Michael Reynolds Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes...370z/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Geesh, what a weak article. They chose the Mustang in the end, but tried to make every excuse they could to not pick it. :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Whereas the Mustang next to the Genesis resembles a bulldog rubbing shoulders with a Siamese cat, the Z and the Hyundai side by side seem, well, appropriate. Hey. I have a Siamese cat and I resent any comparison between the Derivativesville Genesis Coupe and that particular breed of feline..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Hey. I have a Siamese cat and I resent any comparison between the Derivativesville Genesis Coupe and that particular breed of feline..... wonder which vehicle they would compare my 22lb behemouth Coon with............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Geesh, what a weak article. They chose the Mustang in the end, but tried to make every excuse they could to not pick it. :rolleyes: they were probably worried that if the Ford PR's guys prediction was anti mustang thet they may never get a Ford vehicle to test again...I smell a watered down kiss up... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Also, what gives with the author's assertion that the Nissan Z-cars were ever 'affordable'. This is the first generation about which that statement is remotely accurate. The Datsun Zs weren't cheap (at the time), and the Nissan 300ZXs were way more expensive than Mustangs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 they were probably worried that if the Ford PR's guys prediction was anti mustang thet they may never get a Ford vehicle to test again...I smell a watered down kiss up... What I smell is more "we didn't really want to pick a domestic because of , but in the end we had to....because it's better." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 What I smell is more "we didn't really want to pick a domestic because of , but in the end we had to....because it's better."I'm shocked they "forgot" to mention BMW for once........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Although Ford was afraid the Genesis Coupe would make the Mustang look like a chump, the Hyundai has instead turned the Blue Oval's ponycar into a champ. For being a scaredy cat, Ford now looks like the chump. Funny how things work out. Try this on for size you jackass: Although Ford was understandably afraid that we'd continue with our relentless domestic bashing, the Hyundai was so bad that we couldn't come up with enough rationalizations to give it the nod. But that's not going to stop us from getting in one last dig against Ford. Why? Because we're jackasses! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Try this on for size you jackass: LOVE IT..well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 (edited) Interesting. According to the article, with 53% of its weight up front, the Mustang has a better weight distribution than the other two, at 55% each. Edited March 13, 2009 by Edstock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted March 13, 2009 Author Share Posted March 13, 2009 Interesting. According to the article, with 53% of its weight up front, the Mustang has a better weight distribution than the other two, at 55% each. Funny you mentioned that, as I was just digging around Road and Track for an 04-09 write up. Those MYs had 54% of the weight up front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 (edited) Wonder what 34 pounds worth of stuff got moved backwards.... Edited March 13, 2009 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Does the Mustang have an alloy hood? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Does the Mustang have an alloy hood? Yup, but the SN95 hoods were composite, so probably not much weight-saving there anyway. The slightest change of location of the wheels could account for the change from SN95 to S197 though. If I recall correctly, I believe the S197's front wheels are further forward than the SN95's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Yup, but the SN95 hoods were composite, so probably not much weight-saving there anyway. The slightest change of location of the wheels could account for the change from SN95 to S197 though. If I recall correctly, I believe the S197's front wheels are further forward than the SN95's. really...a longer wheelbase? overhangs look somewhat shorter but that may just be the stling....if the cars are weighed WITH driver...perhaps he just had REALLY long legs....LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefstang Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 They probibly lost the weight when they took the belt sander to the rear corners. Speaking of contriversial rear ends, did anyone else notice the similarities of the back of the Mustang and the new Taurus?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02MustangGT Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 (edited) They probibly lost the weight when they took the belt sander to the rear corners. Speaking of contriversial rear ends, did anyone else notice the similarities of the back of the Mustang and the new Taurus?? Yeah, and the creases on the sides of the car. Actually, I read an article, can't remember where, one of the Taurus designers said that were trying incorporate some of the Mustang into the new Taurus or something to the effect. I don't see a problem with either rear end, they look nothing like anything else on the road. Edited March 13, 2009 by 02MustangGT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Seems like they are more hung up by the actions of the Ford PR dept more then anything else..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syrtran Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Also, what gives with the author's assertion that the Nissan Z-cars were ever 'affordable'. This is the first generation about which that statement is remotely accurate. The Datsun Zs weren't cheap (at the time), and the Nissan 300ZXs were way more expensive than Mustangs. The early '70s Zs were priced between the MGB and the Corvette - $3500 - $4000. They were about the same price as a loaded Mach 1 (and not much more than the lowly X1/9). That sounds pretty affordable, considering they had handling like Jags and Masers. Try this on for size you jackass: They were pissed that Ford Marketing wouldn't let them do a head-to-head. You might've been, too, in the same situation, considering that the '10 is "the best Mustang ever." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 Speaking of controversial rear ends, did anyone else notice the similarities of the back of the Mustang and the new Taurus?? I was wondering when somebody else would notice that. I like them both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 The early '70s Zs were priced between the MGB and the Corvette - $3500 - $4000. They were about the same price as a loaded Mach 1 (and not much more than the lowly X1/9). That sounds pretty affordable, considering they had handling like Jags and Masers. Fffft. Whenever you follow "affordable" with "considering" what you're saying is, "it's wasn't that affordable" They were pissed that Ford Marketing wouldn't let them do a head-to-head. You might've been, too, in the same situation, considering that the '10 is "the best Mustang ever." Frankly, they deserve to be jerked around by Ford. What have they done to merit any kind of favorable treatment by Ford? They've crapped on just about everything Ford has done for years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 f they placed the battery in the trunk of the Mustang, it would even help a bit more with weight distribution. Interestingly they didn't inherit that from DEW98. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syrtran Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 (edited) Fffft. Whenever you follow "affordable" with "considering" what you're saying is, "it's wasn't that affordable" In 1970, a Pinto was $2000. A Mustang 6 was around $2800. The Mach 1 was about $3200. The Boss 302 was over $3500. LTDs were near $4K. A Thunderbird would set you back $5K. Lincolns could be had over $6K. A (base - good luck getting one) $3500 Z that drove like $10,000 sports cars was affordable - and was touted that way by the magazines back then. Do you consider the current Mustang GT to be affordable? Note that the base price is more than a well-equipped Fusion. Frankly, they deserve to be jerked around by Ford. What have they done to merit any kind of favorable treatment by Ford? They've crapped on just about everything Ford has done for years. We're talking about a magazine that reviews cars for the general public. They aren't supposed to be trying to get favorable treatment. Otherwise, they'd be guilty of the bias you are implying they have. In a marketing department, it's natural that you'd only want favorable reviews from a magazine, but jerk them around and that's going to be less likely. Reviewers are just normal people with normal egos, after all. Luckily, they only rag on Ford's PR people in the article. They only have good things to say about the Mustang. BTW, in the April issue, Ford only has a 1-page ad for the F150, while Hyundai has a 2-page spread for the Genesis Coupe. Make of that what you will. Edited March 14, 2009 by syrtran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 14, 2009 Share Posted March 14, 2009 In 1970, a Pinto was $2000. A Mustang 6 was around $2800. The Mach 1 was about $3200. The Boss 302 was over $3500. LTDs were near $4K. A Thunderbird would set you back $5K. Lincolns could be had over $6K. A (base - good luck getting one) $3500 Z that drove like $10,000 sports cars was affordable - and was touted that way by the magazines back then. Do you consider the current Mustang GT to be affordable? Note that the base price is more than a well-equipped Fusion. We're talking about a magazine that reviews cars for the general public. They aren't supposed to be trying to get favorable treatment. Otherwise, they'd be guilty of the bias you are implying they have. In a marketing department, it's natural that you'd only want favorable reviews from a magazine, but jerk them around and that's going to be less likely. Reviewers are just normal people with normal egos, after all. Luckily, they only rag on Ford's PR people in the article. They only have good things to say about the Mustang. BTW, in the April issue, Ford only has a 1-page ad for the F150, while Hyundai has a 2-page spread for the Genesis Coupe. Make of that what you will. 1) How much was the Mustang V8? 2) Actually, we're talking about a magazine that extorts advertising commitments in return for favorable editorial treatment (COTY award). Some magazines may be unbiased and genuinely interested in providing an objective and common sense review of cars, but Motor Trend is certainly not one of them. Also, I've never seen a car company allow its 'exclusive first test' to be a comparison test. 3) It's been my experience that reviewers are not people with normal egos. 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.