If I'm honest, my '95 Mustang conv. hasn't been the most impressive device I've ever encountered, and I didn't buy it cheap enough which doesn't help matters.
If I'm honest, my '95 Mustang conv. hasn't been the most impressive device I've ever encountered, and I didn't buy it cheap enough which doesn't help matters.
In reply to MG Bryan:
I said workable.... It weighs too much but is a near carbon copy of the Fox with more rigidity... What is there to NOT like? Compared to the F body twins, I would take the SN way before them. Besides look at the 10 bolt wrong, it breaks and without any factory upgrades to make it better.
Ranger50 wrote: In reply to MG Bryan: I said workable.... It weighs too much but is a near carbon copy of the Fox with more rigidity... What is there to NOT like? Compared to the F body twins, I would take the SN way before them. Besides look at the 10 bolt wrong, it breaks and without any factory upgrades to make it better.
No way in hell I would take an SN before an F body.
MG Bryan wrote:Ranger50 wrote: Almost everything GM/Ford/Chrysler. GM can make monster HP but they stick it in a POS chassis, including Corvettes. Ford can't make any power, but they make nearly magical workable chassis's. CIP, 96-04 Mustang GT's. Chrysler, well, it's Chrysler.....You actually like the SN95 chassis? It can be make into an astonishing car, but as Ford built it, I think it kind of sucks horribly.
I have to agree. The fairmont and SN95 chassis have nothing on an F-body, and definitely have nothing at all on a Y-body.
I think compared to the 3rd gen Camaro as far as stiffness is concerned, the SN95 would get a slight nod. Suspension, however, is a clear and huge advantage to the Camaro.
We will have to agree to disagree. I have yet to see a "stock suspension" F-body or 'vette run 7.0's@200, if you want my performance metric. I know there is faster Mustang, but IIRC,it has/had a "stability" torque arm added to the stock 4-link.
Ranger50 wrote: We will have to agree to disagree. I have yet to see a "stock suspension" F-body or 'vette run 7.0's@200, if you want my performance metric. I know there is faster Mustang, but IIRC,it has/had a "stability" torque arm added to the stock 4-link.
But I don't care about straight line. IMHO the F-body handles corners better then the Mustang.
93EXCivic wrote: But I don't care about straight line.
And I really don't care about turning corners....
Ranger50 wrote: We will have to agree to disagree. I have yet to see a "stock suspension" F-body or 'vette run 7.0's@200, if you want my performance metric. I know there is faster Mustang, but IIRC,it has/had a "stability" torque arm added to the stock 4-link.
... that's not a stock Mustang suspension then.
pres589 wrote: ... that's not a stock Mustang suspension then.
Then please clarify what is? Because the cars I know of ARE stock suspension per just about everyone else's definition of stock suspension.
Yeah, I'm more interested in all-around performance than just straight line. Different strokes and all that.
rotard wrote: Yeah, I'm more interested in all-around performance than just straight line. Different strokes and all that.
This. I think its hardly acceptable to call a Corvette chassis a POS because it can't do 7s in the 1/4 on a stock suspension.
Ranger50 wrote: In reply to MG Bryan: I said workable.... It weighs too much but is a near carbon copy of the Fox with more rigidity... What is there to NOT like? Compared to the F body twins, I would take the SN way before them. Besides look at the 10 bolt wrong, it breaks and without any factory upgrades to make it better.
I'm in the "I'm not a fan of the handling" camp. If you want to go really fast in the quarter it's definitely not a bad way to get there though. The upside of the SN95 chassis in my book is that there's an off the shelf solution to make it do just about anything you want. If money were of no concern I'd have a '98 Cobra with full Griggs suspension, but unfortunately money is of concern and I burnt out on drag racing right about the second time I tried it - the acceleration and speed are wicked cool, but in the end I found it sort of boring.
For me, it was my first BMW drive. I had expected the buzz to be an awesome car, the only car one would EVER need. I was underwhelmed.
Twin_Cam wrote: Someone mentioned a Gallardo...I have to imagine every supercar can be underwhelming. Totally incredible for the first two hours, and then incredibly painful to live with, especially when you remember there's $2011 cars somewhere in Florida that can outrun your $500K car in a straight line.
I prefer the Audi R8 to the Gallardo - the interior is nicer, they can be found with a real manual transmission, and after driving both you can't imagine why the Lambo costs at least $100,000 more! But believe it or not, driving a modern Ferrari in anger is another experience all together - it's hard to put into words how pleasurable it is.
Bobzilla wrote: For me, it was my first BMW drive. I had expected the buzz to be an awesome car, the only car one would EVER need. I was underwhelmed.
Must not have been an M3.
The way to look at it is this.. the SN-95 was a wonder when it came out, because keep in mind, before the fans made a massive letter campaign to ford the Probe was supposed to be the next Mustang.
Mustangs tend to be a bit lighter then similar year Camaros. Yeah, the quadrabind is a ton of stool. That said, they can run close to each other in performance numbers.
I feel that the ergonomics of the 90's Mustang are MUCH MUCH better then the 80-90's Camaro, allowing much better feel of what the chassis is doing.
Of course, Ford FINALLY did right by the Mustang in 2005 with a decent suspension, even though it got heavier. And the new coyote motor makes it a no brainer over the new Camaro in my book.
ProDarwin wrote:rotard wrote: Yeah, I'm more interested in all-around performance than just straight line. Different strokes and all that.This. I think its hardly acceptable to call a Corvette chassis a POS because it can't do 7s in the 1/4 on a stock suspension.
I'm pretty sure my last issue or 2 ago of PHR had a C6 Z06 on an actually stock suspension doing 7's at the LS-Fest.
nderwater wrote:Bobzilla wrote: For me, it was my first BMW drive. I had expected the buzz to be an awesome car, the only car one would EVER need. I was underwhelmed.Must not have been an M3.
First one? No. Second one? Yes.(BTW, I loathe the SMG) All the hype and build up they just don't live up to it FOR ME. Maybe that is why I like the C4, no one thinks they are worth a E36 M3, and they suck so that is what I expected and was suprised to learn it's not.
Bobzilla wrote:nderwater wrote:First one? No. Second one? Yes.(BTW, I loathe the SMG) All the hype and build up they just don't live up to it FOR ME. Maybe that is why I like the C4, no one thinks they are worth a E36 M3, and they suck so that is what I expected and was suprised to learn it's not.Bobzilla wrote: For me, it was my first BMW drive. I had expected the buzz to be an awesome car, the only car one would EVER need. I was underwhelmed.Must not have been an M3.
The C4 ZR1 I thought about buying was such a surprise because I was expecting it to feel like an F-body.
BMW's: the first long term drive I did in one was a 318is. Nice little car, but an Accord was every bit as nice for less $ and I swear the Accords were quicker. I just couldn't see the point of the extra $. It did handle very well, though.
The Z4 M Coupe was a beast HP wise but the handling reeked. What's power without control? 
Most of that was the craptastic Continental tires with all the road feel and feedback of shopping cart casters and absolutely no 'uh oh, I'm on the edge of grip' warning. One moment you are good, the next 
. My J-H had more interior leg and side to side room but the BMW had a headroom edge when the J-H-s top was up so that was a wash. The electric nanny was really intrusive as well, but at least it could be turned off. I came away with mixed feelings but was 100% sure it wasn't worth the outrageous sticker price.
I drove a 328i with a manual a while back, the interior etc again were no better than the average Honda but the car was responsive, powerful and handled well. That one I liked and could see driving daily.
My first drive in an E36 BMW was behind the wheel of an early 318i automatic. What a dog! Massively disappointing. I could not believe that this car had come from the same factory as my E30 325is.
My first drive in a Porsche Boxster was also disappointing - my expectations were pretty high, and I expected it to feel like a baby 911. Instead, the 986's early 2.5 engine was unimpressive and the chassis resisted being tossed around when I wanted to hoon it. It was much less fun than the NA Miata which was my daily driver at the time.
FFR Daytona Coupe - Ergonomics were so hideous I couldn't wait to get out of it.
Come to think of it, the FFR GTM was awful too. I'm 6'1" and my head was hard against the roof in both, and both were well executed builds with no corners cut.
I gotta say I was very let down the first time I drove an E30 M3. It was buzzy, had hardly any torque and wasn't very quick. Then I drove one on track and I understood what the fuss was about. Magical car on track--the car "speaks" to the driver in a wonderful way....not so magical on the road. (E30 325is is a better street car IMHO)
I was also very let down by the 350z / 370z. They have so much promise and look good on paper, but in the real word have always felt like less than the sum of their parts to me.
On the positive side, I didn't expect much from the Mazda 2, but it impressed me enough that I'd buy one.
Least disappointing car: our '86 Civic Si LeMons car. The darn thing handles pretty well considering how it's been cobbled together, the brakes are good even if (typical Honda) they feel like you are stepping in mud, it has been rock solid reliable even with 10 different ham fisted very amateur race drivers beating on it for 32 hours (the ~7200 RPM rev limiter is our shift indicator). I wish it had more power, is all. Then we'd go Hong huntin'. 
15 years ago i test drove an '84 Supra.
it had A SIX CYLINDER! and it looked so awesome!
the truth was it didn't feel any faster than my '80 3TC corolla, and good deal clumsier. Even as a 18 year old kid i was disappointed. then some mom in a van who was not paying attention t-boned me on the test drive.
You'll need to log in to post.
