ccap41

Not if the updated 5.0 is still in progress.. Won't argue that I think every Mustang fan alive is disappointed that it gained weight but everybody knows there are economics that are involved and it always involves give and take and something had to give. Weight. Weight stuck around..

There's a pretty big number comparison that you just "conveniently" left out and that's the difference in figure-8 times. 25.0 for the '13 and 24.4 for the '16. That is a very good indication of how much the handling has improved over the previous generation."It's not just about straight-line performance and highway pulls anymore. Muscle cars have entered the era of handling." "If you're searching for every last tenth of an advantage on paper, you may find something that's faster than the 2016 Ford Mustang GT. Maybe something cheaper. But if you enjoy the experience as much as the performance, the Mustang GT is the whole package, with an exhaust that's muscular when exercised, a controlled ride, and an interior you don't have to make excuses for." I'd be a lot more interested in that quote if:-I didn't know the Mustang lost its first comparo to the Camaro already-in the same publication that wrote this, -the interior they're praising was being compared to the Zeta Camaro (a '15), not the Alpha. The Camaro is just too strong. Why are you assuming that quote was directed at the previous generation Camaro not the one they just had a comparison with, the '16? I don't see they would compare it to a car not in production when they have a '16 Camaro with them when this was written. I haven't gotten to read a comparion yet(not going to read pictures somebody posted), on what grounds did the mustang lose? I'm not trying to justify that the Mustang is a better car all around or this or that but you're the only person who is attempting to make the Mustang look bad. The writers all like it. Is it the quickest? Nope. Is it BAD? Nope. Is it a car that was VASTLY improved upon from its previous generation? Yup. Yes, this is the same publication that just rang up a loss for the Mustang to the Camaro. Doesn't that tell you something? Like..maybe..it isn't a POS like you try really hard to make it out to be? IRS does more than just improve handling. It improves the entire ride. If the '14's rode anything like my Mustangs with their SRA they were super choppy over any rough pavement, even in a straight line. Yes, you can tune IRS to do A LOT more. But it is more than just race car-like handling that can be had from IRS. Daily drivability can be made from IRS. Look what the Camaro did with their setup! They transformed a barge into a jet ski over the years with that last generation. They kept tweaking the system because it is so much more flexible.

There's a pretty big number comparison that you just "conveniently" left out and that's the difference in figure-8 times. 25.0 for the '13 and 24.4 for the '16. That is a very good indication of how much the handling has improved over the previous generation. "It's not just about straight-line performance and highway pulls anymore. Muscle cars have entered the era of handling." "If you're searching for every last tenth of an advantage on paper, you may find something that's faster than the 2016 Ford Mustang GT. Maybe something cheaper. But if you enjoy the experience as much as the performance, the Mustang GT is the whole package, with an exhaust that's muscular when exercised, a controlled ride, and an interior you don't have to make excuses for."

Is it easier to do though? I would safely assume it is more difficult to extract 10/10ths out of a quicker car than a slower car, right? So while it definitely has the ability to be quicker it is a safe assumption that it is tougher to do, because it is quicker. I mean anything over 300hp involves a lot of driver skill, if you have a manual and all the sissy nannies turned off. That actually makes me curious. I wonder which car performs "better" with all the nannies turned on? Which electronic system is "better" or "quicker" or more adaptable?

I could never imagine spending 47k on a mustsng GT, nor a Camaro SS. SRT challenger? It just feels more right. The other two feel like they should just cost less, and they can be had for less(I know this). I don't understand all of the bashing as if anybody could drive either of these cars to 10/10ths. They made an overall better vehicle, period. Slower by a tenth or two? Apparently. But overall it's been improved by way more than those 2/10ths. And while the worst defense of a vehicle or..anything.. Is the "wait till XX comes out" but I don't think Ford will just sit back and allow the Camaro to dominate it performance-wise. I don't think they're going to just go nuts with an update but I see something like they did in '10-'11 and it was kind of a "wait and react" kind of approach. Effective? I don't know. Smart? I don't know. But they've done t before in the Mustang and also the F150 so I wouldn't put it past them.

As they should be, imo.

There are actually two things I'd like for my Escape. I want a rear cargo cover and a spoiler. Yup, that sounded pretty "ricer". Go with me though.. The spoilers that a lot of the guys on the Escape forums have is just a simple one, nothing gaudy in any way. It will make the rear end look more "Edge"-like. Also, about half of CUVs have them anyway so 99.9% of people won't even notice it's there. Oh, downside? It's about $120. The cargo cover is more like $80ish, I believe. Like so.. And the cargo cover..

I'll second that. It's definitely like a top 3 Asian/tuner car that I've always wanted. Actually, Other than an STi I think it tops the list. I've just always loved them and I think their styling was well before its time when a lot of cars looked terrible, IMO. Nice pick blackviper!

What kind does it take?Edit: oops,sorry I responded before I refreshed the page from the day before.. But like those guys said, there don't be an issue as long as it meets the requirements. If it was an issue on that kind of thing there wouldn't be quick lube shops as people would only be able to go to dealers.

I think I know what you mean.. I'm going to take a whack at it! The first car that I really fell for that had me fall for cars was an '01 Bullitt. I had to have only been 16 at the time but there was one for sale and parked in a local grocery store parking lot. Well, a buddy of mine was like, "lets stop and look at that". Okay, we did. There was just something about the body lines and size and just everything about that car when I was up next to it actuall looking at it caught me. I think that 1997-2005 era of muscle cars where it was the end of the Fbody, End of the NewEdge Mustangs and the GTO was making a come back. Exactly like you said.. I was right around that 16 years old, starting to drive and appreciate cars more. A really good friend of mine's dad had a '97 Anniversary Z/28 like the one that is pictured. He bought aluminum wheels for it and kept the original white ones boxed up so they were in mint condition too. Well, here is my list..Not sure if this is supposed to be an era of cars or one car from said era. Ohhhh well!

Wow, that's a lot of segments to go through.. Some kind of confuse me a long the way like.. Linconln? I assume Lux? Or where does a CLA fall? I'll definitely have to go trough one of these.

You think ANY X3 buyer is worried about drag racing a mustang? You think that is even on their radar? At $54k, you're at Jeep Grand Cherokee Summit V8 pricing.... a vehicle just as fast, far more capable off-road, more luxurious, and roomier. If you spend $53k on a BMW X3, you just have to admit that you're only after the badge. You are the most clearly biased, arrogant, condescending, closed-minded admin I have ever seen. You ask if any X3 buyer is worried about drag racing, and then in the same post talk about a Grand Cherokee's off-road capability as if anybody actually exploits it. Unbelievable. Seriously? Drew? ..I'm not on all sorts of different forums but I feel like he is pretty fair and very, VERY rarely do I sense condescending-ness. If I do it is because the other poster is being a jack off and he's actually being polite about it. Guarantee there is a much larger % of people taking a Grand Cherokee off road than there are X3's at drag strips or racing anything, in general. Just say'n.

This $h! happens to me DAILY. On my way to work I pass a middle school and high school. Well there is a road that intersects the road I'm driving on which is about a half mile till the schools. VERY rarely do they actually get up to speed and 90% of the cars that pull out turn into the schools. I've passed cars there by just maintaining 55mph on a handful of occasions.

People buying CUVs aren't after the "drive of a BMW". 99% of people buying CUVs are after the roominess, larger-than-a-car, and...other things have nothing to do with what us entusiasts are after in a vehicle. So it might as well be a Ford Escape or Toyota Rav4 with an expensive badge to the customer. Those consumers probably don't even know which wheels are powered or by what engine if powering said weels(I4, V6, I6). I couldn't imagine spending 54k for something the same size(or very similar) as my Escape.Yes Yes Yes.. The interior is going to be a major step up from a Ford but 33k more than what I paid? Nope. For how the average CUV driver drives their CUV? Nope.

I read something like this at Motor Trend last night. Very intriguing.

Or....one could say that they are just too damn scary fast today. ...touche'...

It's just WAAAAAY to time intensive of work to try and real-world test everything. Plus, there would be no consistancy. Too many factors effect fuel mileage.

I'm more in the sound-snob bunch. Between sound and how the power actually feels while driving make a good engine to me. To what blackviper8891 said, the only real 4cyl that has sounded good to me is those flat 4's. Burble is about the best description to me, they burble with aftermarket exhaust. Now there are SOME 4cyls that don't sound bad but that doesn't mean they sound good. A lot of Ford's 4cyl that I've heard sound like crap to me. The new RS sounds pretty good though(from the one video I've hears/saw). But the high end 4cyl do tend to sound a little better, like the CLA AMG. That's another one that sounds pretty good..for a 4cyl.. Also, I'm completely in love with the 4.6 in the Mustangs. Be it 2, 3, or 4V they all souns wonderful to my hears. Yet, none of them really have a lot of the low end, daily driving balls that I prefer in an engine. My current 2.0T doesn't have the top end but plenty of low end tq that I use on a dialy basis. I love the powerband in my 2.0T. As for displacement.. the number shouldn't mean anything if it isn't delievered correctly. For me, I want a lot of low end and mid range. Rarely is my foot on the floor for anything I'm driving daily. So, for instance, if I had some beefy 454 under the hood but(go with me here) it revved like the new 5.2 Ford and had nothing below 3200rpm..then I don't care for it nearly as much as a little 2000cc producing instant torque at 1500rpm. But sound-wise.. V8 no doubt about it.

Ya know, I always assumed we were the same age, but I didn't actually have proof until now. I'll race your stock fox body in my stock Monte Carlo SS! Both are slower than 4-cylinder family cars now... Haha I always had the feeling too. I think it was your tech-ness and taste in other things portrayed somebody roughly the same age as myself. I didn't know it was actually late 80's thought. Decent years..lol Oh jeez. It's amazing how quick average cars have gotten. I mean our average cars would make those pretty sweet 80's cars look stupid.. and we don't drive anything extragagant. They were just damn slow back then! lol

Trains can and do stall if they're overloaded heading up a grade. The metal shavings make me think it could be wheel spin, but I have also seen similar things happening due to overloaded/overheating/failing traction motors that heat up the rail to the point where is melts. I did an image search and found this caption that went with the picture: The photo shows what happens when a train with multiple engines has the brakes applied, but one engine does not get a signal to shut down. Thanks for finding more info on that. I completely forgot after balthazar said that to look into it later. Whatever it was it must have been an intense situation. Even if it was "just" wheelspin.. if a train can't get up a hill I have ot believe that gets pretty scary.

Well, I'm with the OP on 1988. Personally, I've almost always hated 80's and 90's cars. Nothing really appealed to me until the latter half of the 90's. But this is actually a thing I've thought a lot about because my friends and I have asked eachother this before at work while wasting time(when we used to work together). We always thought it'd be cool to own something from the year we were born. But late 80's?!?! Eh. Not a huge fan of anything from then. I've always just been like.. I'd buy a Fox Bodied Mustang.. Which in the "real world" I still would. A CLEAN Fox is gorgeous...but most aren't clean.. I wouldn't even make it all stupid fast like they are capable of. I would just make it look extremely clean and original with a few minor mods to make it not slow lol. Well today.. I looked up 1988 a little more and came across a GEM. I never knew this was built in 1988 and I still could never own one but in this case.. 1988 Ferrari F40. You have a FANTASTIC year for cars!

lol of course it doesn't get the benefit of the doubt from you! YOU'RE A GM FANBOY! lol well the GT350 isn't the one with the Sport Cup 2's. The R is.

Happens to me all the time. Ive gotten many speeding tickets this way in which I just mash the peddle to get away from them as Im soooo bloody disgusted and mad and I dont want to be road ragin' because If I keep seeing them whether in front of me, beside me or in my rear view mirror, Id be ragin' and low and behold, a speed trap further down the highway...and if they would just be in the correct bloody lane to begin with...Id also be in the correct lane, yes left lane for me and right lane for them, Id be going the bloody speed limit to begin with therefore NO SPEEDING TICKET!!!! IM GLAD THAT IN CERTAIN STATES and in ONTARIO, they actually give tickets to people that are in the left lane but NOT going the maximum speed limit or passing anybody...but not in Quebec though....Quebec likes to be backwards! Washington state just passed a law that says you cannot be in the left lane if you are going more than 10mph below the posted speed limit. I am hoping this gets many scared drivers out of the left lane where they do not belong. That is great. There is a probem in Quebec though. We have a minimum and a maximum. 60 KM/H minimum and 100 KM/H maximum. Therefore technically, rolling 60 KM/H in the left lane is permitted. Some politicians want to do away with that minimum and maximum stuff though. And they are trying to make some sort of logical speed to be in the left lane....they are calling it the passing lane...but no speed requirement is acknowledged, only that you must pass vehicles on the left. And where the speed limit maximum is 70 KM/H, the roads are usually small and tight so going more than that you are really endangering yourself. Isn't that $h! just so stupid frustrating?!?! I'm glad it isn't just me that notices it, but I'm not glad that you've gotten ticketed for trying to avoid it..that's some crap luck right there. Sorry brother.. Illinois has a law where you're ONLY supposed to be in the left lane while passing and I think for a maximum of like a half mile but it isn't enforced. That is also only on interstates..my morning situation was simple 2 lane road with traffic going in both directions. I really like that idea of a minimum in each lane but I think that could get sketchy to enforce. The tools to measure speed better be damn accurate(to pinpoint which lane the driver is in) otherwise lawyers would have a hay-day with that.

So what are your opinions on the Z/28 then? If your only measurement to say it isn't worth the money is two straight line acceleration tests then that is why I refered to you as those two ignorant/oblivious fanboys because you're sounding like one.. You know damn well that car is made for way more than 0-100mph runs, like the Z/28(which is why I brought it up).