SVX Network Forums Live Chat! SVX or Subaru Links Old Lockers Photo Post How-To Documents Message Archive SVX Shop Search |
IRC users: |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
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 . |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Shadow it's hard for me to picture you defending the rustang, when you own one of the sweetest rustang killers ever made.
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
I thought the WS-6 upgrade also had some suspension tuning. You sure you have a solid rear axel?
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
- Jim |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
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.
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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. Considering the significant extra weight the Charger had behind it, it's no suprise it faired better. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|