Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

Sign in to follow this  
GreyGhost

2015 Ford Mustang

Recommended Posts

But honestly the tesla thing in particular, with the car bursting into flames if the batteries touch a bit of metal in a wreck?! Considering the whole bloody car is made of the stuff I don't think I'd be filled with a great deal of confidence.

So, never mind the 152 000 fires on average through 2006-2010 (most recent numbers are even bigger i believe) that killed 209 people every year? Or 2003-2007 numbers, how about them? Oh, and that was all petroleum based cars.

And yes, there is by far more of them on the roads, but considering how many electric cars there are on the roads, and how many fires there has been of them, you are still literally 4-5 times safer in them than in petroleum ones, if fires is something you worry about daily. Not to mention simple logic that most fail to grasp: Petroleum is extremely energy dense, many times more than the battery pack.

As a bonus, battery pack on Tesla is protected by around 6 mm plate at the bottom, on a "proper" car the metal piece would penetrate the whole car. Not to mention the other safety functions within the battery pack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJUWXRWK4xs

Sorry for the off topic, but i thought it was worth answering.

I'm well aware that euro cars, particularly low volume italian ones burt into flame quite alot, some times just from sitting at idle for too long.

As to the semi-smug remark about european cars:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/new-cars/auto-news/2013-ford-escape-recalled-for-seventh-time/article15601948/

Seventh time, nuff said. And there has been thousands upon thousands of other GM cars recalls due to fire hazard in this year alone.

PS: Not a smug question or anything, geniunly interested: Have you studied physics?

Edited by Berkut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll bet whoever was driving that 458 was having a hell of a good time before that happened. Just sayin :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scion FR-S and Subaru BRZ (a disclaimer a IMHO a sports car should have 300+ hp to start, but I'll leave it in for comparison purposes)

lotus-elise-15.jpg

Caterham-7-Superlight-R500.jpg

Neither of these have anything near 300 hp, and the only time one of the El Porko Trio (Mustang, Camaro, Challenger) would ever see one in their mirrors on a track would be when they're about to be lapped by one. As Colin Chapman preached, lighter is better, which is why the Toyota/Subaru twins, any Lotus, Miata, Mini Cooper (the original), MG, RX7, 944, etc., etc., are such a blast to drive on the twisties. These muscle cars need huge engines and big, wide tires because they're so overweight.

BTW, saw a new Vette the other day. Looks good in black. I think it's the best-looking Vette since the '68-'73 Stingrays.

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MY eyes deceive ME. :woot.gif:

GRAIL..LOVE THE CAMARO And the 2014 CORVETTE.. :wub:

Edited by HOLMES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I wouldn't be surprised to see a Lotus Exige be faster around a racetrack than a muscle car (and I can't see the other photo, just a bandwidth message), there are few practical issues to deal with. First is that at 6'1", I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to fit in it, at least not comfortably.

Second, you know, I just can't remember the last time I encountered a race track on my way to work, to the store, or on a trip to visit friends. For me, I'm driving on city streets, into and out of parking lots, and on freeways that don't twist and turn that much. That means I have other considerations beyond how a car performs on a racetrack.

Things like a comfortable seat, enough room to maybe carry a few items from a store or a small suitcase or two, being able to drive down the freeway at 70 without feeling every joint in the road and hearing the engine buzz like a lawnmower for hours. I'd like to have that, and a few other creature comforts, plus maybe have enough power and handling for some spirited driving when I get the opportunity. I wouldn't have to be the fastest car, just fast enough to enjoy it.

I don't know if anyone clicked the link I posted earlier, but it was about a professional race driver who compared a 2011 stock Mustang GT to a 2011 BMW M3 on the Willow Springs racetrack, and the Mustang was less than a tenth of a second slower than the M3, while barely besting it in the 1/4 mile, skid pad and slalom, and equaling it in 0-60. He said its biggest weakness were the shocks, and that the solid rear axle was a non-issue.

I'm not trying to say the Mustang (or Camaro or Challenger) is a better car than other cars, just that I think it's not the performance slouch some believe it to be, and that it meets a fairly practical and fun set of needs for a lot of people, and at $20K+ less than an M3 or Lotus Exige.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just being fast and powerfull does not a super car make. By that reasoning the likes of a BMW M5 or Shelby gt500 would be supercars when they are just suped up every day cars.

What is your main source of automotive knowledge? Motor Trend? Consumer Reports? Things you read on the internets so they must be true? :monkeydance:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I wouldn't be surprised to see a Lotus Exige be faster around a racetrack than a muscle car (and I can't see the other photo, just a bandwidth message), there are few practical issues to deal with. First is that at 6'1", I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to fit in it, at least not comfortably.

Second, you know, I just can't remember the last time I encountered a race track on my way to work, to the store, or on a trip to visit friends. For me, I'm driving on city streets, into and out of parking lots, and on freeways that don't twist and turn that much. That means I have other considerations beyond how a car performs on a racetrack.

Things like a comfortable seat, enough room to maybe carry a few items from a store or a small suitcase or two, being able to drive down the freeway at 70 without feeling every joint in the road and hearing the engine buzz like a lawnmower for hours. I'd like to have that, and a few other creature comforts, plus maybe have enough power and handling for some spirited driving when I get the opportunity. I wouldn't have to be the fastest car, just fast enough to enjoy it.

I don't know if anyone clicked the link I posted earlier, but it was about a professional race driver who compared a 2011 stock Mustang GT to a 2011 BMW M3 on the Willow Springs racetrack, and the Mustang was less than a tenth of a second slower than the M3, while barely besting it in the 1/4 mile, skid pad and slalom, and equaling it in 0-60. He said its biggest weakness were the shocks, and that the solid rear axle was a non-issue.

I'm not trying to say the Mustang (or Camaro or Challenger) is a better car than other cars, just that I think it's not the performance slouch some believe it to be, and that it meets a fairly practical and fun set of needs for a lot of people, and at $20K+ less than an M3 or Lotus Exige.

Couldn't have said it better. BTW, i'm sure the Challenger or Camaro along with maybe one or two others would fit the bill nicely.

Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I wouldn't be surprised to see a Lotus Exige be faster around a racetrack than a muscle car (and I can't see the other photo, just a bandwidth message), there are few practical issues to deal with. First is that at 6'1", I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to fit in it, at least not comfortably.

Second, you know, I just can't remember the last time I encountered a race track on my way to work, to the store, or on a trip to visit friends. For me, I'm driving on city streets, into and out of parking lots, and on freeways that don't twist and turn that much. That means I have other considerations beyond how a car performs on a racetrack.

Things like a comfortable seat, enough room to maybe carry a few items from a store or a small suitcase or two, being able to drive down the freeway at 70 without feeling every joint in the road and hearing the engine buzz like a lawnmower for hours. I'd like to have that, and a few other creature comforts, plus maybe have enough power and handling for some spirited driving when I get the opportunity. I wouldn't have to be the fastest car, just fast enough to enjoy it.

I don't know if anyone clicked the link I posted earlier, but it was about a professional race driver who compared a 2011 stock Mustang GT to a 2011 BMW M3 on the Willow Springs racetrack, and the Mustang was less than a tenth of a second slower than the M3, while barely besting it in the 1/4 mile, skid pad and slalom, and equaling it in 0-60. He said its biggest weakness were the shocks, and that the solid rear axle was a non-issue.

I'm not trying to say the Mustang (or Camaro or Challenger) is a better car than other cars, just that I think it's not the performance slouch some believe it to be, and that it meets a fairly practical and fun set of needs for a lot of people, and at $20K+ less than an M3 or Lotus Exige.

Shhhh, you make too much sense. When people start bringing up the Lotus, Miata, and other impossible cars for regular sized people to fit in other than hobbits I tune them out. Then they say "around the track", which is even more pointless as if people are going to take the car for a casual spin on the corkscrew at Laguna Seca or a quick lap at the Nürburgring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes well........ shad up. :taunt:/>/> :P/>/>

I'm well aware that euro cars, particularly low volume italian ones burt into flame quite alot, some times just from sitting at idle for too long.

But honestly the tesla thing in particular, with the car bursting into flames if the batteries touch a bit of metal in a wreck?! Considering the whole bloody car is made of the stuff I don't think I'd be filled with a great deal of confidence.

Here is Elon Musk, talking about the Tesla fires: Essentially he is saying gasoline cars have a fire every 1300 cars. The S which has sold 25,000 has had 3 fires, so 1 in 8000, so four times safer than a regular car.

Tesla S fires explained

On the topic of fires and gas powered car I can't believe no one posted about the recent one which claimed a certain furious movie star. Porsche GT I think it was......2 dead in that crash and fire, how many in the Tesla fires? .........0

2500c53de3b650f741a37f40f7cf9cb7.jpg

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only 1270 Carrera GTs were built so, even if this was the only CGT fire (and I somehow doubt that), Tesla's "fire" record is more than six times better than the CGT.

I can't help but laugh/grimace when I read how "dangerous" the CGT is, many articles about this accident seem to be saying it was all the car's fault. Idiots.

Edited by habu2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lotus-elise-15.jpg

Neither of these have anything near 300 hp, and the only time one of the El Porko Trio (Mustang, Camaro, Challenger) would ever see one in their mirrors on a track would be when they're about to be lapped by one. As Colin Chapman preached, lighter is better, which is why the Toyota/Subaru twins, any Lotus, Miata, Mini Cooper (the original), MG, RX7, 944, etc., etc., are such a blast to drive on the twisties. These muscle cars need huge engines and big, wide tires because they're so overweight.

BTW, saw a new Vette the other day. Looks good in black. I think it's the best-looking Vette since the '68-'73 Stingrays.

Ben

I guess you haven't been keeping up on developments lately, one of the Trio takes track performance pretty seriously. Lighter is better, up until a point, because a car still has to have 4 tires and engine, depending on 2 seat or 4 seats the car will be of certain dimensions. There is a reason most great performing 2 seaters (sports car, not super cars) are about the same weight. Same goes for 4 seaters. One of the most used ways to gauge a car's performance is to take a spin on the Nurburgring track. This is because the track which is 20 miles in length has all types of corners, elevations changes and straight-aways. It tests a cars all around potential.

Here are some times from the cars mentioned in this thread:

7:22 Corvette ZR-1 C-6

7:24 Porsche GT2

7:26 Nissan GTR 2011

7:37 Chevrolet Z-28 Camaro

7:38 Lexus LFA

7:40.6 Ford GT

7:41 Chevrolet Camaro ZL-1

7:44 Audi R8 V-10

7:48 BMW M3 GTS

8:25 Lotus Exige S

8:25 Mitsubishi Lancer EVO

8:47 Honda Civic Type R

9:09 Toyota FRS

So as you can see, those huge overweight Camaros are putting cars at least twice their price in their rear-view mirrors. Nevermind the "good handling, but underpowered cars like the FRS.

Cheers!

Edited by GRAIL007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is the Mustang thread but here is the Camaro Z-28, 505 HP non-supercharged, with larger diffuser, brakes and multimatic suspension, they will sell between 2000 to 3000 this year:

2014_chevy_camaro_z28_new_york_02.jpg

Compared to Camaro ZL-1

Supercharged 580 hp, magnetride suspension, they'll sell about 3 - 5000 this year.

2012_chevrolet_camaro_zl1_f34_ns_209112_717.jpg

Both cars are essentially track ready (incorporating non-fade Brembo brakes, all the oil coolers, etc), hopefully with this generation of Mustang Ford can compete!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quickest of the "Big 3" around the Nurburgring is the Dodge Viper ACR with a time of 7:12:13 ... Over ten seconds quicker than the Vette !

-Gregg

Edited by GreyGhost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you haven't been keeping up on developments lately, one of the Trio takes track performance pretty seriously. Lighter is better, up until a point, because a car still has to have 4 tires and engine, depending on 2 seat or 4 seats the car will be of certain dimensions. There is a reason most great performing 2 seaters (sports car, not super cars) are about the same weight. Same goes for 4 seaters. One of the most used ways to gauge a car's performance is to take a spin on the Nurburgring track. This is because the track which is 20 miles in length has all types of corners, elevations changes and straight-aways. It tests a cars all around potential.

Here are some times from the cars mentioned in this thread:

7:22 Corvette ZR-1 C-6

7:24 Porsche GT2

7:26 Nissan GTR 2011

7:37 Chevrolet Z-28 Camaro

7:38 Lexus LFA

7:40.6 Ford GT

7:41 Chevrolet Camaro ZL-1

7:44 Audi R8 V-10

7:48 BMW M3 GTS

8:25 Lotus Exige S

8:25 Mitsubishi Lancer EVO

8:47 Honda Civic Type R

9:09 Toyota FRS

So as you can see, those huge overweight Camaros are putting cars at least twice their price in their rear-view mirrors. Nevermind the "good handling, but underpowered cars like the FRS.

Cheers!

it's 20 KM, not miles...

and, from this source, you omitted some "better" results, like:

7 min 08s Nissan GT-R (Nismo)

7 min 14 s Lexus LFA - Nürburgring Edition

7 min 18 s Porsche 911 GT2 RS

7 min 18 s Nissan GT-R (2013)

Edited by mingwin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you haven't been keeping up on developments lately, one of the Trio takes track performance pretty seriously. Lighter is better, up until a point, because a car still has to have 4 tires and engine, depending on 2 seat or 4 seats the car will be of certain dimensions. There is a reason most great performing 2 seaters (sports car, not super cars) are about the same weight. Same goes for 4 seaters. One of the most used ways to gauge a car's performance is to take a spin on the Nurburgring track. This is because the track which is 20 miles in length has all types of corners, elevations changes and straight-aways. It tests a cars all around potential.

Here are some times from the cars mentioned in this thread:

7:22 Corvette ZR-1 C-6

7:24 Porsche GT2

7:26 Nissan GTR 2011

7:37 Chevrolet Z-28 Camaro

7:38 Lexus LFA

7:40.6 Ford GT

7:41 Chevrolet Camaro ZL-1

7:44 Audi R8 V-10

7:48 BMW M3 GTS

8:25 Lotus Exige S

8:25 Mitsubishi Lancer EVO

8:47 Honda Civic Type R

9:09 Toyota FRS

So as you can see, those huge overweight Camaros are putting cars at least twice their price in their rear-view mirrors. Nevermind the "good handling, but underpowered cars like the FRS.

Cheers!

Points taken. :)

What the BRZ & FRS really, really need are two more cylinders. That flat four sounds like a VW bus! :D

Cheers!

Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't look like much of a styling change. Like another ARC, I think the hood/bonnet needs to be shaved down because as it is right now, it looks like they just slapped on a new front facia to give it a more Euro look. If it comes down to American Mustangs, my favorites would be the 67 & 68 Shelby's. For Euro Mustangs it'd be the 80's Aston Martin V-8 Vantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it looks like they just slapped on a new front facia to give it a more Euro look.

I'm sure I heard somewhere it was to be imported officially into Europe. My opinion, I quite like it, but it's no classic.

---------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...