A TV commercial just called the Mustang "the classic American sports car"!!

My Apolgies :bb


[Modified by Robert N, 2:25 PM 10/17/2002]

 

You can say anything you want, when you pay for the ad.

Terry

 

It is "A" classic car. It really shouldn't eb called a "sportscar" because of the backseat, ( its a ponycar) but thats a common missconception and a bit nitpicky. Ford is probably just feeling cocky because of their recent sales victory of the GM F-bodies (sad day, but maybe GM will bring there A game next time). Mustangs are cool no doubt, but there success has more to do with Carroll Shelby and Steve Mcqueen then any Ford engineering skills. The Stang used in Bullit had to be heavily modified just to keep up with that black Charger( which was a much heavier car!!!)
Ford hads been selling Mustangs off Mqueen's image for the better part of the products life span. How many people think those ugly stangs from the 70's are "All American classics". I have a 77 black on black vette that is a head turner with very little cosmetic up keep, if i had a 77 mustang would i have as good looking a car?
Most stang buyers are chicks who opted for the v-6 and just got there first job,apartment, degree, dog....etc.
Only the vette has maintained its true essence throughout its entire run, competed against exotics arount the world, taken the record for longest sustained topspeed run( ZR1), remained beautifull, remained accessible to most middleclass(atleast through subsequent year models) and advanced in technology at a rate that didn't effect cost. So, i would say corvette is Americas only true classic sportcar!

 

Awwwwwww dude....well don't :U on me !!! :jester

 

My apologies - edited first post...should change title...just never heard that description for a car other than the vette. Classic American muscle yes, but.... I may be roasted in an orderly fashion!

PS, I do like (and want) an early mustang.

 

Main Entry: sports car

: a low small usually 2-passenger automobile designed for quick response, easy maneuverability, and high-speed driving


Looks like a mustang fits the definition, although its a loose description. instead of usually "2 passenger" they should have put "Always" :cheers:


[Modified by flood, 3:42 PM 10/17/2002]

 

 

In response to the movie Bullit, that "heavily modified" Mustang was still a one tire burner, and suffered serious wheel hop. McQueen could not even shift without double clutching. I was just a kid when the movie came out and made me want a Charger real bad!

 

i hate to be the only one but... i feel that the old mustangs are a nice car (not as good as the vette of course) and a lot better then the mustangs of today. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

 

What :bs They were originally built as a cheap sporty car. Now they are a not so cheap sporty car. :cheers:

 

Rustang = :rolleyes:

 

To echo Sharkthehunter77, it's not even a sports car. Especially today, it's a pony car (2+2 coupe) sold primarily in 6-cylinder form to females. The nice thing is, those females always look at and admire the Vette when I pass them.

I for one am already very anxious for the re-introduction of the Camaro/Z28...


[Modified by SharkAttack, 8:33 PM 10/17/2002]

 

I'll jump in there with you. I liked many of the cars of my high school years. I like the current versions of them as much as I like the current versions of the corvette. I'd love to have a garage full of old Mustangs, Cuda's, Road runners , GTO's or Vette's. If I can't have the old ones I'd even settle for a new Vette or Mustang. I'd rather have the Vette but a Mustang would be fun. The new stuff just doesn't have the appeal of vintage muscle.

 

I bought my son a 65 Mustang while in 10th grade, so he would work on it and learn...and he did. But they are a cheaply made "secretary's car". I just replaced the horrible seats that stop mid-back and don't lock in the up position. Poor brakes, tinny, etc. But simple so he could learn.
But looking back on my driving the 57 Chev I had in high school...doing 112 down a lonely country road with no seat belts, terrible brakes, steering, suspension, and DRINKING...hmmm but I digress...
The worst part of his car is that it is a ford...
:cheers:

 

To comment on the Bullitt Mustang. Nope. Not modified in the least. They had the driver of the Charger drive slow enough for the Mustang to keep up. -- Per people that were on the set. :smash:

 

Top this. I heard a radio commercial today that touted some Infinity as a "muscle car". 340 HP starting at $45K with all of the amenities. The tone of the commercial also seemed to degrade old steel muscle cars. This produced a worse sickening feeling than any comment about a mustang ever could.

 

Mustang is called a muscle car. Same with the f-body and the GTO, Cudas, AMX's, Chevelles and so on. And yeah they can be considered that, a few months ago HR magazine had some thing about the greatest muscle car of all times and the mustang came in 2nd after the GTO.

Steeve Mcqueen wasn't dobble clutching! That sound was just and editing to make it look cool ,I though most of you new this, or else why would you explain the constant up-shifts in the strait lines. If I recall those cars only had 4speed and not 7 or 8 like what it looked like because of all those gear changes.

Mustangs are not as bad of a car an one might think, I've seen those 4.6L 2v get up to 800rwhp and several 4v close to 1000rwhp still on the same displacemnet of 4600cc (281 cu.in) and there are a lot, and I mean a lot of mustangs around that look stock but have a S/C or Turbo and are in 400's rwhp. Source: Stangnet.com

I still prefer vettes though :D good looks, power, handling and PRESTIGE

Paul

 

[CLOSED MINDED STATEMENT]i have a 4.3L v6 blazer. a 4.6 dosent impress me. [/CLOSED MINDED STATEMENT]

I like 99+ mustangs fine, but not stock. they have to have mods to appeal to me. ill take a stock SS camaro, a stock WS6 TA, or a stock C5, anyday.

new mustangs seem like the little bitch of the pack. a stock 93 camaro can easily beat up on a stock 02 stang, and the camaro only has 15 more horsies. :confused:

and a stock stang vs. a c5? :lol: that makes me laugh. oh well the stangs look good! :cool:

 

Classic "***** envy" :cool: :cool: :cool:

 

[QUOTE][CLOSED MINDED STATEMENT] a stock 93 camaro can easily beat up on a stock 02 stang, and the camaro only has 15 more horsies. :confused: [/CLOSED MINDED STATEMENT]
:nono: Well then I just hope you dont have a 93/96 F-body because it would make you look really bad if you would to race one. I have a 2K GT have beat a lot those ones when I was stock. But I'm not into mustangs but just because they're 260ho and F-bodies 275-285 doesn't mean anything. The stang has better gearing. The f-body's T56 has a 2.97 1st gear and the stang has 3.37. But not just becaue of gearing, it has a better powerband and is lighter.

Paul :cheers: