05' Mustang vs 350Z

Discussion in '2005 - 2009 Specific Tech' started by coolmac, Oct 1, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. sixstring...look at where you are getting your info from....

    1) Your mom who I highly doubt could even figure out how to change a tire on a car much less knows the ins and outs of car manufacturing and quality controls.

    2) A dating website no doubt populated by people so inept at attracting a mate they shouldn't be worried about what kind of car they are drivng. They'd drive a **** box on wheels if they thought it would get the remote chance to procreate. Every time I hear some dumb ass yelling about don't buy Chevy or Ford because they are bottom feeders blah blah blah...and then hop their little happy asses in a Nissan or Subaru I can only laugh. I mean I could understand if these folks were sporting some high end cars or even driving the extremely reliable Toyotas but man it just gets to be beyond stupid at a point how brainwashed people have become.

    But I do so love this link when ever this arguement comes up especially when Nissan is being waved around....


    Look who is ranked higher....Ford not Nissan.
  2. It's kind of funny to see Mustangers get their noses out of shape. It's like somehow the Mustang and Ford are infallible. Remember, this is the company that gave the world the Edsel, the Pinto, and the Mustang II.

    Anyways, to the point at hand. While it's easy to dismiss cars like the 350Z, the Evo VIII, and the WRX, what seems to be missed by the folks on these boards is that these cars are the Mustang's direct competition (at least the new Charger comes out).

    Having driven the 350Z (and it's luxo-cousin the G35 Coupe),the Evo, and the WRX, I can understand why these cars have such a devoted following. Frankly, if I could have, I would have dropped my 2000 GT for the 350Z. But I'm a devoted Mustang fan, so I stuck it out with the wandering rear end, the cramping legs after 1 hour of driving, and all the various squeaks and thumps.

    I'll eventually drive the 05, and who knows, it may impress me. I'll reserve judgement til then.
  3. Actually it's kind of funny that people would mention the mustang II as part of some fallibility of Ford's. When you look at the sales numbers for that car. For example it's worst year still sold over 153K units. And it's best year was almost 386k units. And since it's worst year beat the sales for the 1999 model year 133k. I'm thinking that if you want to call it a failure. You would also have to say the 1999 model year was a failure. Just because people do not like it's styling does not mean it is a failure. While I don't think it is the best looking of the mustangs. The evidence certainly makes it clear that it was not a failure.
  4. I go to the track quite often and have yet to see a stock 350Z or G35 go faster than 14.8. Mustang GTs are more in the 14.6 range with a competent driver. I saw a 16 second G35 coupe.
  5. If it is just about speed those cars are a good bet. but If you love cars, you have to hate these things. As a hotrodder the four door used to be moms grocery getter now turned into a sports car does not turn me on at all. my HAIRY ASS LOOKS BETTER THAN THE EVO. The lancer is one of the worst looking things i have seen. Hell the edsel looks better. best hotrod of all time is the 32 ford.

  6. From Edmunds:

    Length: 169.4 in. Width: 71.5 in.
    Height: 52.3 in. Wheel Base: 104.3 in.
    Curb Weight: 3428 lbs. Gross Weight: 4133 lbs

    Looks like the difference is only 22lbs. And that is the weight for a heavier automatic GT, the weight I have posted for a 'Z' is for the lighter manual.
    I like the older Z cars - the Datsun ones. The new ones look like a flattened and stretched VW Beetle.

    Oh yeah, while the new Stang used regular unleaded, please factor in the cost for PREMIUM fuel for the 'Z'. I don't know what kind of a difference that is for you, but up here that means 40 cents more per gallon of gas - or $6 more per little tank full of gas. The Mustang even gets better gas milage!

  7. The guys at Motor Trend said the only Mustang they ever tested that handled better was the Cobra R. I'd say that is pretty impressive - since the 'R' was conceived as a road race car.
  8. They pulled .84 on the skidpad and 66.1 mph in the slalom as is. Whats even more impressive is that it did it on 235/50 series all season tires with a solid axle. Im not saying the stang is the best handling car but put some decent tires on it 255/40 front, 275/35 rears and lower it as most guys will do then i should pick up even more. Its such a huge improvement over the current car.

    Thats faster through the slalom than
    ANY GTO by 3 mph
    the base subaru WRX
    Dead on with the 350 z conv but behind the track edition
    .04 mph behing the "Tuned" VW R32
    Mini cooper
    Audi TT
    Any Acura, Volvo, Toyota.

  9. Well...time to get with the times...bcause the Evo's, the WRX's, the Civics etc...they are today's hot rod's.

    What kids are doing with those cars today is what our parents did with T-buckets and Deuces. It's what we did with 5.0 Liter LX's and Z-28's.

    Four doors or not, there are people out there buying these cars.
  10. I disagree, these kids are the mini truckers of today not the hot rodders. Too many of them do little more than stick crap on to the car. Mini trucks were the huge thing in the mid to late 1980's and early 1990's there were a bunch of magazines devoted to them and you would see about 100 a day. I cant remember the last time Ive seen a lowered S-10 or ranger around here and the only MINI only truck magazine that is carried at my local bookstore is mini truckin. They have been replaced by civics with fart cans.

    Those will be replaced in a few years by some new fad and only the hardcore people will still be into them just like mini trucks. Some will move on and grow up into other cars, still others will have families and min vans/suvs.
  11. A 18 sec car is not a hotrod.

    And no, they are not todays hot rods, I look around where I live, and considering this should be the place where ricing out cars probably originated from, they are still out numbered easily 2 to 1 from muscle cars and hotrods to riced out civics and evo's. Then again, I dont live very far from the hot rod capitol of the world, but still, what kind of car collector wants a Honda Civic?

    Talk is cheap, they have nothing to prove, except for that 2% of them, which actually spent money on their cars improving their performance.
  12. And I'm sure an original deuce with a factory flathead really burned up the quarter.
  13. Oh im sure you're gonna go to the quarter on a car putting out 65hp and 80tq :rolleyes:

    As the Guinness scientists would say: BRILLIANT!

    You're right, maybe you should stick to your Honda Civics.

  14. Wow...your grasp of obvious modern day commercials is just...BRILLIANT.

    My point was that the deuce wasn't a hot rod either. It's what people did to it in the 1950's that made it a hot-rod.

    It's the same thing that people are doing today with Civics.
  15. It's not the same thing, they are two totally different things. I honestly dont even think they should be compared with each other.

    What they are doing to civics is what they are stealing from everyone else, they have no originality at all, for the great majority of them, they are all show and no go, and even that is debatable. What our grandparents and parents did to Ford Model T's, Deuces and those cars, they did it for power and performance, they were the pioneer's of that generation of cars. They created a tradition that will be forever lived on, what has the ricers done?


  16. What's so different about what they're doing versus what our grandparents did? Taking a mundane run of the mill pedestrian vehicle and turning it into a real performer.

    So what if our parents started it (though it can't be argued otherwise), the current generation is only continuing the things that our our grandparents started.

    Just because you yourself don't like the cars doesn't invalidate what their doing or doesn't count as hot rodding. The basics are all the same.
  17. Thats exactly what they ARE NOT doing. That's the difference.

    They are not continuing anything. There is a very small group of them, who are infact doing what our grandparents and parents did in that generation, the people who are dumping 10k into a civic and actually making it fast, in just sole performance, those you can compare to what our grandparents are doing.

    Sorry but painting everything under the hood, slapping on a fart can (or performance muffler as they call it), neons under the body, a fat sound system and fiberglassed interior and then running a tenth slower than what the stock car would run is hardly hotrodding.
  18. You mean like stripping the fenders, throwing in some lake pipes, and slapping on some Halibrands. And how about a flame job to complete the look.
  19. Never seen one with flames, 50% of them never leave the primered stage.
  20. This reminds me of a show I was watching. Where "Hot Rodders" were saying they didn't think all the cosmetic things people did back then. Was really considered Hot Rodding a car. Which is what many of the people running civics are doing. They get lambo doors, fiberglass interior, Rollbars that aren't connected to anything, Fire extinquishers mounted to the plastic A-pillar pieces, Big wings, carbonfiber hoods. But yet don't spend much on performance. Other than a K&N and muffler. Yes some of the old hotrods were cosmetic. But many more actually took at least some performance gains to heart.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.