Cars that should be junked
#62
09-21-2009 | 11:47 PM
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,612
I see that written and stated alot, but read any of the write-ups about the Shelby (or the Mustang for that matter). There is usually 1 small comment about the live rear axle being old technology, followed by tons of accolades for how well it handles.
For example: The Mustang GT equipped with the Track Pack out-handled both the Camaro SS and the Challenger R/T. Both the Challenger and Camaro are IRS.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...test_data.html
Camaro SS - 0.90g
Challenger R/T - 0.85g
Mustang GT - 0.95g (with track pack)
"The Mustang with Track Pack blew us all away with its sublime steering, incredible front-end grip, stylish cockpit, and beauteous V-8. "
"The Camaro might trail the Mustang in handling sharpness "
"the Challenger starts to fall apart dynamically above 7/10ths....the orange bruiser simply can't carve with the precision of its rivals"
From a different article.....
"the GT500 is a sensational track car. Like the Mustang GT with the TrackPack, it has terrific steering and hyper-aggressive turn-in response. It feels light and agile, and with a ton of power on tap from the supercharged 5.4-liter V-8 pretty much from idle, it's easily steered on the throttle. The Shelby telegraphs its punches well in advance, and the transitions are smooth and predictable."
For example: The Mustang GT equipped with the Track Pack out-handled both the Camaro SS and the Challenger R/T. Both the Challenger and Camaro are IRS.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...test_data.html
Camaro SS - 0.90g
Challenger R/T - 0.85g
Mustang GT - 0.95g (with track pack)
"The Mustang with Track Pack blew us all away with its sublime steering, incredible front-end grip, stylish cockpit, and beauteous V-8. "
"The Camaro might trail the Mustang in handling sharpness "
"the Challenger starts to fall apart dynamically above 7/10ths....the orange bruiser simply can't carve with the precision of its rivals"
From a different article.....
"the GT500 is a sensational track car. Like the Mustang GT with the TrackPack, it has terrific steering and hyper-aggressive turn-in response. It feels light and agile, and with a ton of power on tap from the supercharged 5.4-liter V-8 pretty much from idle, it's easily steered on the throttle. The Shelby telegraphs its punches well in advance, and the transitions are smooth and predictable."
#63
09-22-2009 | 01:07 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 103
From: San Diego, CA
I have to agree w/the Mustang statement. It's a facelift more than a total redesign and I liked the last gen Stang style.
It seems the trend in automotive design these days is to be trendy, and to be trendy you have to produce something that stands out. Ugly Betty stand out.
I thinks it's automotive guilt, myself. 
Now, getting back to that Aztek: I saw another one in our parking lot yesterday on my way to anther store. When I went around the corner I thought I saw another one on the other side!!!
It turned out to be the back end of a BMW X3 I was seeing. I guess I never noticed how much the back of the X3 resembles the Aztek. Coincidence? Take a look next time you see one.
Now that u mention about X3 with Aztek. It also reminds me of the similiarity of 09 Acura TL rear and Saturn Aura, as if 09 TL rear is just a facelifted version of Saturn Aura...lol. Not just that, compare all the new 09/10 ugly Acura grille to all of Saturn grille, is almost exactly identical. That really got me scratching my head, why Acura, can't u do something better than copying Saturn? That is why I made the statement Honda is going down. Toyota is also ugly, but at least their Lexus still look relatively attractive and nice.
#64
09-22-2009 | 10:18 PM
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,183
From: Aberdeen, MD
I was off a little on the 0-60 times and about 1 second on the 1/4 mile for the Speed3.
From Motortrend:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...rformance.html
At the track, the new Speed3's performance was not all that different from what it was the last time we tested it (that one was a 2009 model). This year, the hatch reached 60 mph in 5.6 seconds, which is exactly as quick as last year's model. It completed the quarter mile in 14.1 seconds at 99.9 mph (as opposed to last year's 14.1 at 100.6 mph), and braking in both cases was 112 feet.
The non-turbo 3 is much slower than you are thinking:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...est/index.html
We recently took the 3 hatch to the test track, where it scooted to 60 mph in respectable 7.5 sec -- a tick faster than the slightly lighter, 2.5L-equipped sedan (3027 lb vs. 3068) we tested. The five-door hit the quarter mile in 15.8 sec at 87.8 mph, the same time we got for the four-door
Also from Motortrend:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...nce_price.html
The story's the same at the dragstrip, where the new Taurus whooshes quietly off to 60 mph in 5.2 seconds, hitting the quarter in 13.7 seconds at 103 mph, besting the 1992 five-speed manual by a second and a half and 9 mph, and the base 2010 by almost two seconds and 12 mph.
Taurus SHO is AWD, not FWD. It hands the Speed3 it's butt in acceleration. I'd much rather have the new SHO vs the old.
FYI...Ford sells a ton of those boring V6 Mustangs because not everyone wants a V8. The V6 is slower. If you want performance, you don't even consider not getting a V8. V6 Mustangs are for college girls that want a cute coupe. I, for one, wouldn't consider anything less than a GT and would prefer GT500 trim (a little pricey though)
2010 Mustang GT 0-60 4.9 seconds, Less than nine ticks later, at 13.5 seconds, the GT eclipses the quarter mile at a speed of 104.2 mph, or 0.2 second quicker and 1.5 mph faster than the no-longer-so-bullet Bullitt.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...est/index.html
I'm calling you out tracker
....if you think the Mustang GT feels slow, you've never been in one with someone that knows how to drive. Every professional review I've seen puts the 2010 as an improvement over 2009.
From Motortrend:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...rformance.html
At the track, the new Speed3's performance was not all that different from what it was the last time we tested it (that one was a 2009 model). This year, the hatch reached 60 mph in 5.6 seconds, which is exactly as quick as last year's model. It completed the quarter mile in 14.1 seconds at 99.9 mph (as opposed to last year's 14.1 at 100.6 mph), and braking in both cases was 112 feet.
The non-turbo 3 is much slower than you are thinking:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...est/index.html
We recently took the 3 hatch to the test track, where it scooted to 60 mph in respectable 7.5 sec -- a tick faster than the slightly lighter, 2.5L-equipped sedan (3027 lb vs. 3068) we tested. The five-door hit the quarter mile in 15.8 sec at 87.8 mph, the same time we got for the four-door
Also from Motortrend:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...nce_price.html
The story's the same at the dragstrip, where the new Taurus whooshes quietly off to 60 mph in 5.2 seconds, hitting the quarter in 13.7 seconds at 103 mph, besting the 1992 five-speed manual by a second and a half and 9 mph, and the base 2010 by almost two seconds and 12 mph.
Taurus SHO is AWD, not FWD. It hands the Speed3 it's butt in acceleration. I'd much rather have the new SHO vs the old.
FYI...Ford sells a ton of those boring V6 Mustangs because not everyone wants a V8. The V6 is slower. If you want performance, you don't even consider not getting a V8. V6 Mustangs are for college girls that want a cute coupe. I, for one, wouldn't consider anything less than a GT and would prefer GT500 trim (a little pricey though)
2010 Mustang GT 0-60 4.9 seconds, Less than nine ticks later, at 13.5 seconds, the GT eclipses the quarter mile at a speed of 104.2 mph, or 0.2 second quicker and 1.5 mph faster than the no-longer-so-bullet Bullitt.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...est/index.html
I'm calling you out tracker
....if you think the Mustang GT feels slow, you've never been in one with someone that knows how to drive. Every professional review I've seen puts the 2010 as an improvement over 2009.. As for the statements spewing from motortrend mouth is nothing but false hope just like a hybrid (for those that dont know a hybrid creates more waste being built than it would save in its lifetime) I had also heard the reports of the speed 3 going only 14.1 from them and then i stumbled across an online report a while ago while they stated that "its the fastest FWD you can buy coming in at an astounding ~13.4",there statements either come to be more or less than stated but never correct, and for that fact ive seen vids and witnessed it at track events running around the same time of course varying by drivers, one thing ppl forget about motortrend is that they take the car right off showroom floor which will not give an accurate reading on trials.Also the statement about non turbo is also un-true, i myself have ran against my friends 2.3l 5spd mtx (not by choise :P) him running ~15's (stock of course) and me ~16.1 (with exhaust, header, and intake).
#65
09-22-2009 | 11:32 PM
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,612
You're agreeing with Motortrend....they ran 15.8 - that's ~15's.
#66
09-24-2009 | 02:13 AM
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,183
From: Aberdeen, MD
when u said its not as fast you think i assumed you ment in the 16's since you had gotten the et for the speed3 wrong (or atleast your source was), its my fault for not stating that "~" is between at or below .5 sec (in my area of terminology). id post a timeslip but that was done a while back and the only thing hed remember is approximate mph and e/t, nice try in trying to point out me trying to contradict myself 
. you also missed the part where i said that "motortrends "facts" are either higher or lower but not dead on" part.
. you also missed the part where i said that "motortrends "facts" are either higher or lower but not dead on" part.
#67
09-24-2009 | 08:41 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,612
With acceleration times, I try to stick with 1 source...the reason? Typically they do their testing at the same test tracks, with the same test drivers (professional), without anything to prove (my car is better than yours), etc. Consistency. I've seen a ton of B.S. timeslips/underhood shenanigans on "stock" cars to discount random information from unknown sources.
And yes, cars do typically get faster after the break-in period, but the same cars travel around between magazines and they are typically well broken in before any of the evaluations start.
I'm still trying to figure out what you mean by "the statement about non turbo is also un-true" No offense, but high 15's/low 16's is not fast.
I'm still not necessarily buying the 13.4 out of the Speed3 being completely stock. If you don't like Motortrend........
Here's the times from Car & Driver:
0-to-60-mph time: 5.4 sec
Quarter-mile time: 14.0 sec @ 101 mph
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...25_000-feature
Here's Edmunds.com:
At the drag strip, we recorded a 0-60 time of 5.9 seconds and a quarter-mile time of 14.2 seconds at 100 mph.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=116868
Road & Track:
the “3” excels at the test track and sweeps every category, be it 0-60 mph (6.0 sec.), the quarter mile (14.3 sec. at 98.9 mph),
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=6293
The numbers you quoted, while impressive, are inconsistent with every professional article ever written about the car. Not dissing the car, it's fast for FWD.
And yes, cars do typically get faster after the break-in period, but the same cars travel around between magazines and they are typically well broken in before any of the evaluations start.
I'm still trying to figure out what you mean by "the statement about non turbo is also un-true" No offense, but high 15's/low 16's is not fast.
I'm still not necessarily buying the 13.4 out of the Speed3 being completely stock. If you don't like Motortrend........
Here's the times from Car & Driver:
0-to-60-mph time: 5.4 sec
Quarter-mile time: 14.0 sec @ 101 mph
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...25_000-feature
Here's Edmunds.com:
At the drag strip, we recorded a 0-60 time of 5.9 seconds and a quarter-mile time of 14.2 seconds at 100 mph.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=116868
Road & Track:
the “3” excels at the test track and sweeps every category, be it 0-60 mph (6.0 sec.), the quarter mile (14.3 sec. at 98.9 mph),
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=6293
The numbers you quoted, while impressive, are inconsistent with every professional article ever written about the car. Not dissing the car, it's fast for FWD.
#69
09-24-2009 | 02:14 PM
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,612
The tires/wheels, suspension all could change how the guy hooks up and accelerates.
Here's a guy in Australia - no where near 13.4
Run 1 - 13.950 @ 162.69 km/h (2.196 60ft)
Run 2 - 13.957 @ 162.05 km/h (2.209 60ft)
Run 3 - 13.934 @ 161.42 km/h (2.158 60ft)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xumk_VbvcNM
Or this guy 14.4 @ 100mph
http://videos.streetfire.net/video/M...-in_701470.htm
14.2 @ 100mph
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBQIbd-tvXA
Now here's a fast one....13.3 @ 106mph - Only problem is he had to modify it: Intake, Turbo Inlet, FMIC, Rear Trans mount
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeGTbEN5EQg
I'm not buying 13.4 bone stock. No way.
Here's a guy in Australia - no where near 13.4
Run 1 - 13.950 @ 162.69 km/h (2.196 60ft)
Run 2 - 13.957 @ 162.05 km/h (2.209 60ft)
Run 3 - 13.934 @ 161.42 km/h (2.158 60ft)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xumk_VbvcNM
Or this guy 14.4 @ 100mph
http://videos.streetfire.net/video/M...-in_701470.htm
14.2 @ 100mph
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBQIbd-tvXA
Now here's a fast one....13.3 @ 106mph - Only problem is he had to modify it: Intake, Turbo Inlet, FMIC, Rear Trans mount
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeGTbEN5EQg
I'm not buying 13.4 bone stock. No way.
Last edited by sstlaure; 09-24-2009 at 02:25 PM.
