Mexico selling unsafe cars.

Oh, that's very different then. Nevermind. - Emily Litella

Reply to
.
Loading thread data ...

Must have been a Chrysler problem. At least the whole car didn't dissolve.

Reply to
Brent

A Mustang ii or early fox car was not a "top of the line" anything.

Reply to
Brent

Well, now that FIAT controls the company, I might consider one of their products.

I used to drive a 2006 Dakota (fleet vehicle), and cut my head on the ragged edge of the hard plastic surround around the seat-belt orifice. We had quite a few warranty repairs on those, so switched to F-150's.

Reply to
T0m $herman

I would like a track car, but to save money I use a pre-gen Ninjette instead ($2K to replace if I wreck it).

What about on/off-ramps and slicing through traffic? My Honda Civic was a lot more fun to drive in Chicagoland than a company pick-em-up truck (but not as much fun as heading downtown on a Friday night on a motorcycle).

You mean the Type III Rustback? :(

My parents had a Type IV wagon that I used to freeze in the back of during Quebec and Wisconsin winters. Rusted out too.

I do not consider any vehicle that heels over before turning to be fun. Especially when dealing with S-curves.

I drove a 1994 Geo Prism rental - miserably soft suspension, and with the automatic transmission gutless and always in the wrong gear when trying to apply power in a corner (my 1994 Civic Si was in the body shop after being rear-ended by a SUV).

A car where you can exceed the limits and recover is more fun. Maybe that is why the stock tires on my Civic Si wore out in 12K miles. :)

Reply to
T0m $herman

It was the highest performance version of the Mustang Ford Motor Company sold that year.

Reply to
T0m $herman

I doubt your so called road test even exists. Motor Trend is also known for their inaccuracy too.

Ford made nothing that anyone before or since would call top of the line performance cars in those years, whichever year you are referring to Just tape and stripe jobs. Mustangs from 1974-1983 or so were primarily sporty (in the marketing sense of the word) economy cars. After 1970 Ford really didn't make a Mustang for performance until the 1980s. One may be able to quibble about some '71-'73 models, but starting in 1974 it was economy that drove the design. The V8 was an afterthought crammed in for more sales. Performance would start to return in the 1980s. But the top performaning mustang of 1979 was probably the turbo 4 2.3L four cylinder.

Reply to
Brent

And that, I believe, was the whole point of the thread.

--scott

Reply to
Scott Dorsey

No, the tread was that the cars were low quality. A fictional* road test was introduced as an embrassing aside.

*A motor trend comparo test of a V8 Mustang to a Civic never would happen.

There are a few other problems with the story I let slide. Mustang ii had 302V8, and was 17 seconds in the 1/4 mile in 1978. Now Cobra ii was a tape and stripe package which was available with the four cylinder. Now that car could have been tested against a Civic. The 255cid V8 showed up in 1980 only, also a 17 second car. A 1980 civic was a 20 second car. A 1978 civic was in the high 18s.

So I really don't know what he's getting at other than its made up or seriously mis-remembered. I'm not going to go digging for the 2.3L base mustang ii, but a civic could be faster than that car especially when it was weighted down with cobra ii crap. Ahh what the helll... that's a

19 second car. 0.3 seconds slower than the honda. So if there is any truth to it, it was a Civic vs. a 4 cylinder cobra ii.
Reply to
Brent

What I could find:

1980 Ford Mustang (255ci) 0-60 mph 11.8 Quarter mile 18.5 1980 Ford Mustang Cobra (225ci) 0-60 mph 11.3 Quarter mile 18.4

For some reason I remembered it being 260 c.i., not 255.

1980 Honda Civic 1500GL 0-60 mph 11.1 Quarter mile 17.9

P.S. You can go to Hell for calling me a liar.

Reply to
T0m $herman

Apparently I am not the only person to remember this:

Fuck off and die.

I posted links a few minutes ago showing that you are full of shit.

Oh, did I tell you to f*ck off?

Reply to
T0m $herman

Where's the motor trend head to head test? oh there wasn't one.

And I just looked those up from another source here:

formatting link
You can follow the links for all the others.

Where's the motor trend test?

Reply to
Brent

Nor could you remember the year until I told you.

You stated it was the civic S. Which one would conclude was SL. Not the GL or CX. That's the 1300SL. or maybe 1500SE... who the hell knows? You're making it up as you go along.

Where's the motor trend head to head test? That's what I said doesn't exist. Where is it?

There wasn't one. Motor trend nor any major non-specialized car rag would put a V8 Mustang up against a stock Honda Civic in a comparison test.

You're cobbling from different sources, after I filled in the year and displacement for you. I did the leg work to even make some plausability of the relative performance figures, but the road test you cited I doubt was ever done. This is nothing but a school boy excerise of the road-test digest for you that you claim was was comparison test.

Reply to
Brent

You ignore the fact that other people also remember the comparison. As for details, it was an article I read once in the HS library over 30 years ago.

Not worth my time to find a hard copy and scan it for the worthless piece of libeling shit that you are.

Reply to
T0m $herman

"T0m $herman" wrote in news:l7otjr$r4$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

in the 70s mustang 2 the cobra was a cosmetic package not a performance one. didn`t mean a thing that it was a cobra, and that 255 was deff a pooch. KB

Reply to
Kevin Bottorff

That web writer didn't remember a comparison test. Read it again. The cars weren't even of the same year.

I never called you a liar. I stated the comparison road test was fictional. Your story didn't make a lick of sense. You had no year, wrong V8 displacement, a civic sub model that didn't even exist.... it's a fiction. I filled in the blanks for you and you call me a piece of shit? Go f*ck yourself.

Reply to
Brent

at Car and Driver Magazine, he lives within fifteen miles of me. I have heard him talking a few times before on a local radio talk show. I don't know if he does copying and pasting, but I am pretty sure he is not a cretin.

formatting link

get for typing URLs.

Relevance?

Reply to
Brent

Perhaps no relevance. Sincerely... the Cretin

Reply to
JR

You lie once again.

Reply to
T0m $herman

Show it and quote it. Better yet, show the stats of a 1300cc "Civic S" and 260V8 "mustang cobra". Come on. show me stats of cars that were never built. Not the scumbag way you changed it to the one year 255cidV8 (which was not the top performing contemporary Mustang as you claimed*) and a 1500cc model civic. Show what you actually claimed.

*The 255cid V8 is a particular low point with the ford small block V8. In that one year the 4cyl turbo was the highest hp option, as I told you early on, giving you a chance for a graceful out. Ford at that time was looking to have the turbo 2.3L take over naturally. They intentionally made it the better car. They tried until the mid 80s. The turbo 4 cylinder mustangs, especially the SVOs outclassed the V8 versions in many ways. They got the good stuff and because of that were more expensive than the V8s most if not all model years.

Right, because how dare I point out you posted nonsense. I gave you every opertunity to gracefully retreat, but you chose not to.

Reply to
Brent

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.