in case u ever wondered what the s/c cobras rwhp stock..

Discussion in '1994 - 1995 Specific Tech' started by Pokageek, Dec 1, 2008.

  1. Yep, this thread is getting out there by quite a bit and definitely isn't on topic with the original post, but so long as it isn't circular and remains civil I'm not going to lock it down. I'm a go with the flow kind of mod:nice:

  2. There really isn't anyway around that these days. I wouldn't say it's a shame, all cars are getting heavier to meet modern safety requirements. A Porcshe 911 weighs almost 3400lbs these days. But back to the SN-95, yes I think the extra weight is worth it. If I didn't I would have bought another Fox. If I was really concerned about the weight, I wouldn't have bought a Mustang. I would have dropped a V-8 in an RX-7. Well actually, I still want to do that, but you get my point.

  3. So you are really comparing a FR500 concept mustang that didnt do any durability testing or any other testing for that nature for Ford to prove it will work in thousands, if not millions, of cars to a powerplant that GM has used for how many years now? :shrug: i wanna see that cammer put in production vehicles and have it beat into the ground for 100,000miles by general consumers.....then we can really talk about possible engines they could use. What tricks did the engineers use to pass emissions? Simple cam design changes can get you to pass emissions. There's more to it than passing that.

    Im not taking anything away from what the 5.0Lcammer offered and offers to this day, but GM IMO has Ford beat N/A. And even if Ford did run the 5.0L....GM did it with .6L fewer liters right?

    What defines boring design? Lincolns new line up is far from boring. The mustang isnt boring IMO. The F150 isnt. The fusion isnt. I saw a picture of what was supposed to be the new taurus i think.....not boring. GM isnt boring. They are going after the aggressive look. Trends come and trends go.....but i dont think the trend now is for cars to be "boring".

    And GM, along with ford and chrysler, have a "reputation" for poor quality. But if you look at the numbers (kinda like i posted above that showed you caddy is ahead of lincon) Foreign companies no longer are ahead "quality" wise of the Big 3. They are actually all on a very fair playing ground when it comes to that. The only difference may be the used car market, the average buy of honda/toyota will probably be on top of oil changes/maintenance at 2,999.9 miles where as an owner of a grand prix for example might not give a whoot. Then you buy the grand prix and it breaks down at 75k. Regardless, when it comes to repairs and such, the big 3 are not behind anymore. Thats getting to be like the 347 burns more oil myth :D
  4. ha thanks chris :SNSign:

    This section has been slow so i think any conversation is good as long as it stays respectful.

  5. Im with you on that. I wouldnt trade my extra wait in a 95 for a fox any day of the year. Its a night and day difference between feel, quietness, etc between my car and a fox. As time goes on cars will get heavier until technology advances and we find ways to do it in a lighter way.
  6. I'm not sure how this really aids your point. The Mark VIII, Continental, LS, Blackwood and mid size SUV’s, etc sales had fallen off between the late-90’s and early/mid millennium, so Ford dropped the lines altogether to cut their losses and move on and concentrate with the large SUV, Luxury and Economy class models. It stands to reason that now with a smaller line up, there are going to be fewer total sales, but since the over all design, production and spending costs are down, they’re still turning a profit.

    Cadillac on the other hand dipped into GM’s pockets for an additional $4 billion of parent General Motors' money, which is another example of their reckless spending. They’ve done so to increase their model variations and unnecessary diversity of their line up (which has been the primary source of GM’s problems for years now), that has led the company into the financial disarray that its in today? Can you really not recognize that?

    What difference does it make that Cadillac has sold more over all units by comparison when they’re still not making enough money to cover their costs? Who cares which one of them makes more horsepower, or gets better gas mileage when 80% of them are still sitting on the dealership lots collecting snow?!?. GM is already treading water and sinking fast with their multi-billion dollar “revival” and increase model count of their line ups, while Ford chose a more conservative approach with theirs.

    Bottom line, is that when the line(s) fails (and it inevitably will with the current state of the economy and the rising fear of the general public to make big purchases) Ford can afford to take the minor hit on the high end stuff, because the lower end, more economically feasible vehicles are priced to move and are still selling well. GM on the other hand has invested so much time and money into the big projects and multi-brand line, unnecessarily large line-ups that any hit at all at this point will kill them!

    So great...they may win the Luxury automobile war. And all it cost them was everything? :shrug:
    Id say it's kind of lost its Tech appeal too (not that it really had much to begin with). :D

  7. Im not debating the success of each company. Your reply is venturing into yet another tangent of this thread. I agree on GM's failures, their debt, and poor decision making. They are in a worse state than Ford...but Ford isnt doing "well". Just "not as bad". From the numbers i saw this morning, its Fords trucks that are holding them up....surprisingly compared to toyota and GM.

    I said what i said because Caddilac as a company has sold more products than their rivals. You cant say that no engineering goes into that!!!!!!!!! Im not trying to argue business plans, profits, or whatever. Just the product that the company puts out. For instance, how does a towncar compete with a sts/dts? You can say that ford doesnt care about that market but thats not what i was arguing. I was simply saying the product is better on GM's side.

    Before the MKS, i would easily buy a caddy or a ford product.....if thats the type of car i was after. The MKS is a nice wouldnt be easy to pic one over the other without further inspection.

    Hope that clears up the point i was trying to make, GM can make good cars and good n/a motors. Are they good at strategizing and building a proper company structure? Nope. Good at choosing which battles to fight? Looks like they are picking too many to fight unlike ford who is more selective. BUT that doesnt take away from the fact of caddy's dominating lincolns competition on numbers IMHO

    ****Maybe this helps.....regardless of the success of the trans am.....and its many short comings. its still a great car and my favorite and i'll own one some day. Was GM smart about its strategy for it? Not really. Ford doesnt have 2 cars competing against itself. Are mustangs easier to work on? Cheaper? Yep. So whether or not Caddy was stupid to take 4 billion to reshape their products....their end result is better. We can go into the talk discussion to discuss failing strategies....but i feel like we'd all agree
  8. EASY! :) Just touch/tap the plastics on the vette. I will agree to disagree with you. And hey i like my humps on the db too! :SNSign:

    BTW my car has leather and u used a cloth respresentation.. not fair, lol.

  9. Mustang plastic is not at all better than the vette. Should a vette be better? Yes. But that doesnt make the mustang better.....
  10. I dont have the time to read the whole post but you make some good points and some I disagree with.

    Just the facts....The caddie was loaded BTW. One more time... THE PLASTICS ARE CHEAP REGARDLESS OF THE MODEL. FOR example, you know how the chevy center console lid is so weak it goes from side to side? My 94 doesn't do that! :nono:

    Vette parts are more expensive than any of our 94-95 stang parts. Sheesh a vette exhaust on my friends 04' is $3400 for a fairly decent one! :eek:

    $13,000 difference is penny pinching? :rlaugh:

    Number 5 I agree with...but I lightened my car by 200#. The vett's already trimmed down enough. :shrug:

    Number 6 I already addressed I hate chevy interirors and they are junk. My 0.

    Hey I like all you guys and you all have some great arguments. Ok? We just agree and disagree. I can understand how you like those chevy interiors but i will respect your opinion and leave it there. :cheers:
  11. I guess I may be ias to the price. For the price, its no better than a Malibu inside.
  12. I agree with you totally but for looks! Drive-train, you are right! BUT I would rather BUILD a 94-98 than buy a '03-'04 based on looks! I like the rounded-ness of our cars and think they are much better looking. The interiors are almost EXACT though which takes me back to my :dead: point that the interior must have been done right if they kept it that long! (almost exact)....Hmm, but I may also be bias to the mods I made to my interior..I am thinking basic construction materials..I will post a pic of mine.

    Last of all we all know its the INTErIOR of the mustang that makes it sooo fast!!!

    Attached Files:

  13. The vast majority of cars bought in the US are Accords, Civics, Camrys, Cobalts, etc etc. AKA boring cars.

  14. I paid $95/month for full coverage on my vette -- with two tickets on my record -- my mustang is more expensive :notnice:
    hell, my fiance's cavalier is double what my vette was
  15. Yeah Americans definitely like boring cars. 90% of what's out there is yawn inspiring and intentionally generic. Just like our politicians, everything is about trying to appeal to everyone and you end up with nothing.

    This is one of my hugest pet peeves, but the car companies are businesses and they need to sell to as many people as they possibly can to support themselves. They're so freaking huge that it's hard to roll things out that are truely special becuase it's just not a big enough money maker. I like that they keep interesting vehicles around, but I'm kind of suprised they even bother. I think they only keep them around as the flagship vehicles to push the sales of all the fodder. This isn't 100% true as most statements are not, as you DO see some interesting vehicles like the new Mustang that has massive sales by themselves. On the other hand a vast majority of those sales are the uninteresting V6s which still kind of validates my point.

    I think the consensus is skewed here since we're all car buffs. We don't think like everyone else. We want a car that looks cool, sounds cool, handles well and is fast. It's all or nothing. We probably make up less than 5% of the real market.

    I hate talking to people about cars becuase most of them would be fine with a Geo Metro or a Camry or Accord becuase they just can care less about their car. When you say that those cars are weak and very uncool, they think you're crazy and pigheaded becuase you are so interested in something completely uninportant: cars.
  16. Cars like the Corvette and the Ford GT are considered Halo cars. They are only there to sell more Fusions and Cobalts. They attract people to the dealer showroom. They aren't made to gererate a profit themselves.

  17. Good point. Put one outside and people come looking. All in all I like vette's but I'd still rather drive my stang - 94'. I am comparing it modded too..not all original. I would still rater have a cobra than a vette too regardless of cost. i just love the look on a vette drivers face when I blow them away in a Ford. Mainy its bec they bought a more expensive car that the think is king of the road. Same goes for racing a cobra tho and beating it in a 94' stang, lol. Its all relative.
  18. Found a copy of the Consumer Reports Car Issue for 09' in the airplane last week. I was just taking a peak in it. Guess what, just about every car Cadillac has made the worst list (Least Reliable, poorest customer satisfaction). So it's not just opinion that it's the worst car made in America, it's also statistical fact.

  19. I think when comparing our cars to vettes and terminators we have to keep it in perspective. Our GT's could have been had new for around 20k, maybe a little less. 03/04 Cobras were well over 30k new, and the vette was another 10k beyond that. Ours are great cars, sporty, reasonably quick when stock, and easy to work on. But a 94/95 is no 03/04 cobra, and certainly no c5 vette. I've had the privilege of driving a c5 on several occasions, and they are head and shoulders above any mustang ive ridden in or driven.
  20. Note quite sure I follow you here. The mustang had the better interior but thats it. Between 94-02 stock for stock the F-body absolutely dominated the mustang on the street and at the track. By the time ford could come up with a mustang that could compete it was a year after the F-body was discontinued.