortfall.

A lot of old school people like manual transmissions, and that is fine. Except, automatics have already passed them in performance and ability. Look at the Hellcat, the auto is faster, the Lambo too, it has a 50ms shift. It is brutal and abrupt, but it is much faster than I could ever do it.

 

To each their own...

I skipped the last model of the Mustang for the very reasons I stated, I'm no longer 20 and my back and butt would prefer to be comfortable these days.

I live in Texas, it gets very hot here. Frankly, air conditioned seats is now a requirement for anything I buy, now that the Mustang has them, it is on my list. The IRS and overall better quality puts it near the top of my list.

I'll end up with a GT for the simple reason that I prefer V8 engines. The sound, the torque, etc... Yes, I know the EcoBoost provides great power and torque and even provides a lighter weight... I still like the V8.

 

You can't compare the Mustang to the 430... Even if you gave the Mustang the same power... The 430 is a mid engine lightweight car that is 700lbs lighter and much better balanced front to rear on weight...

It is also 5 times the price of the GT and 10 years older in design, and still kicks its butt.

I've never driven a Ferrari (any model sadly), but I have had the chance to drive a Lamborghini Gallardo, and boy was that nice. It was only for an hour, but that is a heck of a car. Sadly, I can afford a wife, or that car, and I'm keeping the wife.

But I do know what you mean... driving such a thing is indeed "an experience".

 

Amen to that...

Before I had kids, I used to own (legally) a full auto AK-47 (really an AKM, but who's counting).

People would ask what it is like, and my reply was usually, "a really fun way to turn money into noise". And you're right, you can't hit crap on auto, "spray n' pray" was coined for a reason.

Then I got married and had kids, and THOSE are expensive... so I sold it (for a profit, the value keeps going up), and moved on. Fun times, but I don't miss it.

 

The reality is... Ford can't build new what you're asking for...

Airbags, anti-lock brakes, traction control, electronic stability control, etc. are all now legally required, or soon will be... The requirement for crash testing both from the government's point of view as well as the insurance companies (if it costs too much to insure, people won't buy them) means that it has to be larger and full of technology.

It is a shame the adaptive cruise control and collision warning systems aren't standard in the new Mustang, those are important safely features that will prevent a lot of accidents. My new truck has them and they are wonderful. I would not buy another vehicle without them.

What is REALLY going to kill you is in 10-15 years when Ford comes out with a self-driving Mustang. Oh sure, it will have a manual mode, but you know the direction that will go...

 

As I noted a page or two ago, I've driven the new 2015 Challenger (it looks mostly the same as the 2014, but it isn't, a lot changed under the skin)...

It is nice, but big as noted... but it has something key that the Mustang and Camaro don't have... a REAL back seat that will fit 2 full size adults in comfort or 3 kids without a problem...

In some respects, I kinda wish the new Mustang were 6" longer with that space going to the rear seat. I'll have kids back there and it would be nice to have more room for them.

Yea, yea, I know, turn in my "cool" badge. I'm married with kids, I turned it in long ago.

 

NOTHING wrong with the new Challenger, however the size (nothing wrong with that either) makes it really hard to directly compare the two cars. I think the size sells a lot of Challengers over the Camaro & Mustang. I'd buy one, in fact I'm still considering one over a new Mustang. Where I live ( and probably most other places) they're a lot more rare & the "cool " factor is definitely there. Scott

 

That wouldn't make little Willie go limp as much as a, god forbid, hybrid or electric Priustang. My life would pretty much be over then.

 

An electric Mustang should kick butt actually, outperforming the V8.

Electric motors are all about torque, put the right ones in there and you'd have a beast. Look at the new Tesla, the performance version. It will outrun a GT Mustang and do it in comfort... for triple the price of course.

 

The point of the original post was that there were some very fast (admittedly not very safe) cars produced from the factory long before the Hellcat came along. And go fast was the point of the post, (in case you missed it in the original post, I did point out the today's cars are safer, and much more refined--which you felt needed to be reiterated.)

You obviously like the Hellcat--it is indeed a beast. However, let me point out that despite the forced induction and 50+ years of engine development, off the showroom floor the Hellcat would see nothing but Thunderbolt tail lights in a quarter mile. That was the point. Muscle cars didn't just happen--they happened a long time ago. Some of them were just as fast (or in some cases even faster) than those of today. (And scarier. Bias ply tires, drum brakes etc.)

Take another look at the video. It is a naturally aspirated antiquate V8 making considerably less than 707-HP in a car that is 60 years old, with a primitive suspension tripping the lights at 9.23. Even if you aren't impressed--I am. To be able to launch and steer this antique to that ET at a trap speed in excess of 151 mph is quite a feat.

Your assumption that a Hellcat would track in a straight line through the quarter is just that--an assumption. (Most people underestimate what it takes to launch and steer cars that are showing trap speeds in excess of 150 mph in the quarter. It isn't nearly as easy as the pro's make it look.)
Show me a video of a Hellcat close to a 9-second quarter. (By Chrysler's own figures, 10.8 with drag slicks at 126 mph, almost two seconds slower than the antique automobile in the video, and 25 mph slower.) I would wager, with a few tweaks (turn up the boost) and the proper tires, a Hellcat could (it should) come close to a 9.2 run. I would also bet that the driver would have his/her hands full keeping it in straight-line from the tree to the traps.

To each his own--you'd rather have a Hellcat than a '64 Thunderbolt. Well, no doubt it is much safer. And, it is much cheaper! (A '64 Thunderbolt in good shape will sell anywhere from 190,000 to 260,000--to be perfectly honest, I can't afford one!) But, if someone were to give me a choice, give me the '64 Thunderbolt. (In Wimbledon White, please!)

 

Please don't take offence at my post, it was not meant to be unkind in any way. I must have missed the part where you said they are much safer, sorry for the redundant comment.

What I like most about it is not just that it is a beast, but that it is a daily driver beast. It is a totally livable car that could be your only car. The MPG in normal driving appears to be reasonable, it has been reviewed as well mannered in normal driving, yet very powerful when pushed. That strikes me as the big change from decades past. Not the numbers, which can't keep dropping forever, but the civilized nature of the car.

I totally get that point. What would happen if you took the tires on that '64 Ford and put them on the Hellcat? Lets be honest, the rear tires on the Hellcat are way undersized for the engine. They were probably picked because they are cheap to replace (relative to the cost of say Viper tires), and easy to live with in a daily driver.

What I see is a car with crazy large drag tires on it. It is able to put all that power to the ground effectively. My next question is... will the engine in that car last to 250,000 miles? I'd be shocked if the Hellcat's engine wouldn't, but I would be shocked if the '64 engine would.

This isn't just refinement, rather it is a view of what it took to get that power back then. You could put a nitrous system on it and get even more, but how long would it last?

The 707hp from the Hellcat isn't the impressive part. The 0-60 times and quarter mile times aren't the impressive part. It is the fact that it will keep doing it for years to come without anything from the owner and that it is civilized. That is the impressive part.

To put it another way... Thrust SSC has taken a "car" supersonic on land... By comparison these cars are all pretenders, but you couldn't drive to work in Thrust SSC... Performance is nice, but performance that you can live with is better.

Maybe I'm not a hard core muscle car guy, I like comfortable.

 

I can certainly understand and respect your reasons for preferring the Challenger over the Mustang.. So If I were in your shoes and needed a car that's more practical and has more room for a family of 4 ? I'd also pick the Challenger as well providing of course that I couldn't afford to own both a Mustang and then something for the family at the same time because of household expenses..

However the Mustang was never really designed to be a performance oriented family car to begin with, as it was originally designed as a 2+2 sporty coupe aka (pony car)

IMHO I never really considered the Challenger as being a pony car even during it's first incarnation, as it was always larger in size over the Mustang from the get go..

Or I should say until the arrival of the 71-73 Mustang, as this was when Ford got way too caught up in the muscle car war scene by transforming the Mustang into a full size muscle car rather than stay true to it's original pony car roots..

As much as I didn't care for the styling of the Mustang II from 74-78.. I did support Lee Iacocca's decision, for at least bringing the car back to it's original pony car roots, as he also didn't like the direction the Mustang was heading towards either..

And lets face it, although Ford's original intention for the Mustang was designed for being a practical 2+2 sporty car ? You and I know full well just how limited back seat space in Mustang's have always been know for since the very beginning lol.

Personally IMO, the Mustang should had been designed as strictly just a two seat coupe being as the rear seats are pretty much useless anyhow, but then again Ford more than likely added the rear seats mainly for insurance purposes as far as I'm concerned anyhow..

With that said, I personally have nothing against the Challenger and never really did.. As Dodge did a fantastic job in the styling dept and there's also no denying about the Challenger being right up there with Ford in providing great bang for your buck performance with they're all new R/T scat pack..

I've just always been a huge Mustang fan and prefer the smaller size of being in a pony/sports car

 

The Hellcat is cool. No doubt beast. But it's a Chrysler. It will break down often. The electronics will crap out before the drivetrain. No it won't turn or hook up without a whole lot of work. With blower upgrades, a Boss or Shelby will produce more power than the Hellcat will, and be a better car. This car is for people who really want a sick Challenger or suckers who see 700hp and just gotta have one. Ford and GM really don't need to catch up on anything but styling. 707 is just a number to try and boost sales which is a great strategy. For $70k, you got a lot of great options to choose from. Your $40k Mustang is not in the same class so catching up is not necessary. I'm sure SVT will crank out an answer to the Hellcat eventually. For probably $70k also. Lol

 

Oh, don't misunderstand me, I'm on a Mustang forum, I prefer the looks and handling of the Mustang over the Challenger.

The irony is that my wife prefers the Challenger, go figure... But we have 3 kids so that is part of that... she wants a car that we can all fit in. I want a car that I can have fun with.

We already have a large SUV that seats 7, so we don't really need the space, but it is "nice to have" on those rare times when we might use it.

The strongest selling point for the Mustang is that it comes in a convertible version, which I haven't driven yet and I'm waiting on. If the Challenger offered that, it would move up the list a bit.

Frankly, there is nothing practical about either vehicle, both are just fun toys.

True, if I want a sporty family car I should buy a Chevy SS! It has the same 6.2L V8 that is in my truck, it is a rocketship.

 

Actually it is a Fiat now!

I am well aware of the reputation of Chrysler, however frankly back in the 80's I don't think Ford or GM were much better, but that was a long time ago.

I bought one of the first 2011 Ford Explorer Limiteds with Ford MyTouch, don't talk to me about crappy electronics!

Ok, ok, they finally fixed it, mostly... but the first 2 years of ownership sucked. Three times I had to take it to the dealer to be factory reset, the screen went blank and would not come on, no matter what I did. Multiple upgrades and a complete interface change later, it finally worked well enough to be called done.

I'm looking forward to Sync 3, it looks like they have learned some lessons and made some nice upgrades there. Doing the programming in house was a smart call, you need to have tight control over that sort of thing.

I am well aware that 707 is just a number, but it is also the most powerful car produced by an American car company, so it is rather cool. Even the Viper has less power, as will the new Z06 Vette, but as shown by both, power only really counts when you factor in the car you put it in, since both the Viper and Vette will leave the Hellcat in the dust. Both cost a lot more however.

Frankly, the 435 of the GT is plenty for me, anything more would just spin the tires more...