rmc523 Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 (edited) Yeah, right. F-150 loses around 100 lbs (I think it was) for next year. Edited January 28, 2008 by rmc523 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 This thing looks dated and ugly. Good luck to Dodge. After the initial nostalgia wears off, they'll need it!! I doubt that will be happening any time soon. I'm proud to wear blue, but Dodge has a hit on their hands once they bring the price in line with it's market. In the long run I think it will fair better than the new Camero, the Chevrolet is to futuristic. Sadley they will never sell any real volume unless they outfit it with a 4 cyclinder! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 I doubt that will be happening any time soon. I'm proud to wear blue, but Dodge has a hit on their hands once they bring the price in line with it's market. In the long run I think it will fair better than the new Camero, the Chevrolet is to futuristic. Sadley they will never sell any real volume unless they outfit it with a 4 cyclinder! Here's how I view it: Ford They've had their retro 05-08 model, now they're moving on to a more modern looking retro-inspired design. Chevy Chevy's jumping right into the futuristic retro-ish, but not really design, I think that may be where Mustang will go in it's next generation (post 09 update) I think they may have needed to go a little more retro, although, I do personally like the design (except the interior, yuck). Dodge They're where Ford was in 04/05, and if it's able to continue on, I believe Chrysler will let it sit for as long as possible, as is, then either redesign it to be more futuristic (09 Camaro) or an evolution (09 Mustang). Based on what they did with the 300 so far, I'm betting the latter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snooter Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 Here's how I view it: Ford They've had their retro 05-08 model, now they're moving on to a more modern looking retro-inspired design. Chevy Chevy's jumping right into the futuristic retro-ish, but not really design, I think that may be where Mustang will go in it's next generation (post 09 update) I think they may have needed to go a little more retro, although, I do personally like the design (except the interior, yuck). Dodge They're where Ford was in 04/05, and if it's able to continue on, I believe Chrysler will let it sit for as long as possible, as is, then either redesign it to be more futuristic (09 Camaro) or an evolution (09 Mustang). Based on what they did with the 300 so far, I'm betting the latter. you cannot get any more retro then a solid axle...mustang wins hands down Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_spaniard Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 I didn't say it was the best. Chrysler was following a trend when they redesigned the 08' Challenger, there was a revitalization of the classic car market. Cars that were 30 and 40 years old selling for $2,000 and $3,000 began selling for 10's of thousands in shoddy condition. Mint HEMI Cuda's bagan pulling $1,000,000 at the barret Jackson auction. I blame these inflated prices on Nicolas Cage, When he definned the difference between a rich man who owns a classic as being a conasure, while the ones in Ferarri's are self indulgent weinies. He made every rich man who saw gone in 60 seconds dump their dreams of owning a high end import, and it drove the prices of American muscle through the roof. After that some companies like Dynacorn began repopping brand new 69' Camaro, 57' Chevy, and Chevelle bodies, so people could build brand new exact replica's of these auto's while using 2100 century Technology. Tube chasis, adjustable coil over shocks, rack and pinion steering, four link suspension, oversized brakes. Who doesn't want a 60's or 70's muscle car that performs like todays high performance vehicles? While I agree movies do likely have an impact on classic car prices, I seriously question whether someone who buys an Italian exotic would dump his 360 Modena or Gallardo for any classic American muscle. They would buy American muscle in addition to the exotic. That movie sucked anyway :reading: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 (edited) you cannot get any more retro then a solid axle...mustang wins hands down And its not a fucking issue either...I drive an 06 GT every day and it handles just as well as for its size/weight as my 02 SVT Focus did. The S197 cars are not the same as the flexible flyer platform as the SN95 (had one of those too) or Fox Mustang. The only time I know I have a live axle is when the road is uneven or there are alot of bumps or humps in it... Would I mind getting an IRS Mustang?, not at all, but its not as big of an issue as people make it out to be...if it was the car wouldn't sell like it does. Edited January 28, 2008 by silvrsvt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 (edited) Chrysler was the original company that entered into this retro-modern era with the others following. I'm not a Mopar cheerleader necessarily (no more than Ford), but it was the Viper that kicked it off with comparisons of it to the Cobra and the Viper GTS to the Cobra Daytona. Then came the Plymouth Prowler and the PT Cruiser. To me, this is a perfect place for the Challenger to pick up again. It has an interrupted history, not to mention a short-lived one. Ironic actually that the fuel problems of the '70s ultimately killed off cars like this and here we are entering yet another. This car is a great idea for Chrysler in my opinion. You've already got the platform and many shared components and the Magnum was sputtering in sales. They didn't need yet another sedan, so a large coupe make sense and I suspect that it will be more successful than the Magnum right from the start. The styling is on the money. It will find appeal to the "muscle car" set and those in need of a mid-life fix. Ford will lose a few sales to it, I'll bet but like I said before...I think Ford's V6 sales and Shelby sales are safe. Dodge, I believe, is primarily targeting Mustang GT sales and that is where the Challenger R/T will do the most damage. Edited January 28, 2008 by Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 While I agree movies do likely have an impact on classic car prices, I seriously question whether someone who buys an Italian exotic would dump his 360 Modena or Gallardo for any classic American muscle. They would buy American muscle in addition to the exotic. That movie sucked anyway :reading: Either way it is not common folk driving up the price! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wescoent Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 I didn't say it was the best. Chrysler was following a trend when they redesigned the 08' Challenger, there was a revitalization of the classic car market. Cars that were 30 and 40 years old selling for $2,000 and $3,000 began selling for 10's of thousands in shoddy condition. Mint HEMI Cuda's bagan pulling $1,000,000 at the barret Jackson auction. I blame these inflated prices on Nicolas Cage, When he definned the difference between a rich man who owns a classic as being a conasure, while the ones in Ferarri's are self indulgent weinies. He made every rich man who saw gone in 60 seconds dump their dreams of owning a high end import, and it drove the prices of American muscle through the roof. After that some companies like Dynacorn began repopping brand new 69' Camaro, 57' Chevy, and Chevelle bodies, so people could build brand new exact replica's of these auto's while using 2100 century Technology. Tube chasis, adjustable coil over shocks, rack and pinion steering, four link suspension, oversized brakes. Who doesn't want a 60's or 70's muscle car that performs like todays high performance vehicles? While the Mustang is the best pony car, the Challenger is without question the most badass. Since I first saw the concept pics, I've been dreaming of a black Challenger with gunmetal rims, custom exhaust, and HID lights... talk about the anti-Prius if there ever was one. Don't blame Nick Cage... this classic car craze began in the late 1980s, when people began buying all that old iron as an investment. See, the people buying these old cars are the ones who lusted after them as kids, but couldn't get their hands on them. And coincidentally, these will be the same people buying the Challenger, abeit not quite as rich. Both the Camaro and Challenger will be in very high demand out of the gate, but don't expect the Challenger to last long, and don't expect the Camaro to sell well more than 2-3 years after launch. The current Mustang is a little boxy for my taste, but I might look into picking up a new Challenger, Camaro, or Mustang if I can get a good price in the next few years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moby Vic Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 Here's how I view it: Ford They've had their retro 05-08 model, now they're moving on to a more modern looking retro-inspired design. Chevy Chevy's jumping right into the futuristic retro-ish, but not really design, I think that may be where Mustang will go in it's next generation (post 09 update) I think they may have needed to go a little more retro, although, I do personally like the design (except the interior, yuck). Dodge They're where Ford was in 04/05, and if it's able to continue on, I believe Chrysler will let it sit for as long as possible, as is, then either redesign it to be more futuristic (09 Camaro) or an evolution (09 Mustang). Based on what they did with the 300 so far, I'm betting the latter. I think Dodge may find itself where it did in 1970--a few years late with a great car. But there are plenty of baby boomers who can afford this pricey nostalgia trip. I'm curious to see how big this thing looks in person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 2008 Mustang GT AT - 3,500 lbs2008 Shelby GT500 - 3,920 lbs Challenger Edmunds predicted weight: 3,600 lbs Car and Driver predicted weight 4,100 lbs http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Featu...rticleId=115459 http://www.caranddriver.com/previews/10492...ions-page3.html So..... it looks like the Challenger should fall somewhere near the 'Stangs weight stats. (The projected new Camaro's too!) Does that infer then that the 'Stang too is a pig? If so, then it's a very attractive and fun to drive pig! :shades: And for the record IMHO, though the '72-'76 T-Birds WERE "Lead Sleds", they were some damn fine bitchin' rides! My first car was a 429 4bbl Dual Exhaust '72 T-Bird, and once that big block got revvin', that car could fly! -Ovaltine thats fair Ovaltine, but I was saying what it looked like, not what it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 With designs such as these, where do you go in 3-5 years? In terms of the new generation of muscle cars, the Camaro takes the award for best looking followed by the Mustang. The Challenger just isn't doing much for me, and it has nothing to do with it not being a Ford. Now as far as everyone moaning about the live axle rear suspension, have any of you that complain about it spent a considerable amount of time in these cars? They handle just fine, they might be sprung a little too soft for my taste, but the rear end is very composed (and that was on weather and truck beaten Dearborn roads). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 (edited) With designs such as these, where do you go in 3-5 years? In terms of the new generation of muscle cars, the Camaro takes the award for best looking followed by the Mustang. The Challenger just isn't doing much for me, and it has nothing to do with it not being a Ford. Now as far as everyone moaning about the live axle rear suspension, have any of you that complain about it spent a considerable amount of time in these cars? They handle just fine, they might be sprung a little too soft for my taste, but the rear end is very composed (and that was on weather and truck beaten Dearborn roads). The only time solid rear axle is even close to being superior is when it is accompanied by a Four link set-up and locking differential, and last time I check no manufacturer offer a four link from the factory. A four wheel independat gets the power to the ground more efficiently tha a solid axle leaf spring or air-ride design! Edited January 28, 2008 by Furious1Auto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moby Vic Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 Live axle works better on a drag strip no matter what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 Live axle works better on a drag strip no matter what. Not with a limited slip like nearly every factory offering! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 The only time solid rear axle is even close to being superior is when it is accompanied by a Four link set-up and locking differential, and last ime I check no manufacturer offer a four link from the factory. A four wheele independat gets the power to the ground more efficiently tha a solid axle leaf spring or air-ride design! Um does this do anything to vastly improve performance? um no.... As much as this has a negative connotation, the Live Axle is "good-enough" for the Mustang. It all boils down to the driver...the live axle in my 06 GT is more then good enough to get me to and from work every day...where as the 98 GT I had sucked in the handling department (to the point of it possibly being dangerous if pushed to its limits, I don't get that feeling at all with the 06 GT) at times doing the same thing. Would an IRS make a huge improvement for me? Prob not, would I like an IRS on a Mustang? Yeah why not...but at least make the Live Axle an option for the people who want/need it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 (edited) Um does this do anything to vastly improve performance? um no.... As much as this has a negative connotation, the Live Axle is "good-enough" for the Mustang. It depends on the application, If you are trying to run a quarter mile than Yes a soild axle is vastly superior when coupled with a four link and a locking diff. It more efficiently and evenly distributes the power to the ground, and if it is tuned properly will stop losses in power transfer. When racing the most important thing (besides the powerplant and trans) is delivering that power to the ground. You want a straight launch without torque steer! All are adequate for daily driving! Edited January 28, 2008 by Furious1Auto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 The only time solid rear axle is even close to being superior is when it is accompanied by a Four link set-up and locking differential, and last time I check no manufacturer offer a four link from the factory. A four wheele independat gets the power to the ground more efficiently tha a solid axle leaf spring or air-ride design! Where in that blurb did I mention that it was superior? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted January 28, 2008 Share Posted January 28, 2008 Where in that blurb did I mention that it was superior? You didn't! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinb120 Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Since I don't get into conversations about Mustangs with non-owners, back to topic. Probably weigh in about 100lbs under what at the 300C weighs(4130 before options) Aesthetically, she's got a big ol' butt, as did the original so I think its well-styled. They just aren't going to sell many of them, cool to have around nonetheless. People complain about the weight, but look up various German coupes/convertibles' curb weights sometime. If it were shitty light tin, it would drive like shitty light tin. Not everybody wants something craptastic like an Integra or Celica. Real men roll heavy iron anyway, not compact cars with wings, but that's another story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Ford ZM Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 What's with the ugly Super Duty chin spoiler, this thing isn't a brick too is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 What's with the ugly Super Duty chin spoiler, this thing isn't a brick too is it? I'll let you decide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 I'll let you decide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moby Vic Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Since I don't get into conversations about Mustangs with non-owners, back to topic. Probably weigh in about 100lbs under what at the 300C weighs(4130 before options) Aesthetically, she's got a big ol' butt, as did the original so I think its well-styled. They just aren't going to sell many of them, cool to have around nonetheless. People complain about the weight, but look up various German coupes/convertibles' curb weights sometime. If it were shitty light tin, it would drive like shitty light tin. Not everybody wants something craptastic like an Integra or Celica. Real men roll heavy iron anyway, not compact cars with wings, but that's another story. So real men don't drive Fox-body Mustangs? The shipping weight of my "heavy" '95 Mustang GTS was only 3183 pounds. Two-ton ponycars aren't ponycars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinb120 Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 So real men don't drive Fox-body Mustangs? The shipping weight of my "heavy" '95 Mustang GTS was only 3183 pounds. Two-ton ponycars aren't ponycars. 95 wasn't a Fox body per-se it was an SN-95(called the 'fox 4' as an internal nickname). I had an 86/88/90/91/93/97/00/05/06/07 So I have mixed emotions about all the late model Mustangs. After driving the newer S197's I can't really say I miss any of the others much. The 86 with T-tops I do regret selling though. You also show the weight of a de-contented GT. A 2008 Mustang GT manual(with power driver seat and SRS)-shipping weight listed on the invoice is 3353LBS 100 more hp, 170 more lbs(with more equipment). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.