Mustangs................

[syr74]

Originally Posted by levi1922

in his defense, i did read something, somewhere, on a magazine, a longg time ago, about the mustang needing more structural reinforcements. i cannot cite a source for this right now, i will look though.

I appreciate the thought out response, but to be honest, if it isn't Ford saying that the Mustang needs reinforcement then it doesn't mean anything. The only three bodies in any position to know whether the Mustang would need structural reinforcements are Ford, the IIHS, and the NHTSA since they are the only three bodies testing these cars. If Mustang barely passed the current test then it might be obvious, but since Mustang breezes through we are in a position where the oonly golks who could possibly know this are those three bodies.

Honestly, I think the Mustang needing new structural reinforcement for side impact is a rumor that was spawned from GM's explanations regarding why the Camaro weighs so much.

[meanmike]

Originally Posted by syr74

I appreciate the thought out response, but to be honest, if it isn't Ford saying that the Mustang needs reinforcement then it doesn't mean anything. The only three bodies in any position to know whether the Mustang would need structural reinforcements are Ford, the IIHS, and the NHTSA since they are the only three bodies testing these cars. If Mustang barely passed the current test then it might be obvious, but since Mustang breezes through we are in a position where the oonly golks who could possibly know this are those three bodies.

Honestly, I think the Mustang needing new structural reinforcement for side impact is a rumor that was spawned from GM's explanations regarding why the Camaro weighs so much.

Honestly I thought the extra weight was so it would have a 5 star crash rating. I guess they missed the mark on that one though.

[Black5thgen]

Originally Posted by syr74

Wow, side headbags weigh 250lb? By those standards if you took all the airbags out of the Mustang GT it would weigh about 2500lb.

Since according to you all the mustang needs is airbags and I believe it will gain 250lbs. then each airbag must weigh 125lbs. I guess we'll have to wait and see. I'm sure you'll be right, you seem to have all the answers.

[syr74]

Originally Posted by Black5thgen

Since according to you all the mustang needs is airbags and I believe it will gain 250lbs. then each airbag must weigh 125lbs. I guess we'll have to wait and see. I'm sure you'll be right, you seem to have all the answers.

This is what drives me crazy. If you think the Camaro is better I have no issue with that. If you think the Camaro will still outperform the 2011 Mustang when the 5.0L shows up I take no issue with that, opinions make the world go 'round. That said, bring me something more than simple rhetoric to make your case. Care about your opinion enough to make certain that it is a credible opinion.

As for me having all the answers, I learned something from this since I didn't know the Mustang only got four stars for the rear side impact rating, likely because it simply isn't a very broadly publicized rating. Will it still pass under the new regs? Maybe, but it would likely do so poorly that Ford would never let it slide by so yeah, we are getting head bags for the rear seat passengers.

The more we all know about our cars the more we'll enjoy them, and the more we'll enjoy the rivalry.

[Black5thgen]

Originally Posted by syr74

The more we all know about our cars the more we'll enjoy them, and the more we'll enjoy the rivalry.

I'll agree with that and agree to disagree.

[fazm]

Originally Posted by S8ER01Z

13.1 really? Pretty sure this was just drug up on mustangforums and it was a 13.3 (Evan Smith went 13.3 @ 103mph, and GeneK busted out a 13.3 @ 104mph) ... there is a 13.2 pass with no slip or anything else out there but I've never heard of a 13.1 pass before. Do you have any proof?

i remember it being brought up a while back, i thought there was a 13.19 stock.

if not my bad.

but even at 13.3 to 12.8 thats .5 not .8

not bad for 126 horsepower deficit

is the camaro faster? absolutely. trap speed alone shows that

[derklug]

CAFE will determine the new muscle car wars, but it is good to have them back for now. As a side note, the best car I ever owned as far as reliability was a 92 Tempo. I prayed that it would quit so I could justify buying a new car.

[latinoslife]

no way 315 that how much the gts have

[ArcAngel]

Originally Posted by latinoslife

no way 315 that how much the gts have

Bro where you been the 2011 GT's will have 400HP/400TQ

[latinoslife]

ooh idk about the 2011 gts lol im saying the current gts but if thats true then damn chevy got it in the ass w no lube lol

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by syr74

I appreciate the thought out response, but to be honest, if it isn't Ford saying that the Mustang needs reinforcement then it doesn't mean anything. The only three bodies in any position to know whether the Mustang would need structural reinforcements are Ford, the IIHS, and the NHTSA since they are the only three bodies testing these cars. If Mustang barely passed the current test then it might be obvious, but since Mustang breezes through we are in a position where the oonly golks who could possibly know this are those three bodies.

Honestly, I think the Mustang needing new structural reinforcement for side impact is a rumor that was spawned from GM's explanations regarding why the Camaro weighs so much.

I'm surprised you make that argument considering all you know about the new Mustang is conjecture and rumor. How about we stop calling each other out and just get back to facts:

Camaro > Mustang.

[fdjizm]

Originally Posted by JewelZ

haha, sounds good now. We will see the price and actual production model's numbers. With the price difference alone it won't be worth it. Not to mention the styling and appearance between the two its almost a joke. The Camaro is killing now, and will remain killing the Mustang. Even if they do get the power in production models what about the most important thing to the average consumer, the Fuel Economy! You really think a 3.7l will get 29+ mpg vs. the 3.6l direct injection! I doubt it, highly! So nothing to be intimidated about. There was no use of even posting this. So what if they do succeed? With the price difference in a 35k+ v6 Mustang and my amazing 33k after t ,t ,and l 2LT/RS/AUTO 2010 Camaro I will just add a few mods like a CAI for the. remaining price difference and outsource the Rustang!!! I will end up with better performance and better fuel econ than Ford could ever give me for the price of their piece of crap!

breathe bro, breathe.

[fdjizm]

Originally Posted by CamaroFemme

If at all possible, I will never own a Ford. The reason is simple: in my experience, and the experience of everyone I know, Ford autos simply don't hold up as well over time. A Ford was the worst car my mother ever drove. My own first car, an '80 Camaro, went 180,000 miles. I take excellent care of my cars and keep them until they're about 15 years old. Longevity might not be a problem if you only keep your cars 5 years, but to me, it's a big deal. Even IF the next Mustang is a little faster, it doesn't beat Camaro in overall long-term quality, and certainly doesn't beat it in looks.

I'll be sticking with the Camaro.

lets just make pretend you didn't just say anything about build quality ok sunshine

[Stew]

Originally Posted by 2010-1SS-IBM

I'm surprised you make that argument considering all you know about the new Mustang is conjecture and rumor. How about we stop calling each other out and just get back to opinions:

In my opinion Camaro > Mustang.

Fixed