Author Topic: OT: Ford tech joyrides in customer's SVT... (Read 931 times)

Birddogg · « **Reply #15 on:** October 01, 2002, 12:29:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Er, was a 2001 (last year) model. ANyway, interior wasn't a deciding factor,(though it *was* one of the many decisions factored in) handling was, and the BMW blew it away in cornering, my wife could even tell the significant difference.

The HP was the only thing significant that got a grin on my face, then I came to my senses, and knew I needed something more than just a straight-away sled. [/QUOTE

I agree with ya on the handling part, only a minor problem as there are so many parts available, mine is glued on the road now, it knocks your teeth out when you go over the bump, but hey if ya want it to handle you gotta sacrafice some comfort.

Heres how my baby looks like (less the rear wing, and black interior)

http://www.cobrajg.com/pics.html

Today teenagers drive mustangs, in 1940s they flew them

Ripsnort · « **Reply #16 on:** October 01, 2002, 12:32:10 PM »

Looks sweet Birddog! They still "catch my eye" when I pass them on the freeway...and to think I would have payed $3000 grand less if I'd gone with the SVT!

Dowding · « **Reply #17 on:** October 01, 2002, 04:08:53 PM »

What's so good about them? They don't have the delicious styling of the 60s models and they are out-performed and handled by most of the Japanese performance cars.

Given the choice of a classic Mustang coupe or a Cobra, the former would win everytime.

Although, in actual fact, fuel prices over here would mean I would buy an Impreza or Evo.

Sticks to the road like month old roadkill.

By the way, do you have hedge-hogs in the US?

Birddogg · « **Reply #18 on:** October 01, 2002, 04:44:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
What's so good about them? They don't have the delicious styling of the 60s models and they are out-performed and handled by most of the Japanese performance cars.

By the way, do you have hedge-hogs in the US?

Delicious styling of the 60s? 60s stangs are butt ugly ugly!!!

Imoports?? is that something to eat??? i dont understand..but really find me an import that is faster then a stang yet cost about the same (in the US). If you think mustangs are outperformed by most european cars you're wrong. Handling aint worldclass but its not that bad as some people think.

1999+ Mustang GT V8 SOHC 260HP. high 13s low 14s. very easy to reach with minor mods. $19-20KUS

2001 Mustang Cobra 4.6L DOHC NA 320HP , mid 13s in 1/4 mile $23 000

2003 Mustang Cobra 4.6L DOHC supercharged 400HP $31,000US find me import that can beat it (factory stock, similar price range). 1/4mile = mid to high 12s on stock tires, 11sec on slicks and some minor tuning.

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #19 on:** October 01, 2002, 04:48:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Birddogg

Delicious styling of the 60s? 60s stangs are butt ugly ugly!!!

The '65 Fastback is one of the most beautiful cars ever made. Its perhaps the best blend of muscle and styling I've ever seen.

AKDejaVu

Dowding · « **Reply #20 on:** October 01, 2002, 04:51:02 PM »

Ok. Let's start talking the same language - I'm more used to 0- 60 mph stats. What do you have for that?

Handling is everything in a car. Take it onto the track (which is where you're going to get the most enjoyment, IMO) and see how it does.

You see, I think our difference in taste comes down, not to cars, but to the conditions they are driven in. Frankly, straights a boring - narrow twisty roads rule.

I don't own anything special, but I have driven a friend's 355 BHP Mitsubishi Evo VII around a track and on an airfield. That's 355 BHP on a chassis that was light to start with, and then was lightened.

In terms of cost though, I know he paid £27,000 for it to be imported into the UK.

Birddogg · « **Reply #21 on:** October 01, 2002, 04:53:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Looks sweet Birddog! They still "catch my eye" when I pass them on the freeway...and to think I would have payed $3000 grand less if I'd gone with the SVT!

Zim zimma who got the keys to ma bimma!!

BMW was a good choice rip, great overall package, good handling, power, room,component quality etc. Nothing beats german engeneering, thats why i like to fly 109s and 190s

Birddogg · « **Reply #22 on:** October 01, 2002, 05:15:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
Ok. Let's start talking the same language - I'm more used to 0- 60 mph stats. What do you have for that?

Handling is everything in a car. Take it onto the track (which is where you're going to get the most enjoyment, IMO) and see how it does.

You see, I think our difference in taste comes down, not to cars, but to the conditions they are driven in. Frankly, straights a boring - narrow twisty roads rule.

I don't own anything special, but I have driven a friend's 355 BHP Mitsubishi Evo VII around a track and on an airfield. That's 355 BHP on a chassis that was light to start with, and then was lightened.

In terms of cost though, I know he paid £27,000 for it to be imported into the UK.

Stats:

2001 Mustang SVT 4.6L 320HP 0-60= 5.6 sec
2003 Mustang SVT 4.6L 400hp 0-60= not sure, i guess 5.0
more info you can find here
http://www.svtperformance.com
http://www.blueovalnews.com
http://www.corral.net

Oh i agree with you that twisty and narrow roads are fun,so is drag racing. But in last few years ford has somewhat improved handling aspects of mustangs, especially Cobras that now have independent rear suspension and better shocks and springs, its not as bad as many people think. Its all about compromise, you cant have confortable car that handles well. Its either one or the other, or trying forever to find the balance of both. But like you said it all comes down to taste and evniroment cars are driven in, i dont care much about other cars when i like mustangs,which i think are well suited for North american roads . Even if stangs might have some technical flaws(all cars do) i still wouldnt consider anything else.

27,000 british pounds?? :ee: thats abour 55,000 US.. thats quite pricey, but hey EVO II is a much more refined car .

For that money i guess you could compare it to Limited Edition Mustang Cobra R (race version) with 5.4L engine around 400Hp/400 Tq or Corvette Z06 (what a car!!!!)

Birddogg · « **Reply #23 on:** October 01, 2002, 05:21:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKDejaVu
The '65 Fastback is one of the most beautiful cars ever made. Its perhaps the best blend of muscle and styling I've ever seen.

AKDejaVu

Really? i dont like them them that much, however I do like '70 mustangs, especially mach 1.
Btw. they are bringing out Ford Mustang Mach 1 again as 2003 model.

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #24 on:** October 01, 2002, 05:40:44 PM »

By Deja

Quote

The '65 Fastback is one of the most beautiful cars ever made. Its perhaps the best blend of muscle and styling I've ever seen.

I will agree it is a nice looking car, but I am pretty sure the only engine option was the 289, a good motor, but not really a big horsepower motor.

I think it was 67 when they got the 390(ok motor)

and 68 was the 428 cobrajet, my fav mustang is a 68 fastback 428, the car from bullitt was a 68 fast back, I am not sure the motor.

Why does everyone think the Camaro/Mustangs of today do not handle well? They are way better then the 60s. They are also way better then most of the front wheel drive imports...

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #25 on:** October 01, 2002, 07:03:06 PM »

Don't care about engine options... the statement was that they were ugly. They absolutely were not.

As far as Camaros and Mustangs go for handling... they may be better than they were, but they're not better than many performance imports. The State Patrol here got rid of their Mustangs because of extremely poor handling characteristics. They weren't the IRS cars, but the older Mustangs were notorious for their overstear. Camaros were better, but only by comparison.

AKDejaVu

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #26 on:** October 01, 2002, 07:27:47 PM »

Mustangs and Camaros are great 1/4 mile cars.. but thats about it IMHO. Ive seen both cars run at tracks... well, off tracks to be more accurate. They arent that impressive, even with an impressive driver behind the wheel. Body roll is comparable to a minivan and the weight distribution makes the car feel like your driving a 911 backwards. Gobs of tourque can only make up for so much weight, lack of brakes and poor suspension setup.

They dont "handle" that well at all compared to almost everything else out there. HP/TQ are only numbers and with a beast that weighs in like the Mustang or the Camaro does, your not going very far anyway.

The true modern American sports car has got to be the Z06, no contest.

Ill stick to my German cars however, thank you.

Where as an American designer would state "You want more power? Build a bigger engine!" Those bright European boys have figured out the "replacement for displacement" BOOST!!!!!! ARGH!!!

Birddogg · « **Reply #27 on:** October 02, 2002, 12:11:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Mustangs and Camaros are great 1/4 mile cars.. but thats about it IMHO. Ive seen both cars run at tracks... well, off tracks to be more accurate. They arent that impressive, even with an impressive driver behind the wheel. Body roll is comparable to a minivan and the weight distribution makes the car feel like your driving a 911 backwards. Gobs of tourque can only make up for so much weight, lack of brakes and poor suspension setup.

They dont "handle" that well at all compared to almost everything else out there. HP/TQ are only numbers and with a beast that weighs in like the Mustang or the Camaro does, your not going very far anyway.

The true modern American sports car has got to be the Z06, no contest.

Ill stick to my German cars however, thank you. Where as an American designer would state "You want more power? Build a bigger engine!" Those bright European boys have figured out the "replacement for displacement" BOOST!!!!! ARGH!!!

Mustang Cobras come with fully independent suspention, not solid rear like it was 10 years ago , its got weight distribution of 57/43. Lack of brakes?.... 13in brembo front and 11in rear brakes, i think thats plenty of stopping power. Gobs of torque??? not really, DOHC engine really starts to scream above 4000RPM (redline starts @ 7000), its pretty wimpy below that (helps alot with gas mileage if you keep it below 4000RPM. Newer model Cobras also have 6 speed transmission that can withstand lots of power (same as on Corvettes) Now, older pushrod 5.0L engines engines are torque monsters, where you'd get all the torque by 3000rpm and shift at 4900rpm. These cars really arent that bad as you think.
Boost is good on any engine(god bless), but nothing can replace cubic inches

, 2003 Cobra is just that.. 4.6L V8 DOHC supercharged that makes 400hp and 400lbs of torque, and thats with only 5-6 psi i think. It doesnt take much to bring it up to 500hp levels.

Dowding (Work) · « **Reply #28 on:** October 02, 2002, 02:43:40 AM »

When I'm talking about Performance Japanese cars, you'll find most of them are all wheel drive. Impreza, Evo and Skyline.

I agree completely, Birddog with the part about ride comfort and handling - it's always a compromise. My friends Evo feels like riding on a shovel.

But he had had it tuned for the race day (where you pay to put your car against similar machines in its class).

The 0 - 60 stats are interesting. I'll try and find out what my friend's does - but I'm pretty sure it's sub 5.5 s.

SaburoS · « **Reply #29 on:** October 02, 2002, 04:41:14 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sikboy
oh man that is a great thread... poor dude dropped his lil sausage on the table, and watched it get chopped off.

Look at me! Look at me! I'm big toejam! I Rule, you should see what I did! I'm the King of.... AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH

-Sikboy

ROFL!!!!