The Subaru SVX World Network   SVX Network Forums
Live Chat!
SVX or Subaru Links
Old Lockers
Photo Post
How-To Documents
Message Archive
SVX Shop Search
IRC users:

Go Back   The Subaru SVX World Network > SVX Main Forums > Not Exactly SVX

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16  
Old 10-19-2004, 10:48 PM
Shadow248 Shadow248 is offline
Rep from the outside world
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Allentown, PA
Posts: 1,209
Send a message via AIM to Shadow248
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Pockets
My car, as you put it, was a fiasco for Subaru. They built a beautiful car nobody wanted. I may love the car, but since not many people agreed when it was on the showroom floor for $35k, it didn't sell. That's how it works.
We should agree on this then. I'm commending Ford for leaving the mainstream once and building a car the way it should be built. That's all.

Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Pockets
I'm not saying car manufacturers shouldn't take a risk once in awhile or make something off the wall. I'm saying don't chastise them for doing exactly what they exist for - making as much money as possible.
No chastising was done here. I commended Ford, i didn't "dis" any company in particular.

Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Pockets
Performance is more than horsepower. I'm not arguing with you, just reminding you. 500hp, great. But the ability to use that power for more than going in a straight line would really be something.
Performance is what makes a "sports car" great. Horsepower is what makes a "sports car" SELL great. Therefore, horsepower is what's important. I'm not saying it's right, i'm just saying that's how it is.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-20-2004, 06:52 AM
dcarrb dcarrb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: none
Posts: 3,430
Quote:
Originally posted by BoondockSVX
It's kinda funny because the Mustang is basically a ford falcon with a different body, and the falcon was the cheapest crappiest car ford made.
My dad happily drove a '61 Falcon for many years. Straight six, three on the tree, mud-grip rear tires, marvelous fuel economy, zero amenities. That car was an anvil on wheels.

The 60's Mustang was a sales success because it was an attractive, affordable automobile, built on an unremarkable-but-proven platform, marketed to younger buyers. I put over 200,000 virtually trouble free miles on a '68, and I doubt my experience was exceptional.

It's worth noting that a miniscule minority of buyers consider whether or not a given car can "drive circles around" another in his or her decision to choose a particular brand or model.

dcb
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-20-2004, 08:41 AM
Uncamitzi's Avatar
Uncamitzi Uncamitzi is offline
Member #447
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,902
Send a message via MSN to Uncamitzi Send a message via Yahoo to Uncamitzi Send a message via Skype™ to Uncamitzi
Registered SVX
Back in the early 80's my Dad drove a 63 Falcon as his business car... it went from Salt Lake to Denver and over to LA about 5 times a year... Near the end (for the car, not my dad) the steering was about gone( the damn car would only turn right... that's when I came up with the saying... "Two wrongs don't make a right... But three rights DO make a left... Think about it." ) and the tranny was about to go for the third and final time... But we still drove it one last time to Denver...ON US 40!!!
__________________
Mitch Hansen
"uncamitzi"
This is a Dark Ride
92 Teal SVX LS-L 128K tranny swap with 4.11's
Well.. my days of not taking you seriously have certainly come to a middle .
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-20-2004, 12:27 PM
Royal Tiger's Avatar
Royal Tiger Royal Tiger is offline
Certified Porschephile
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Lehigh Valley, PA
Posts: 2,452
Shadow it's hard for me to picture you defending the rustang, when you own one of the sweetest rustang killers ever made.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-20-2004, 12:35 PM
Shadow248 Shadow248 is offline
Rep from the outside world
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Allentown, PA
Posts: 1,209
Send a message via AIM to Shadow248
Quote:
Originally posted by PA_SVX
Shadow it's hard for me to picture you defending the rustang, when you own one of the sweetest rustang killers ever made.
Couldn't have put it better myself

Anyway, it's all relative. I still hate Mustangs. But what good is my car if it has no competition, right? Ford has been light years behind for a long time now, and i'm glad to see that they're making an attempt to get back in the game. Don't get me wrong, the new GTO will still wipe the floor with the new Mustang, but at least they're close to the same level now.

In fact, the new GTO will wreck Ford-lover's lives even with it's IRS. So on top of being faster, it will ride better. Not that it matters much to me, my T/A rides great IMO even with the "boat anchor". But I suppose it's great for bragging rights.

Last edited by Shadow248; 10-20-2004 at 12:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-20-2004, 04:49 PM
Royal Tiger's Avatar
Royal Tiger Royal Tiger is offline
Certified Porschephile
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Lehigh Valley, PA
Posts: 2,452
I thought the WS-6 upgrade also had some suspension tuning. You sure you have a solid rear axel?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-20-2004, 08:59 PM
Shadow248 Shadow248 is offline
Rep from the outside world
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Allentown, PA
Posts: 1,209
Send a message via AIM to Shadow248
Quote:
Originally posted by PA_SVX
I thought the WS-6 upgrade also had some suspension tuning. You sure you have a solid rear axel?
Yessir, I am 100%, totally positive I have a live axle rear. Unless maybe it's an IRS in live axle's clothing?

The car rides like it has a live rear, sounds like it has a live rear, and most importantly LAUNCHES like it has a live rear.

And yes, there are small differences in the WS6 suspension. The sway bars are upgraded to 38mm front and 28mm rear (from 28/25mm). For 1998 and older cars, the WS6 included performance tuned Bilstein struts...however in 1999 that became standard on all LS1 (TA, WS6, Z28, SS) cars. Probably the most notable difference in the handling area would be the tires...245's on TA's and 275's on WS6's.

There are a handful of very lucky WS6's out there that were ordered with the optional 1LE suspension ($2000 option). This included SLP tuned struts, with progressive rate springs giving the car a 1/2" lower ride height, 42mm front swaybar, adjustable Lower control arms, and a Strut tower brace. These cars pulled darn near 1g on the skidpad. But they are very rare.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-20-2004, 09:09 PM
BoondockSVX
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by dcarrb


My dad happily drove a '61 Falcon for many years. Straight six, three on the tree, mud-grip rear tires, marvelousbla bla bla bla bla bla

dcb
Where did I say the falcon was unreliable? Did I say that? Please find where I said that. Please. Because if I didn't, I think you're inferring things. All I'm saying is the falcon is a CHEAP car, and because of which, it was not very strong. Hence why pieces were falling off the mustang and why the thing basically had to be completely redone in order to even FILM the bullit scenes.

- Jim
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-21-2004, 06:19 AM
dcarrb dcarrb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: none
Posts: 3,430
Quote:
Originally posted by BoondockSVX
Where did I say the falcon was unreliable? Did I say that? Please find where I said that. Please.
Geez, man, chill-out.

You wrote "...cheapest, crappiest car Ford ever made." Least expensive at the time? No doubt. But "crappiest" would infer to most that it was of poor quality, and my (indirect) experience is that it was a tough, reliable little car. (But certainly not plush; ours didn't even have carpet.)

Granted, I never raced the streets of San Francisco (nor anywhere else) in my '68 Mustang, but I got many miles of outstanding service out of that car (much of which was rung-up in an insane, daily, zero-to-eighty-to-zero-repeat I-285 commute), and I don't remember anything falling-off. The C-4 automatic did give-up third in the low 100s, and I got a reman, installed, for a whopping $195. That was the only time I recall having to do without the old gal for a whole day.

And, as I wrote before, I doubt this experience is unique.

dcb
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-21-2004, 06:26 AM
BoondockSVX
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by dcarrb


Geez, man, chill-out.

You wrote "...cheapest, crappiest car Ford ever made." Least expensive at the time? No doubt. But "crappiest" would infer to most that it was of poor quality, and my (indirect) experience is that it was a tough, reliable little car. (But certainly not plush; ours didn't even have carpet.)

Granted, I never raced the streets of San Francisco (nor anywhere else) in my '68 Mustang, but I got many miles of outstanding service out of that car (much of which was rung-up in an insane, daily, zero-to-eighty-to-zero-repeat I-285 commute), and I don't remember anything falling-off. The C-4 automatic did give-up third in the low 100s, and I got a reman, installed, for a whopping $195. That was the only time I recall having to do without the old gal for a whole day.

And, as I wrote before, I doubt this experience is unique.

dcb
But it WAS the crappiest car they made at the time. The same could be said for the plymouth savoy, or the chevy whatever little econobox they had at the time. From a reliability perspective, who knows. Cars back then shared drivetrains so they're all pretty much the same. But sure, I'm glad you had basically trouble free time with her, and I doubt parts fell of it, but that's because you weren't JUMPING it. The falcon chassis is pretty weak in comparison to a big chrysler b-body like a charger/roadrunner etc. Check out the chase scene. You see pieces of the mustang literally rip off and slam into the ground when the car lands.

That's all I'm saying. If you had a great time with a falcon, great, but I'm pretty sure you weren't jumping the thing either.

- Jim
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-21-2004, 07:25 AM
dcarrb dcarrb is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: none
Posts: 3,430
Okay, so we'll disagree on the literal definition of a slang term.

A movie chase sequence is no way to quantify an assertion that one car is in any respect superior to another. The perceived ruggedness of the Chrysler platform you cited versus the '60-era Falcon/Mustang chassis is irrelevant in light of the numbers of Fords sold and still rolling. Obviously, they were rugged enough.

That said, I sure wouldn't mind having one of those old Dodge Chargers.

dcb
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-21-2004, 11:17 AM
Royal Tiger's Avatar
Royal Tiger Royal Tiger is offline
Certified Porschephile
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Lehigh Valley, PA
Posts: 2,452
I think the two of you are dancing around the same tree, just in different directions. ford made the rustang as light as it could (before the 71 monster barge, or was it 70) as the motors were not as good as Mopar and GM. The Mopars were notorously heavy and well built to stand up to the heavy engines and drivelines. The 727 Torqueflight behind a 426 Hemi is much stronger then a C4 equipped 428 SCJ. The Charger was also a heavy midsize car (B body) compared to the rustang. A Cuda/Challenger body was lighter then the Charger. It's like comparing a Camaro to a Chevelle/4-4-2/Gran Sport.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-21-2004, 02:51 PM
SHISVX SHISVX is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: converted to PA
Posts: 3,064
the new mustang is awesome...i got some pics in my locker from the car show in NY look under truck. the mustang will always be an awesome car...well, except the 4cyl ones..lol

Kelli
__________________
Previous owner of the
Princess Pearlie "Dimples"
as of 8/6/03
1992 LS-L Pearl 124k
"Yeah, that thingy!"
owner of the new 1992 LS-L Pearl "Susie"
I am a pessimistic optimistic. I think the worst is going to happen, that way when it does, i don't feel as bad, but if the best happens, i am twice as happy.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-21-2004, 08:02 PM
Shadow248 Shadow248 is offline
Rep from the outside world
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Allentown, PA
Posts: 1,209
Send a message via AIM to Shadow248
Quote:
Originally posted by PA_SVX
I think the two of you are dancing around the same tree, just in different directions. ford made the rustang as light as it could (before the 71 monster barge, or was it 70) as the motors were not as good as Mopar and GM. The Mopars were notorously heavy and well built to stand up to the heavy engines and drivelines. The 727 Torqueflight behind a 426 Hemi is much stronger then a C4 equipped 428 SCJ. The Charger was also a heavy midsize car (B body) compared to the rustang. A Cuda/Challenger body was lighter then the Charger. It's like comparing a Camaro to a Chevelle/4-4-2/Gran Sport.
Now that's a good point. If you are going to compare the mustang to any chrysler, it should be the Challenger. Even that's a tad bigger, but comparing the little mustang and even the camaro to a Charger? My god...the Charger was a concrete barge. It needed the Hemi just to move. The Camaro and Mustang were much smaller, lighter cars. Thus the reason they were produced with much smaller engines. They didn't need the insane power. However once they figured out that that insane power wasn't necessarily a bad thing, that's when life got good. Ever drive a Camaro with a 427? Or even better, the ZL-1 454? Those were machines that I don't think god accounted for when he created man.

Also I think it's weird no one mentioned this, but the cars in that movie were prepped for the chase scene. Both the charger and mustang were given heavy duty suspensions and tires to handle the landings and road imperfections. Considering the significant extra weight the Charger had behind it, it's no suprise it faired better.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-21-2004, 09:29 PM
BoondockSVX
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by Shadow248


Now that's a good point. If you are going to compare the mustang to any chrysler, it should be the Challenger. Even that's a tad bigger, but comparing the little mustang and even the camaro to a Charger? My god...the Charger was a concrete barge. It needed the Hemi just to move.
Okay this is total BS. First off, the charger weighed a bit over 4000lbs. Heavy by today's standards, sure, but when your beloved camaro weighs 3700lbs, it's really not ALL that heavy. Secondly, the charger (and all b bodies, roadrunners, gtx, superbee, satellite, etc) moved quite well even WITHOUT the hemi option. In fact, the hemi kinda sucked unless you were a hardcore drag racer. The 440 with dual quads was a pretty close race, and in 1970 with the introduction of the 'six pack' carb setup, it was just as fast as the hemi in the 1/4 with a lot less hassle (valve lashing, etc). Even the smaller big block, the 383, put out 330hp, which isn't too shabby. Sure, a charger with a 318 sucks, I'll give you that....


Quote:
Also I think it's weird no one mentioned this, but the cars in that movie were prepped for the chase scene. Both the charger and mustang were given heavy duty suspensions and tires to handle the landings and road imperfections.
Link here:

http://www.hottr6.com/triumph/BULLITT.html

Both cars had their underpinnings shot peened and magnafluxed, but the mustang had more than just a suspension. It had milled heads, a fancy aftermarket ignition, HEADERS, and a new performance holley carb. But guess what? Here's a quote:

"I'll tell you this," said Max Balchowsky, "I was really impressed with the Mustang after I got done with it. I didn't think it'd make that much difference beefing it up. Later, we took both cars out and went playing around with them over by Griffith Park (near Los Angeles). The Dodge, which was practically stock, just left the Mustang like you wouldn't believe." Ron Riner has similar recollections. "The Charger ran rings around the Mustang. We trimmed the tires down (on the Charger), we practically made them down to bicycle tires to try and handicap Hickman, and Bill just run them."

Quote:
Considering the significant extra weight the Charger had behind it, it's no suprise it faired better.
Actually the extra weight is a total handicap. If you're smashing down on some concrete after a jump, a lighter car will fair much better, because the heavier one will have a lot more momentum to bottom out and smash against the pavement.

Speaking of weight, you were referring to lighter cars like the camaro/mustang/challenger being faster than the big ones.... not always. Some of the big detroit iron with serious engines are REALLY fast, a lot faster than the same type of engine in a lighter car. Why? It's easier to make them 'hook up' at the strip.

Anyway, this has been a trip into my childhood, sorry for the long post. :P

- Jim
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2001-2015 SVX World Network
(208)-906-1122