Deanh Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 It's safety stuff to a point. These new pony cars are just flat out LARGER. Something isn't right when the roofline of a new Mustang sits higher than my Mazda6 5-door. Parking my '97 Cobra next to an S197 makes my car seem tiny in comparison also. Why did they see the need to upsize these things? They're about the same dimensions as MN12 Thunderbirds now! Perhaps a reflection of peoples diet of choice....people DO seem to be getting bigger.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 It's safety stuff to a point. These new pony cars are just flat out LARGER. Something isn't right when the roofline of a new Mustang sits higher than my Mazda6 5-door. Parking my '97 Cobra next to an S197 makes my car seem tiny in comparison also. Why did they see the need to upsize these things? They're about the same dimensions as MN12 Thunderbirds now! Platform availability. No small RWD chassis around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moby Vic Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 neither is a 4000lb behemouth, no matter WHAT sort of Hp it has, all about inertia...a lighter car with the same engine can accelerate faster, stop faster, turn faster etc etc....people pi$$ and moan about weight, blame all the safety crappola being shoved down our throats ( at least to a certain extent ) and then to counter exotic materials are used and people pi$$ and moan about cost.... SRT8s aren't billed as performance vehicles? It's safety stuff to a point. These new pony cars are just flat out LARGER. Something isn't right when the roofline of a new Mustang sits higher than my Mazda6 5-door. Parking my '97 Cobra next to an S197 makes my car seem tiny in comparison also. Why did they see the need to upsize these things? They're about the same dimensions as MN12 Thunderbirds now! Part of the reason for the size increase was decades of people and automotive press complaining about cramped interiors. When the '05s came out, I read a review that complained about the small size of the back seat and the trunk. Apparently they'd never heard of a Mustang prior to 2005 and were caught by surprise. I don't think the new Mustangs are perfect, but when I think of what Ford could have done to them, I'm thrilled. A two-door, rear-drive, V8-powered coupe is an anachronism in these times, and I'm thankful that it still exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomaro Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 To Nick and Moby, where the previous Mustang was the lighter Fox platform (way back to the Fairmont). The current Mustang isn't as tossible as a previous Mustang, but it's not as skittish either. It's an all season car now, as one article put it, and a lot more composed. Some people miss the "edge" of the older/lighter ones. I had a 82 Capri HO and a 90 Mustang 5.0 convertible...I know what they mean. I wouldn't mind if it lost 200 lbs., but not it's current composure. It is nice to have a frame that doesn't flex beyond belief on a hard launch. Those FOX bodies that would contort like a gymnast during a hard launch were something else. I'll take todays platform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 (edited) Yep, the epitome of what I'm talking about and in your heart of hearts you know it's true or you wouldn't be so pissed off. lol Not at all. Still 400 lbs. wrong. I'm not pissed off, but your habit of changing subjects and your holier than thou opinion is annoying. Edited March 5, 2008 by timmm55 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Part of the reason for the size increase was decades of people and automotive press complaining about cramped interiors. When the '05s came out, I read a review that complained about the small size of the back seat and the trunk. Apparently they'd never heard of a Mustang prior to 2005 and were caught by surprise. I don't think the new Mustangs are perfect, but when I think of what Ford could have done to them, I'm thrilled. A two-door, rear-drive, V8-powered coupe is an anachronism in these times, and I'm thankful that it still exists. There's actually quite a bit of usable rear seat leg room now (as apposed to hauling around paraplegics) but it's still small. A friend has an 02 Mustang V6 for a second car to her 05 Mustang GT...... it seems so narrow in comparison back to back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 SRT8s aren't billed as performance vehicles?Part of the reason for the size increase was decades of people and automotive press complaining about cramped interiors. When the '05s came out, I read a review that complained about the small size of the back seat and the trunk. Apparently they'd never heard of a Mustang prior to 2005 and were caught by surprise. I don't think the new Mustangs are perfect, but when I think of what Ford could have done to them, I'm thrilled. A two-door, rear-drive, V8-powered coupe is an anachronism in these times, and I'm thankful that it still exists. just saying, both the camaro and the challenger are late to the party...one would expect them to leapfrog the Stangs specs considerably and up the ante...thus the DISADVANTAGE of curbweight which has obviously overpowered the potential of the Challengers engine....like putting the bugatti engine in a Kenworth, if Ford was smart they would curb the Mustangs weight, actually work on reducing it, perhaps make the car a tad smaller...shut the moaners up and add IRS....add the 5.0 @400hp and let the games begin.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moby Vic Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Those FOX bodies that would contort like a gymnast during a hard launch were something else. That was half the fun! It made them feel faster than they were. And it could be fixed with subframe connectors and braces if you so desired. There's actually quite a bit of usable rear seat leg room now (as apposed to hauling around paraplegics) but it's still small. A friend has an 02 Mustang V6 for a second car to her 05 Mustang GT...... it seems so narrow in comparison back to back. I was making fun of the magazines. Yes, there is more room than in a Fox body or SN95, but it's still a 2+2 (as it should be). just saying, both the camaro and the challenger are late to the party...one would expect them to leapfrog the Stangs specs considerably and up the ante...thus the DISADVANTAGE of curbweight which has obviously overpowered the potential of the Challengers engine....like putting the bugatti engine in a Kenworth, if Ford was smart they would curb the Mustangs weight, actually work on reducing it, perhaps make the car a tad smaller...shut the moaners up and add IRS....add the 5.0 @400hp and let the games begin.... I don't think Ford will actually do it, but I think--as was the case through most of the '80s--that the Mustang will be almost as quick as the Camaro due to its lighter weight, even with a less-powerful engine. And odds are the Mustang will remain the more practical car. Yes, The F Bodies were lower and sleeker from '82 on, but they were a hassle to get into and out of, and they were really only effective as one-seat cars thanks to that hump in the passenger footwell. I always thought the F Bodies looked like more than they were, and the Mustangs offered more than they looked like. I'll go with understatement any day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 That was half the fun! It made them feel faster than they were. And it could be fixed with subframe connectors and braces if you so desired.I was making fun of the magazines. Yes, there is more room than in a Fox body or SN95, but it's still a 2+2 (as it should be). I don't think Ford will actually do it, but I think--as was the case through most of the '80s--that the Mustang will be almost as quick as the Camaro due to its lighter weight, even with a less-powerful engine. And odds are the Mustang will remain the more practical car. Yes, The F Bodies were lower and sleeker from '82 on, but they were a hassle to get into and out of, and they were really only effective as one-seat cars thanks to that hump in the passenger footwell. I always thought the F Bodies looked like more than they were, and the Mustangs offered more than they looked like. I'll go with understatement any day. with ya Mobes...one can only wish...after all they did manage to reduce the F-150 a little....but I think 4000 may become the norm unfortunately....ARGGGG! WTF=WAY TOO FAT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Obviously a lot of the weight in new cars is due to the crash worthiness and the safety features. My '64.5 Mustang weighs in at around 3,000 lbs with the V-8 and convertible bracing. It is about the same size on the outside as an '08. Of course I don't have side intrusion beams, airbags, 17 inch wheels, electric windows, much sound insulation or the like. My '63 Lincoln convertible weighed 5,850 lbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moby Vic Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 My '63 Lincoln convertible weighed 5,850 lbs. And it was a unibody! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 (edited) And it was a unibody! Yup. It drove like a dream too. I got mine in '96 with just under 100K on it. Everything worked except the A/C and auto headlight dimmer. It even had cruise control and AM/FM. Edited March 5, 2008 by Mark B. Morrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Yup. It drove like a dream too. I got mine in '96 with just under 100K on it. Everything worked except the A/C and auto headlight dimmer. It even had cruise control and AM/FM. 0-60? skidpad G's? lane change speed? braking from 60? Figure 8?....LOL! MotorTrend called ...they want to know! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixt9coug Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Obviously a lot of the weight in new cars is due to the crash worthiness and the safety features. My '64.5 Mustang weighs in at around 3,000 lbs with the V-8 and convertible bracing. It is about the same size on the outside as an '08. Of course I don't have side intrusion beams, airbags, 17 inch wheels, electric windows, much sound insulation or the like. My '63 Lincoln convertible weighed 5,850 lbs. My Cougar weighs 3,520. That was with 17 inch wheels ('02 Mustang Bullitt wheels to boot), all stock body panels and all of the insulation it came off of the line with. Only real lightening it had was the aluminum intake, water pump and headers if you want to call that lightening. Its going on a diet soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moby Vic Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 0-60? skidpad G's? lane change speed? braking from 60? Figure 8?....LOL! MotorTrend called ...they want to know! I don't think it was ever billed as a performance car. And Motor Trend hasn't cared about a domestic since about 1963.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 I don't think it was ever billed as a performance car. And Motor Trend hasn't cared about a domestic since about 1963.... was total tongue and cheek mobes.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddiehaskell Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Where are you people getting that the Camaro will be 4000 lbs???? You do know that the Camaro is smaller than the G8, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Where are you people getting that the Camaro will be 4000 lbs???? You do know that the Camaro is smaller than the G8, right? GM's own statements have indicated weight will be around 4000......and I do believe it has the same wheelbase as the G8. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddiehaskell Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 GM's own statements have indicated weight will be around 4000......and I do believe it has the same wheelbase as the G8.Gotta link??? :reading: BTW length G8 - 196.1" Camaro - 186.2" Wheelbase G8 - 114.8" Camaro - 110.5" Height G8 - 57.7" Camaro - 53" Now how is a car that is so much smaller with 2 less doors going to weigh the same? Heck, if weight wasn't at least somewhat of a concern, GM could've just used the G8's exact platform with the same dimensions (much like Chrysler did). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moby Vic Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 We'll see when the car arrives. And the Challenger has a shorter wheelbase than the Charger. 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.