Why not Ford?
4th Gear Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,654
From: Philadelphia, PA
RE: Why not Ford?
ORIGINAL: sdsjr4
................. There are your periods.
The cobra is superchagered not n/a
I like the 99-04 bodystyle better. Actually, I like all of them except mid 70's. I don't know what they were thinkin there!!
Sorry darkhorse, I forgot one thing. What are you going to do when that Evolution blows by your *** as you go over 100 mph. You don't need any torque then....
................. There are your periods.
The cobra is superchagered not n/a
I like the 99-04 bodystyle better. Actually, I like all of them except mid 70's. I don't know what they were thinkin there!!
Sorry darkhorse, I forgot one thing. What are you going to do when that Evolution blows by your *** as you go over 100 mph. You don't need any torque then....
For the record, noone knows what they were thinking with the Mustang IIs except low gas consumption and light weight.
Torque is nice because I don't have to downshift when I want to blow by that Evolution. My powerband isn't so 'peaky'. In something like Autocross where you stay in the same gear the whole time, Torque makes a huge difference. Unfortunately, it's nothing compared to the Evos incredible handling abilities.
Thread Starter
1st Gear Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 143
From:
RE: Why not Ford?
Thanks for correcting my post and i didn't think of cobra R it was a great car.I also like the torque never really liked the ricers it's like they can buy the ground effects but cannot afford to get them painted around here. I love the cobras but i was talking about n/a stock cars.
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 527
From:
RE: Why not Ford?
Evolutions are good on the road course and 0-60 times are sweet but after they are moving they are not impressive. From a roll it is very easy to see that the AWD is eating some major HP.
Just to add to previous posts keep in mind that from 82-02 the F-Bodies weighed more too so they needed more engine to compete. In the mid 80's early 90's the 5.7 TPI and 5.0 TPI G92 was needed to keep on par with the 5.0 GT/LX. In 1993 GM got tired of playing second best and went with the LT1. The LT1 F-Bodies were high 13 to low 14 second cars. In 1998 GM pulled the ultimate card and went with the LS1 which put the F-Bodies in the very low 13's.
But all of the horsepower in the world wouldn't have saved the F-Body. The late WS6 had neat commercials but they still didn't market the F-Body worth a damn.
Just to add to previous posts keep in mind that from 82-02 the F-Bodies weighed more too so they needed more engine to compete. In the mid 80's early 90's the 5.7 TPI and 5.0 TPI G92 was needed to keep on par with the 5.0 GT/LX. In 1993 GM got tired of playing second best and went with the LT1. The LT1 F-Bodies were high 13 to low 14 second cars. In 1998 GM pulled the ultimate card and went with the LS1 which put the F-Bodies in the very low 13's.
But all of the horsepower in the world wouldn't have saved the F-Body. The late WS6 had neat commercials but they still didn't market the F-Body worth a damn.
Gentleman's Relish
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 13,189
From: AZ
RE: Why not Ford?
ORIGINAL: codyss
Evolutions are good on the road course and 0-60 times are sweet but after they are moving they are not impressive. From a roll it is very easy to see that the AWD is eating some major HP.
Just to add to previous posts keep in mind that from 82-02 the F-Bodies weighed more too so they needed more engine to compete. In the mid 80's early 90's the 5.7 TPI and 5.0 TPI G92 was needed to keep on par with the 5.0 GT/LX. In 1993 GM got tired of playing second best and went with the LT1. The LT1 F-Bodies were high 13 to low 14 second cars. In 1998 GM pulled the ultimate card and went with the LS1 which put the F-Bodies in the very low 13's.
But all of the horsepower in the world wouldn't have saved the F-Body. The late WS6 had neat commercials but they still didn't market the F-Body worth a damn.
Evolutions are good on the road course and 0-60 times are sweet but after they are moving they are not impressive. From a roll it is very easy to see that the AWD is eating some major HP.
Just to add to previous posts keep in mind that from 82-02 the F-Bodies weighed more too so they needed more engine to compete. In the mid 80's early 90's the 5.7 TPI and 5.0 TPI G92 was needed to keep on par with the 5.0 GT/LX. In 1993 GM got tired of playing second best and went with the LT1. The LT1 F-Bodies were high 13 to low 14 second cars. In 1998 GM pulled the ultimate card and went with the LS1 which put the F-Bodies in the very low 13's.
But all of the horsepower in the world wouldn't have saved the F-Body. The late WS6 had neat commercials but they still didn't market the F-Body worth a damn.
The other problem with the F-body was the fact it was a 'boat' a few people including yourself eluded to this by saying they weighed more. They were bricks and as such handled like it. Nimble was not in the vocabulary of GM engineers at the time. If someone wanted a car/truck that handled like the F-body they would buy an SUV. They just didn't listen to what their customers wanted (marketing).
The whole thing GM was stuck on was larger displacement for more HP (that typically added to the cars weight) and this for a while was the big seller (and true) since Ford's late 5.0 and early 4.6L engines were weak in hp per/Liter vs Chevy's 5.7 hp per/liter. Once Ford closed that gap in 99 GM didn't have a leg to stand on. That and the looks were way dated.
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 527
From:
RE: Why not Ford?
Actually the F-Bodies handled pretty good.
The low end models in the 80's and the Non-Y87 late model V6's were like Buicks. The IROC-Z's and 1991-1992 Z28's handled damn good. After 1993+ if a F-Body had a V8 it usually handled pretty good.
As for my Camaro SS I ordered it with the optional SLP/Bilstein suspension. This car handles awesome. My Cobalt SS is the only car I have owned so far that comes close.
The low end models in the 80's and the Non-Y87 late model V6's were like Buicks. The IROC-Z's and 1991-1992 Z28's handled damn good. After 1993+ if a F-Body had a V8 it usually handled pretty good.
As for my Camaro SS I ordered it with the optional SLP/Bilstein suspension. This car handles awesome. My Cobalt SS is the only car I have owned so far that comes close.
4th Gear Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,654
From: Philadelphia, PA
RE: Why not Ford?
Yeah, F-bodies came with a Torque Arm/Pan Hard Bar which certainly trumps our crappy 4 link. The problem with the F-body is that it's looks were dated and kinda gimmiky (appearance wise) for the time. The wedge look wasn't in style. They rattled and generally "felt" junkier than they were. Some sound deadening and chassis stiffening would have made a difference but the interior just felt "old". Imagine if an 02 GT had a 93 GT dash/interior... They were being sold at a time when GM was hitting a quality low for the other chevy/pontiac lines and they appealed to a much smaller portion of the population. The new-edge mustang is what really sealed it's fate. Even with the latest vette engine and a 6 speed transmission, the shell itself that needed changing.
Pro. B.S. caller outer
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 9,644
From: IL
RE: Why not Ford?
ORIGINAL: Derf00
OMG... good post.
The other problem with the F-body was the fact it was a 'boat' a few people including yourself eluded to this by saying they weighed more. They were bricks and as such handled like it. Nimble was not in the vocabulary of GM engineers at the time. If someone wanted a car/truck that handled like the F-body they would buy an SUV. They just didn't listen to what their customers wanted (marketing).
The whole thing GM was stuck on was larger displacement for more HP (that typically added to the cars weight) and this for a while was the big seller (and true) since Ford's late 5.0 and early 4.6L engines were weak in hp per/Liter vs Chevy's 5.7 hp per/liter. Once Ford closed that gap in 99 GM didn't have a leg to stand on. That and the looks were way dated.
ORIGINAL: codyss
Evolutions are good on the road course and 0-60 times are sweet but after they are moving they are not impressive. From a roll it is very easy to see that the AWD is eating some major HP.
Just to add to previous posts keep in mind that from 82-02 the F-Bodies weighed more too so they needed more engine to compete. In the mid 80's early 90's the 5.7 TPI and 5.0 TPI G92 was needed to keep on par with the 5.0 GT/LX. In 1993 GM got tired of playing second best and went with the LT1. The LT1 F-Bodies were high 13 to low 14 second cars. In 1998 GM pulled the ultimate card and went with the LS1 which put the F-Bodies in the very low 13's.
But all of the horsepower in the world wouldn't have saved the F-Body. The late WS6 had neat commercials but they still didn't market the F-Body worth a damn.
Evolutions are good on the road course and 0-60 times are sweet but after they are moving they are not impressive. From a roll it is very easy to see that the AWD is eating some major HP.
Just to add to previous posts keep in mind that from 82-02 the F-Bodies weighed more too so they needed more engine to compete. In the mid 80's early 90's the 5.7 TPI and 5.0 TPI G92 was needed to keep on par with the 5.0 GT/LX. In 1993 GM got tired of playing second best and went with the LT1. The LT1 F-Bodies were high 13 to low 14 second cars. In 1998 GM pulled the ultimate card and went with the LS1 which put the F-Bodies in the very low 13's.
But all of the horsepower in the world wouldn't have saved the F-Body. The late WS6 had neat commercials but they still didn't market the F-Body worth a damn.
The other problem with the F-body was the fact it was a 'boat' a few people including yourself eluded to this by saying they weighed more. They were bricks and as such handled like it. Nimble was not in the vocabulary of GM engineers at the time. If someone wanted a car/truck that handled like the F-body they would buy an SUV. They just didn't listen to what their customers wanted (marketing).
The whole thing GM was stuck on was larger displacement for more HP (that typically added to the cars weight) and this for a while was the big seller (and true) since Ford's late 5.0 and early 4.6L engines were weak in hp per/Liter vs Chevy's 5.7 hp per/liter. Once Ford closed that gap in 99 GM didn't have a leg to stand on. That and the looks were way dated.
ORIGINAL: Fallstar01
Yeah, F-bodies came with a Torque Arm/Pan Hard Bar which certainly trumps our crappy 4 link. The problem with the F-body is that it's looks were dated and kinda gimmiky (appearance wise) for the time. The wedge look wasn't in style. They rattled and generally "felt" junkier than they were. Some sound deadening and chassis stiffening would have made a difference but the interior just felt "old". Imagine if an 02 GT had a 93 GT dash/interior... They were being sold at a time when GM was hitting a quality low for the other chevy/pontiac lines and they appealed to a much smaller portion of the population. The new-edge mustang is what really sealed it's fate. Even with the latest vette engine and a 6 speed transmission, the shell itself that needed changing.
Yeah, F-bodies came with a Torque Arm/Pan Hard Bar which certainly trumps our crappy 4 link. The problem with the F-body is that it's looks were dated and kinda gimmiky (appearance wise) for the time. The wedge look wasn't in style. They rattled and generally "felt" junkier than they were. Some sound deadening and chassis stiffening would have made a difference but the interior just felt "old". Imagine if an 02 GT had a 93 GT dash/interior... They were being sold at a time when GM was hitting a quality low for the other chevy/pontiac lines and they appealed to a much smaller portion of the population. The new-edge mustang is what really sealed it's fate. Even with the latest vette engine and a 6 speed transmission, the shell itself that needed changing.
6th Gear Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 7,445
From:
RE: Why not Ford?
ORIGINAL: codyss
Actually the F-Bodies handled pretty good.
The low end models in the 80's and the Non-Y87 late model V6's were like Buicks. The IROC-Z's and 1991-1992 Z28's handled damn good. After 1993+ if a F-Body had a V8 it usually handled pretty good.
As for my Camaro SS I ordered it with the optional SLP/Bilstein suspension. This car handles awesome. My Cobalt SS is the only car I have owned so far that comes close.
Actually the F-Bodies handled pretty good.
The low end models in the 80's and the Non-Y87 late model V6's were like Buicks. The IROC-Z's and 1991-1992 Z28's handled damn good. After 1993+ if a F-Body had a V8 it usually handled pretty good.
As for my Camaro SS I ordered it with the optional SLP/Bilstein suspension. This car handles awesome. My Cobalt SS is the only car I have owned so far that comes close.
3rd Gear Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 850
From:
RE: Why not Ford?
sdsjr4
................. theres your periods
The cobra is superchagered not n/a
and i like the 99-04 bodystyle better actually i like all of them except mid 70's dont know what they were thinkin there!!
The only Cobras that are S/c are the 03/04's
im just trying to help
................. theres your periods
The cobra is superchagered not n/a
and i like the 99-04 bodystyle better actually i like all of them except mid 70's dont know what they were thinkin there!!
The only Cobras that are S/c are the 03/04's
im just trying to help