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

[lil_chef]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

The advancements in metallurgy isn't all that recent. Aluminum and high-strength steel has been around for a very long time...the issue has always been, and is still, cost. The price hike involved with doing something like that isn't "minor" at all. We're talking in the multiple thousands of dollars. And on $20,000-$30,000 cars, that's a huge amount of money just to save 200 lbs (on average)......which is 90% of the reason these techniques are not being implemented on a larger scale.

As for decreasing the size of a vehicle...I think we're seeing that, generally-speaking. For all the talk about how "big" the Camaro is...it's shorter in length than a 4thgen...and only about 2 inches taller (to facilitate a better seating position). It's also no bigger than a 2005-present Mustang. Same goes for the Corvette (shorter than the C5 -- and the C7 is rumored to be shorter than the C6)...same goes for the new Cruze (shorter by a bit than the Cobalt), etc. The trouble with this theory is, however -- all this saftey, refinement, etc takes up space...and so to compensate for the space taken up in the interiors of cars, it's easy to just bump the body panels out an inch...

Again -- weight is bad, I agree...but there are reasons behind it...none of which are inherently 'bad'.

by recent i meant around 10 years. I agree that for most cars the price increase is not worth having the slightly less weight which is why these metals are only implemented into luxury/sports/exotic cars.
i would like to say i dont plan on having an aluminum structured mustang/camaro any time soon. however science may adapt in such a way that may allow the production of these metals to become cheaper.

Re-reading your post ive come to the conclusion we are thinking the same thing but wording our thoughts differently.

weight=bad. but the reason the extra weight is there=good.

[All-Or-Nothing]

Originally Posted by syr74

Plug and play IRS is still in a very fluid state....may or may not happen prior to IRS being adopted across the lineup although it is likely.

I think making it an option initially is the best plan of attack

[All-Or-Nothing]

Originally Posted by Supercamaro64

haha thts funny. the current V8 stang only gets like 10 more than wat "they say" the V6 will get. ill believe it wen i see it.

Have you looked at the specs for your Berlinetta......here you go

The 1986 Berlinetta was powered by a 2.8-liter V-6 engine rated at 112 horsepower or the four-barrel carburetor 155-horsepower 5-liter V-8 engine generating 245 lb.-feet of torque.




Now that's funny

[Supercamaro64]

Originally Posted by All-Or-Nothing

Have you looked at the specs for your Berlinetta......here you go

The 1986 Berlinetta was powered by a 2.8-liter V-6 engine rated at 112 horsepower or the four-barrel carburetor 155-horsepower 5-liter V-8 engine generating 245 lb.-feet of torque.




Now that's funny

your hilarious. see at least i kno tht i got a low-end model. im not saying anything about my car (altho i did swap in a 396 into my car so anyone who thinks they kno somethin will get a nice slap to the face) but these guys who r getting the stang gt think their getting a nice car. which is funny. and at least i dont drive som Fd up BMW pile. just sayin.

ps. and the 2.8 got 135 HP and the 5.0 got 180. idk where u got ur info from, but u mite wanna check it again

[All-Or-Nothing]

Originally Posted by Supercamaro64

your hilarious. see at least i kno tht i got a low-end model. im not saying anything about my car (altho i did swap in a 396 into my car so anyone who thinks they kno somethin will get a nice slap to the face) but these guys who r getting the stang gt think their getting a nice car. which is funny. and at least i dont drive som Fd up BMW pile. just sayin.

The GT is a nice car. It's won almost all comparison tests it has been in so somebody thinks so. More horsepower does not mean better, only faster. And in the case of the Camaro only in a straight line.

The BMW jokes don't work on me but anger will make a person resort to name calling. Are you mad???

[meanmike]

Originally Posted by Supercamaro64

but these guys who r getting the stang gt think their getting a nice car.

I dont think I got a nice car, I know I got a nice car.

[MontyCarlo]

Originally Posted by All-Or-Nothing

The GT is a nice car. It's won almost all comparison tests it has been in so somebody thinks so. More horsepower does not mean better, only faster. And in the case of the Camaro only in a straight line.

The BMW jokes don't work on me but anger will make a person resort to name calling. Are you mad???

Not when the comparison is against a Camaro. The GT is consistently a close second in those.

[S8ER01Z]

Originally Posted by All-Or-Nothing

. More horsepower does not mean better, only faster.

No...more horsepower doesn't automatically mean faster. Too many variables exist to make a statment like that. If that was true I would be faster than most of the cars on this boad when I'm driving a firetruck.

[All-Or-Nothing]

Originally Posted by MontyCarlo

Not when the comparison is against a Camaro. The GT is consistently a close second in those.

Hmmm.....the GT won this one with the Camaro

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...tang_gt_page_4

[All-Or-Nothing]

Originally Posted by S8ER01Z

No...more horsepower doesn't automatically mean faster. Too many variables exist to make a statment like that. If that was true I would be faster than most of the cars on this boad when I'm driving a firetruck.

Well yeah it sounds clever when you don't quote my whole statement. I was referencing the Mustang and Camaro. It wasn't a blanket statement.

[S8ER01Z]

Originally Posted by All-Or-Nothing

Well yeah it sounds clever when you don't quote my whole statement. I was referencing the Mustang and Camaro. It wasn't a blanket statement.

Point stands... and it was taken in context... both vehicles are not identical in everyway so it is a blanket statement. A 350hp Mustang GT will be just as fast as a 425hp Camaro SS. You can't simply look at horsepower numbers and declare a winner here.

[syr74]

Originally Posted by MontyCarlo

Not when the comparison is against a Camaro. The GT is consistently a close second in those.

Actually, Camaro and Mustang have both won their fair share. For example, Mustang came out ahead in both the Automobile magazine comparison and the Car and Driver comparison when compared to Camaro.

[MontyCarlo]

Originally Posted by syr74

Actually, Camaro and Mustang have both won their fair share. For example, Mustang came out ahead in both the Automobile magazine comparison and the Car and Driver comparison when compared to Camaro.

Motor Trend, Edmunds, Popular Mechanics and MSN Auto (the 4 comparisons we've got linked in the forum sticky) put the Camaro ahead.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by S8ER01Z

Point stands... and it was taken in context... both vehicles are not identical in everyway so it is a blanket statement. A 350hp Mustang GT will be just as fast as a 425hp Camaro SS. You can't simply look at horsepower numbers and declare a winner here.

Exactly! I hate how people go "well the Camaro has 100 more horsepower". Well the mustang weighs a lot less than the Camaro. That's why you can't compare specs in a fair arguement!