Mustang makes top three list of most hated cars on BMW M3 forum...

Discussion in '2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-' started by fryrice, Apr 24, 2005.

  1. Torque on all those cars listed except for the 'stang= not enough.
  2. Agreed! :flag:
  3. The Honda S2000 has probably the lowest torque of any performance motor yet this TRUE SPORTS CAR is a blast to drive and is damn quick. Torque is a US Mentality thing. Kinda like Capital Punishment. We are the ONLY "enlightened" country to still have the death penalty. The entire world has condemned Capital Punishment except for countries like Libya, Iran, Turkey etc. Same deal with Torque. We are the only country where Torque and HP are the primary selling points to cars. In Europe they look for refined handling, build quality, economy, etc. Don't get me wrong I love Torque and HP as much as anyone else but when I look at cars I could care less what it "does in the quarter mile" BIG DEAL. Any moron can make a fast car, it takes alot more than FAST to make a REAL car.
  4. Well theres one more thing you and I disagree on. So you dont think the guy in Florida who raped and murdered the little girl should die?
    Hey Excon what would happen if a childmolester was let into mainline population at the last facility you served time in? Also did you get your "Education" while serving time I here they have great G.E.D. courses.
    The only thing wrong with our Capitol Punishment system is it does't move quickly enough. How many appeals should these guys get? How many appeals did their Victims get? And I would like to see lap times for your True Sports Car Vs. a weak car such as an 05 GT mustang.

  5. i know where you're coming from, but quite frankly you're on STANGNET.COM, not M3BOARDS or anything, for you to spew off all of this is just not gonna get much support around here, i my self am a Ford guy till the end, but that doesnt mean i go around saying anything else sucks. the fact of the matter is though that you come on these boards which for the most part are predomenantly Ford/domestic biased and come here saying that domestics suck compared to imports and what not, though it may be true to som extent, I doubt any of the domestic brands(exept for maybe cadillac and now Daimler Chrysler's divison Chrysler) are trying to compete with these 30+ thousand dollar cars when an entry level Ford Fivehundred costs goes for 22K. it comes down to you coming here and insulting most everyone who cant afford/doesnt want to own one of those cars.
    we're not asking you to praise domestics/fords, but at the very least keep your anti domestic car opinions to your self on just my .02 cents.
  6. You can't honestly compare European cars to American cars in this way.

    European cars were designed by and for Europeans! They have narrower roads, and far FAR higher gas prices. I can't say that all of Europe has windier, hillier roads for handling needs than the U.S. but I can say that most European counties are quite hilly/mountainous... with narrower roads.

    Europeans are typically more "refined" than Americans. We're more rugged and more macho in general. We like bigger, stronger, tougher. We want something that's going to get the crap kicked out of it and still come out on top. We prefer a car that's more rugged, more utilitarian. Most of us don't want a car with more bells and whistles than we really need. What the hell do i need a GPS reciever for when I know how to read a map? (etc.)

    I know that's not the way everyone is, probably most city people prefer the refined stuff. But most Americans live in more rural or siburbian areas. Most Europeans (and Japanese) live in the cities.

    So, comparing the design philosophies of the three cultures is like comparing apples to oranges to bananas.

    This is different than the "Japanese Mustang" thread argument in that that one was quality, this one is more on performance and design.
  7. Don't be so sure! The Acura is way down on torque since the displacement is so small, it is also the slowest 0-60 because it is missing so much torque. I could not agree more that HP numbers are for marketing and torque is what wins (drag) races. But the other cars on my list that have 4+ liters are doing just fine on torque...
    * 05 Infiniti m45 4.5 liter V8 = 340 ft/lbs
    * 05 lexus gs430 4.3 liter V8 = 325 ft/lbs
    * 05 Audi 4.2 liter V8 = 315 ft/lbs
    * 05 acura RL 3.5 liter V6 = 270 ft/lbs

    But again, all this does is prove that the Mustang hangs with cars that cost 2-3X as much money, at least as far as engine performance is concerned..
  8. I don't know how to quantify this debate I'd like to start, but I/m going to call it "willingness to run". Everyone wants to argue about quantifiable #'s like torque and horsepower and G's on the skidpad, but how many of us have had a car that just really felt better than other cars w/ better #'s. Some cars just seem more willing than others. Objective #'s don't take into account the more subjective factors like how good it feels when you push it.

    I'm sure we have some cars we can argue about. I'll start w/ an old TR-7 I had. Totally unreliable and frustrating to own--very underpowered, but it was a blast to drive w/ the top down. Oops-not a mustang; sorry.

    Maybe what I'm trying to say is the stang may not measure up to some much more expensive cars, but it definitely has a subjective fun factor that a lot of cars w/ expensive pedigrees are missing.