47 Grand, 0-60 in 4.6: MT Tests Mustang GT PP

[El Kabong]

Link:

http://m.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/2016-ford-mustang-gt-first-test-review/

[El Kabong]

"The independent rear suspension setup definitely improves the car's handling, but the weight gain slows it down, and on the track there's more pitch and roll than we'd like. Looking back into the archives at a 2013 Ford Mustang GT with the Performance package we tested confirmed some suspicions: 0-60 mph in 4.4 seconds, quarter mile in 12.7 seconds at 111.9 mph, and a figure eight of 25.0 seconds at 0.77g average. Weight difference? 207 pounds per our scales in the old-timer's favor.

"If you lined up with an 'old' Mustang at your local drag strip (let's pretend it's stock, too) we're talking more than just a nose ahead. The older and lighter Mustang will be trying to show you some taillights. Just don't eat a big meal beforehand."

Well, it's official: Ford has developed a brand-new Zeta Camaro, only perhaps slower to 60.

This is why you let engineering do your product line, not marketing. Wowzers

[Suaviloquent]

Well, now it's a short wait to see how quickly the Camaro can put up some crooked sales numbers...

 

I think it's going to outsell the Mustang, if not at the outset, then definitely gradually over the course of both vehicle generations.

 

As for the Mustang, I think this will be the same platform atleast until D6 gets up and running in 2019. So four years. But it is hard to imagine that GM will really need to introduce a new platform for the next-next gen Camaro. They could easily reuse Alpha, make it even better and get good life out of it.

 

And that's a discussion that has to happen AFTER we get the 1LE replacement, ZL1 replacement, and a GT500 

[El Kabong]

Well, I will admit that Ford has the game rigged their way for potential sales. When your base model is geared to fleet sales then you have a decent shot at that title. Sad, but the Camry approach often works on that front.

But the lack of development on this car is astounding. I called them out for the live axle for years, but when they finally ditch it they wind up with a car that's SLOWER in a straight line?

C'mon. Ford would have been better off throwing some of those pre-tax profits into making this a fully-baked product.

Edited October 27, 2015 by El Kabong

[Suaviloquent]

I think it's just a case of holding back, err what's the right word. Right, bean counting. It works, sometimes really well. Either way, for a 50th anniversary, I wanted more. I think the GT350/R make up for the more, but the market has reacted well enough to this redesign. 

 

Maybe the global launch put a ton of constraints, and making a one-size fits all Mustang probably is what caused some reviewers to comment about it being a little too soft for a GT, and the I think it was Ford saying they tuned the car to attract European buyers as well.

 

I always thought they just took the S197 and just changed the front and rear suspension, not exactly at a shaving all the weight kind of approach but just a solid, somewhat (I can't find the exact word to describe the feeling) conventional approach for the Stang. Not really pushing the limits of the technology, just getting something done on time and on budget.

 

However, my subjective opinion of the styling, I think it's a gorgeous car, and it loses a lot of its musclecar look that I think the Challenger and Camaro still keep. It's more of just a coupe. Just another RWD coupe, leveraging its styling and then the legacy to great affect. Somewhere in there the whole performance message was drowned out, so yes, the marketing team got a win. The accountants were satisfied, and the product managers were told to wait for the next one.

 

It doesn't have the all the performance it should have to back the looks. I'm sure it's competent enough for the lay driver. But even more bloodlust? There's better cars for that purpose. 

[El Kabong]

Ford's strategy for this car is to move as many of them as they can because it's the only product using the platform. The fact that the product is constrained by price limits how much development they could put into it. And yes, I remember hearing that at least some of the hard points from the old S197 were carryover.

As far as Ford's position in the market and brand strategy goes, this is probably the best they can do in this segment and remain profitable. They are no longer interested in mainline V8 engines, they have little need for RWD, and they have no luxury brand to trickle tech down from.

The problem for Ford is that GM has all these things. And if the Giulia platform has legs, Mopar will in due course.

The previous Mustang was a result of laziness in developing product. This one is the result of limitations in what the company can realistically do.

[ccap41]

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.

[El Kabong]

It's not terribly difficult to learn to launch a car to 60. The Camaro SS will do this 6/10 faster than the Mustang GT PP.

That's a huge gap.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

MT sure gushed over how much better the GT is as a daily driving performance coupe.  But yeah, if shaving fractions of a second is your main focus, then buy the chevy and see how long you can live with it.

 

But why did MT have to bloat the Ford with nearly every option to have it gain nearly 100lbs, while keeping the chevy completely stripped?  This Ford already has a big power deficit, at least here. The Shelby owns the road for the foreseeable future.

 

Anyway, Ford seems to have figured out the recipe and sweet spot and is cashing in.  

[ccap41]

It's not terribly difficult to learn to launch a car to 60. The Camaro SS will do this 6/10 faster than the Mustang GT PP.

That's a huge gap.

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?

[ccap41]

"The independent rear suspension setup definitely improves the car's handling, but the weight gain slows it down, and on the track there's more pitch and roll than we'd like. Looking back into the archives at a 2013 Ford Mustang GT with the Performance package we tested confirmed some suspicions: 0-60 mph in 4.4 seconds, quarter mile in 12.7 seconds at 111.9 mph, and a figure eight of 25.0 seconds at 0.77g average. Weight difference? 207 pounds per our scales in the old-timer's favor.

"If you lined up with an 'old' Mustang at your local drag strip (let's pretend it's stock, too) we're talking more than just a nose ahead. The older and lighter Mustang will be trying to show you some taillights. Just don't eat a big meal beforehand."

Well, it's official: Ford has developed a brand-new Zeta Camaro, only perhaps slower to 60.

This is why you let engineering do your product line, not marketing. Wowzers

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."

[William Maley]

But why did MT have to bloat the Ford with nearly every option to have it gain nearly 100lbs, while keeping the chevy completely stripped?  This Ford already has a big power deficit, at least here. The Shelby owns the road for the foreseeable future.

 

Anyway, Ford seems to have figured out the recipe and sweet spot and is cashing in.  

I'm sure it wasn't Motor Trend's fault for getting a Mustang with every conceivable option to test. Here's the thing, when you're getting a vehicle from a manufacturer's test fleet, more likely than not it will be a fully loaded model. It's their way of making a good impression on you when evaluating a vehicle. Rarely do you get a vehicle that is either a base or a mid-level trim with a few options.

[El Kabong]

Ccap: I get that IRS improves handling. But who cares about handling if you lose acceleration?

Can't they do like Chevy did, and improve both?

Edited October 28, 2015 by El Kabong

[El Kabong]

"The independent rear suspension setup definitely improves the car's handling, but the weight gain slows it down, and on the track there's more pitch and roll than we'd like. Looking back into the archives at a 2013 Ford Mustang GT with the Performance package we tested confirmed some suspicions: 0-60 mph in 4.4 seconds, quarter mile in 12.7 seconds at 111.9 mph, and a figure eight of 25.0 seconds at 0.77g average. Weight difference? 207 pounds per our scales in the old-timer's favor.

"If you lined up with an 'old' Mustang at your local drag strip (let's pretend it's stock, too) we're talking more than just a nose ahead. The older and lighter Mustang will be trying to show you some taillights. Just don't eat a big meal beforehand."

Well, it's official: Ford has developed a brand-new Zeta Camaro, only perhaps slower to 60.

This is why you let engineering do your product line, not marketing. Wowzers

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.

Edited October 28, 2015 by El Kabong

[ccap41]

 

 

"The independent rear suspension setup definitely improves the car's handling, but the weight gain slows it down, and on the track there's more pitch and roll than we'd like. Looking back into the archives at a 2013 Ford Mustang GT with the Performance package we tested confirmed some suspicions: 0-60 mph in 4.4 seconds, quarter mile in 12.7 seconds at 111.9 mph, and a figure eight of 25.0 seconds at 0.77g average. Weight difference? 207 pounds per our scales in the old-timer's favor.

"If you lined up with an 'old' Mustang at your local drag strip (let's pretend it's stock, too) we're talking more than just a nose ahead. The older and lighter Mustang will be trying to show you some taillights. Just don't eat a big meal beforehand."

Well, it's official: Ford has developed a brand-new Zeta Camaro, only perhaps slower to 60.

This is why you let engineering do your product line, not marketing. Wowzers

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.

[ccap41]

Ccap: I get that IRS improves handling. But who cares about handling if you lose acceleration?

Can't they do like Chevy did, and improve both?

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..

[El Kabong]

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'm not assuming. Read the article. He straight-up says it: "Get in a fifth-generation Camaro (even the SS 1LE), and you're reminded constantly that you're sacrificing for performance. In the Mustang, not so." As for why he never used the '16 Camaro as a comparison point, I have a theory. It's called, because the comparo showed how dominant the Alpha Camaro is.

"I haven't gotten to read a comparion yet(not going to read pictures somebody posted), on what grounds did the mustang lose?"

 

All of them, pretty much. But you'll have to read the pictures to see.

"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."

-uh... Once again, read the pictures. And don't try to make me out to be the only guy taking potshots at the thing. The Interwebs are ablaze with scathing criticism. Styles and tone vary, but the general consensus is that Ford just got royally panted, with no real fix in sight.

[surreal1272]

 

 

"The independent rear suspension setup definitely improves the car's handling, but the weight gain slows it down, and on the track there's more pitch and roll than we'd like. Looking back into the archives at a 2013 Ford Mustang GT with the Performance package we tested confirmed some suspicions: 0-60 mph in 4.4 seconds, quarter mile in 12.7 seconds at 111.9 mph, and a figure eight of 25.0 seconds at 0.77g average. Weight difference? 207 pounds per our scales in the old-timer's favor.

"If you lined up with an 'old' Mustang at your local drag strip (let's pretend it's stock, too) we're talking more than just a nose ahead. The older and lighter Mustang will be trying to show you some taillights. Just don't eat a big meal beforehand."

Well, it's official: Ford has developed a brand-new Zeta Camaro, only perhaps slower to 60.

This is why you let engineering do your product line, not marketing. Wowzers

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.

 

That article was very half baked. Bringing up the interior of a car no longer in production was just pointless. Compare it to the 2016 to achieve some relevance next time.

[El Kabong]

Ccap: I get that IRS improves handling. But who cares about handling if you lose acceleration?

Can't they do like Chevy did, and improve both?

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..

But once again you're proving my point. GM was able to do a new chassis AND engine all at once. Why not Ford?

The answer is that GM has the bigger toolbox, and the fire in the belly. Ford does not.

[surreal1272]

 

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'm not assuming. Read the article. He straight-up says it: "Get in a fifth-generation Camaro (even the SS 1LE), and you're reminded constantly that you're sacrificing for performance. In the Mustang, not so." As for why he never used the '16 Camaro as a comparison point, I have a theory. It's called, because the comparo showed how dominant the Alpha Camaro is.

"I haven't gotten to read a comparion yet(not going to read pictures somebody posted), on what grounds did the mustang lose?"

 

All of them, pretty much. But you'll have to read the pictures to see.

"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."

-uh... Once again, read the pictures. And don't try to make me out to be the only guy taking potshots at the thing. The Interwebs are ablaze with scathing criticism. Styles and tone vary, but the general consensus is that Ford just got royally panted, with no real fix in sight.

 

Literally from that article (since some did not bother to read it before commenting).

 

"The interior is nice, too. Get in a fifth-generation Camaro (even the SS 1LE), and you're reminded constantly that you're sacrificing for performance."

 

It was a stupid comparison to make with the 2016 coming out and the 2015 no longer in production.

[surreal1272]

MT sure gushed over how much better the GT is as a daily driving performance coupe.  But yeah, if shaving fractions of a second is your main focus, then buy the chevy and see how long you can live with it.

 

But why did MT have to bloat the Ford with nearly every option to have it gain nearly 100lbs, while keeping the chevy completely stripped?  This Ford already has a big power deficit, at least here. The Shelby owns the road for the foreseeable future.

 

Anyway, Ford seems to have figured out the recipe and sweet spot and is cashing in.  

That "completely" stripped Camaro has more standard options than the Mustang. 

[surreal1272]

Nothing flies like a Mustang people!

https://www.yahoo.com/autos/owner-hears-kaboom-finds-a-ford-mustang-on-roof-014428551.html

 

Just trying to lighten the mood btw

[ccap41]

 

 

Ccap: I get that IRS improves handling. But who cares about handling if you lose acceleration?

Can't they do like Chevy did, and improve both?

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..

But once again you're proving my point. GM was able to do a new chassis AND engine all at once. Why not Ford?

The answer is that GM has the bigger toolbox, and the fire in the belly. Ford does not.

 

The didn't produce that engine FOR the Camaro though. They produced it for the Vette's release and it carried down to the Camaro. Obviously Ford doesn't have that luxury of having a Vette-like car to trickle things down from..they just have Lincoln..lol. So, it has its own product cycle to work through.  GM definitely does have the larger toolbox, I won't argue that.

 

You are absolutely correct about the 5th gen comparison. Stupid.  My apologies.

[surreal1272]

 

 

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'm not assuming. Read the article. He straight-up says it: "Get in a fifth-generation Camaro (even the SS 1LE), and you're reminded constantly that you're sacrificing for performance. In the Mustang, not so." As for why he never used the '16 Camaro as a comparison point, I have a theory. It's called, because the comparo showed how dominant the Alpha Camaro is.

"I haven't gotten to read a comparion yet(not going to read pictures somebody posted), on what grounds did the mustang lose?"

 

All of them, pretty much. But you'll have to read the pictures to see.

"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."

-uh... Once again, read the pictures. And don't try to make me out to be the only guy taking potshots at the thing. The Interwebs are ablaze with scathing criticism. Styles and tone vary, but the general consensus is that Ford just got royally panted, with no real fix in sight.

 

Literally from that article (since some did not bother to read it before commenting).

 

"The interior is nice, too. Get in a fifth-generation Camaro (even the SS 1LE), and you're reminded constantly that you're sacrificing for performance."

 

It was a stupid comparison to make with the 2016 coming out and the 2015 no longer in production.

 

And again someone down votes the facts.

 

Fact is that right now, while the Mustang GT is a good car and serves it's purpose well, it falls short in the performance department against a now much leaner and meaner Camaro SS. Neither will have a problem selling in big numbers though and it's a great time to be a fan of these cars.

Edited October 28, 2015 by surreal1272

[ccap41]

I highly doubt it was for the "facts". It was probably for the condesending tone. "Literally from that article (since some did not bother to read it before commenting)."

Edited October 28, 2015 by ccap41

[surreal1272]

For me, I would still prefer a Challenger for the simple fact that is has the same amount of front cabin space as my Magnum (a big plus for me). I'm not a big guy but at 5'10" and 215 lbs. with a bad back, the Stang and Camaro would not do me any favors in the overall driving comfort department. 

 

Still, it's a great time to be a fan of cars while they are still able to put out performance models like these two, CAFE be damned.

[El Kabong]

I am aware that some folks are using the S550 to have a bit of fun at the expense of Ford trolls. I've taken a peek in over at MT and what some folks are posting over at Mustang6. Frankly, they all deserve it, and it was fun reading.

But even approaching the situation with a dispassionate eye, you just knew that Ford was going to wind up having to de-emphasize affordable performance with this car, because it is so completely at odds with the two guiding principles they have been using to guide the company: One Ford and EcoBoost. The question is whether or not you feel that they are doing the right thing by doing so. Personally, I don't. Think about it: this car doesn't perform as well as he Camaro. Ok, so it's going to be a kind of Grand Tourer then, right? Well, maybe... but I'd take those claims a lot more seriously if they were to put it up against, say, a Scat Pack Challenger. If any pony car is going to be a GT, it's going to be the one with the roomier interior, complete with Italian flair.

And yes, the Mustang will sell well. Ford will continue to be aggressive about pricing, and life will go on. But it won't go on as well as it could have.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

mmmmmmmmm

 

ahhhhhhhhhhhh

 

That's what I would be thinking as I drive this daily.

[Drew Dowdell]

 

 

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'm not assuming. Read the article. He straight-up says it: "Get in a fifth-generation Camaro (even the SS 1LE), and you're reminded constantly that you're sacrificing for performance. In the Mustang, not so." As for why he never used the '16 Camaro as a comparison point, I have a theory. It's called, because the comparo showed how dominant the Alpha Camaro is.

"I haven't gotten to read a comparion yet(not going to read pictures somebody posted), on what grounds did the mustang lose?"

 

All of them, pretty much. But you'll have to read the pictures to see.

"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."

-uh... Once again, read the pictures. And don't try to make me out to be the only guy taking potshots at the thing. The Interwebs are ablaze with scathing criticism. Styles and tone vary, but the general consensus is that Ford just got royally panted, with no real fix in sight.

 

Literally from that article (since some did not bother to read it before commenting).

 

"The interior is nice, too. Get in a fifth-generation Camaro (even the SS 1LE), and you're reminded constantly that you're sacrificing for performance."

 

It was a stupid comparison to make with the 2016 coming out and the 2015 no longer in production.

 

 

I'm in the minority in that I've never felt like driving the Camaro was a sacrifice. I'm not a performance car kinda guy.... preferring cars with air springs to tough handling... but I've done multiple long distance trips in the 5th-Gen and it was perfectly comfortable for the 2 of us.   Note: I'm not making a comment about the Mustang with this statement.... only the Camaro. 

[El Kabong]

I OWNED a Zeta Camaro for three years. It was a great car. Full disclosure: I did get the interior pimped out pretty good. But still.

As far as oohing and aaaahing as you drive a '16 Mustang: great. So why do you own an old Mopar? I don't get folks who don't walk the talk.

Edited October 29, 2015 by El Kabong

[Drew Dowdell]

I OWNED a Zeta Camaro for three years. It was a great car. Full disclosure: I did get the interior pimped out pretty good. But still.

As far as oohing and aaaahing as you drive a '16 Mustang: great. So why do you own an old Mopar? I don't get folks who don't walk the talk.

 

Why can't people like more than one thing?  I'm an Oldsmobile guy, but my secret love is the old Eagle Talon.

[El Kabong]

Then why not buy the Talon?

[Drew Dowdell]

Then why not buy the Talon?

 

Storage, I don't want to get divorced before I get married, I have other things I need to save/spend my money on right now, the next purchase is a 3-row crossover to replace the CR-V.

 

But if you're buying..... I could probably find a place to hide it.

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

Nice to see things cleaned up a bit.

 

Anyway, regarding classics.....yeah, I have had several from several brands.  Wife loves our current one, so I have to play along somewhat.  Otherwise it becomes all about ME.  As it SHOULD!!!

 

lol

[El Kabong]

Sorry guys. But if you like something and you have the means...

Again: if I root for one brand all the time and I don't own stuff from that brand? Massive cred hit. That's why I laugh when I get called a GM fanboi. I buy what I like. Conversely, I do not buy what I don't like. Life's too short for that crap.

Edited October 29, 2015 by El Kabong

[Guest Wings4Life(BANNED)]

When I lock the doors at night, and everyone is home, I have 2 GM, 2 Ford and 1 mopar vehicle on my property.

 

I am about as well balanced as one could be.

[El Kabong]

When I lock the doors at night, and everyone is home, I have 2 GM, 2 Ford and 1 mopar vehicle on my property.

I am about as well balanced as one could be.

So why do you go all Ford fanatical everywhere else?

Edited October 29, 2015 by Drew Dowdell

[Drew Dowdell]

Keep it nice....

 

 

I have the means, I don't have the place to keep them and I have other needs that come first..... also, it costs a LOT of money to keep C&G going.  I could have a new car AND storage for my old car next month if I pulled the plug here.

 

But I kinda like this site.

[El Kabong]

Keep it nice....

 

 

I have the means, I don't have the place to keep them and I have other needs that come first..... also, it costs a LOT of money to keep C&G going.  I could have a new car AND storage for my old car next month if I pulled the plug here.

 

But I kinda like this site.

Fair enough.

...I'm still a bit baffled about why you edited my previous post. I was being sincere-why would someone post stuff that doesn't jive with their real-life circumstances?

[surreal1272]

 

I OWNED a Zeta Camaro for three years. It was a great car. Full disclosure: I did get the interior pimped out pretty good. But still.

As far as oohing and aaaahing as you drive a '16 Mustang: great. So why do you own an old Mopar? I don't get folks who don't walk the talk.

 

Why can't people like more than one thing?  I'm an Oldsmobile guy, but my secret love is the old Eagle Talon.

 

I had two '95 Talons (two separate times of course). They were both great cars.

[El Kabong]

Back when I was a starving student I had a chance at one for 10 grand. But ramen noodles and grunge CDs took precedence.

[Drew Dowdell]

I wanted one so bad when I was in college.  That's when they were brand new and well out of my price range.    Most examples today have been far too modified for my tastes.

[El Kabong]

They were pretty cool when they were in good running order.

[ccap41]

Sorry guys. But if you like something and you have the means...

Again: if I root for one brand all the time and I don't own stuff from that brand? Massive cred hit. That's why I laugh when I get called a GM fanboi. I buy what I like. Conversely, I do not buy what I don't like. Life's too short for that crap.

Do you have an order placed on this new Camaro..? You talk an awful lot about it..

[El Kabong]

I don't do advanced orders anymore. Did one for my Zeta, it was a real pain.

But I sleep with one of the girls who works in our local dealership, she's giving me the lowdown on when the first one shows up. That will be instructive.

[Drew Dowdell]

I don't do advanced orders anymore. Did one for my Zeta, it was a real pain.

But I sleep with one of the girls who works in our local dealership, she's giving me the lowdown on when the first one shows up. That will be instructive.

 

The things we do for cars.....

[El Kabong]

Are you referring to the advance ordering, or sleeping with the staff? I made an honest woman of her

Edited October 29, 2015 by El Kabong

[Drew Dowdell]

Are you referring to the advance ordering, or sleeping with the staff? I made an honest woman of her

 

Sleeping with the staff

[El Kabong]

She was a good sport about it

On a more serious note... advance orders are basically an admission that you're willing to pay sticker price for a car, possibly more. Also, if your car is a new intro like this one (or in my case, the Zeta), you're at the mercy of everybody-the plant scheduler, the dealership, the transporters, the vendor who does stuff like ground effects and striping... EVERYBODY. I actually had the weird privilege of sitting in my car in a shipping lot several weeks before I took delivery. I also had an email from an Oshawa Body Shop manager (who was a friend's dad) informing me of my scheduled build date and stuff. Fun paper trail... but aggravating.

Edited October 29, 2015 by El Kabong

[Frisky Dingo]

I will stay out of the debate as to which car is better and why.

 

I will however, say that after driving a '15 GT 6MT, I wasn't too impressed. The interior was pretty decent, the seats were great, but the drive left some to be desired, imo. Still rides poorly, still feels isolated, and the power is still it's strongest suit, even though it's not as quick as the old car. I expected more refinement and engagement out of the car, honestly. For all the talk Ford did about this car being as good as the outgoing Boss, I can tell you having driven my friend's many times for many miles, it is firmly behind it it the driving excitement department. The new Mustang GT feels to me like it should have in 2011. Just my .02.