2005 Butt-Ugly Mustang

None in particular, and none personal. I was bored with the GTO vs. Mustang threads so I just decided to see where the repeated 400hp claim came from in a tongue-in-cheek fashion.

You answered the question, so thanks. I'd be interested to see what 50 more hp will do for the Goat, because the 300-hp Mustang edges it in acceleration, both to 60 and 1/4-mole, and more than edges it in price and style IMO. I want to see it spiced up a bit stylistically before I get very excited. I've seen some protoypes with -some- promised, although they're typical "chop it/scoop it" Pontiac, so in some ways, the current GTO looks better.

They can't very well go half-retro, and do something like get a hood tach and a wing and call it a Judge, so I dunno... they are cars aimed at the same market, but not quite the same set of tastes.

QUARTER-MOLE! That was suppose to be MILE :)

and more than edges it in price

Ford representation at SEMA seems to think they are still building a Cobra for 2006/7 even though Colletti is now running FRPP and the Ford GT program.

The drvietrain is still not 100% set but the rest of the car is done. The FRPP representation is convinced it will be the the 24 valve, 5.4L, VVT, Whipple supercharged version. Given the talk of Ford wanting to consolidate motors across the top of line performance models, their clear statement that it won't be a V10, and the fact that the Lightning motor is ready to go, it sounds like this will be the one :).

J, the GTO sports the LS2 for this year. Speaking of the LS2, it also found a new home in the SSR. Patrick, are you paying attention? Go read the mini-reviews in my SFIAS (South Florida International Auto Show) post.

BTW, the car to buy is the Cadillac CTS-V. It's basically a 4-door Corvette. 1/10 of a second behind a Z06 in the 1/4 mile. 6-speed only. Rock on.

Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC

Wound Up wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@swbell.net:

Wound Up wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@swbell.net:

J, did you just finish watching Caddyshack or something?

Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC

Yeah, I got Google-challenged there I guess. Thanks.

WOO-HOO. Now THAT'S cool. 180? Thoughts? -I- can dig it.

No, I'd just seen Cindy Crawford somewhere.

Got a friend whose name is in the (musical) credits of that movie! He still gets checks.

Ugly cars sell. A classic example is the 79-95 Mustangs, or the Dodge Ram trucks.

DC

The '96-'98 looked the same as the '94-'95, looks are subjective anyway. My favorite year Mustang, not counting the new '05, is the '70 with the '69 being a close second. The '71-'73 were big and bloated like the '94-'98. I think the '74-'78 Mustang's (I had 3) looked more like a "Mustang" than the '79-'98 models. (I also had an '83 and '89) The '99-'04 body also looked more like a real "Mustang" than the '79-'98 models. I hated the '94 when it hit the showrooms, it was SO ugly I never thought I'd be able to own another Mustang . I did end up with a '98 even though I wasn't happy with the looks, and was pissed when the '99 hit the showrooms with more of a "Mustang" look and 35 more horses to back it up. Bought me a '00 as soon as the loan on the '98 went right side up. The Cobra was a horsepower decision and will be traded in for the new Cobra as soon as I can get one for sticker or less. The new Mustang looks as it should, what do people want the Mustang to look like? A Probe?

I'd rather own an "Ugly" Mustang than a good looking GM ;^) StuK

So your saying that say.... an 80's Chevy Citation should be considered good looking as compared to an early Fox Mustang? StuK

*gag*. I'm sorry, but here's an example of a butt-ugly body and with no style that a good marketing program and a good chassis and motor seem to be able sell. I see these slab-sided, fat-assed, angular nosed things all the time now and I still don't see what anyone likes. It's a flattened Aztek with no cladding! Here's to Caddy for being able sell an ugly vehicle when Pontiac can't :).

I know, deep down, that it's a great car though. The CTS-V did really, really well in the Grand Am Cup Street Stock Series. There's a lot of good car in there with a ton of potential.

But it's so gruesome I'll never even consider it. While the new GTO may be less unique looking across the GM platforms it's at least an aesthetic style :).

[snippage]

GTOs, Mustangs, Caddy CTS-Vs...yeah, I'm paying attention.

SSR has 390 horses this year, but with the tonnage it's pulling around it still needs about 100 more.

Joe,

The V is cool! But it's not that fast, Joe. After all, it's no where near as light as a Z06. The V runs around 13's at about 105 or so. The Z06 is knocking down low 12's at 1 high teens.

Korn? Geeze... isn't that stuff about 10 years old?

Patrick '93 Cobra '83 LTD

snipped-for-privacy@qwest.net (Dan) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com:

Dan, have you ever sat in one?

Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Patrick) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com:

Anything needs about 100 more, but at least the SSR has what it should've had all along. I'm surprised that there was no fanfare - just product. But at least we can stop asking "Where's the beef?"

Don't shoot the messgenger - I'm just reporting what I saw and heard at the show. Everything I've seen on the web says the CTS-V sports the LS6, but the one I saw at the show had the 6.0 LS2. Don't know what that's all about, but several people swore up and down that the V on the floor would run low-to-mid 12s.

At any rate, there's plenty of good ol' V8 power by all the makers to get excited about. And yes, an LS2 is definitely more exiting than a

4.6.

Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC

Yes, I've driven one. As I said, there is a great car in there. The interior, other than lack of driver instrumentation, is very nice and the car was fun to drive. And then, just as I would every time I do with every car I own, I got out, took a few steps, turned around....and...blech. There's this really ugly, unstylish car sitting there.

Honestly, Lingenfelter can't even make this car attractive and he puts a 510 bhp 427 in it. Fast, yes. Fun to drive, certainly.

But a car is more than a power plant and chassis. Otherwise we'd all be driving raw sheet metal banged over the lightest tubular frame we could. They are important but it's also more than the interior. Other pople have to see the car on the road and the owner has to see it parked in the garage or on the car port.

There are other cars out there with everything the CTS has *PLUS* better looks and style. Why waste a moment on this fast but ugly car?

Joe wrote in news:2vip5gF2kq5kiU1@uni- berlin.de:

OK, after some more research, here's the _real_ scoop on the CTS-V: It's got the LS6 motor (the sales droid _lied_!) and it'll run low 13s in the 1/4 mile. That's just a tick behind a "regular" 'Vette. Apologies for the misinformation.

What I'd like to know now is how the new SSR stacks up against the Lightning. That should be interesting.

Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC

Just some data for y'all. Cadillac was actually third in manufacturer points in the GS class of the Grand Am Cup Street Stock Series up until the final race (Lexus/California 250). This was being done by a three CTS-V's. They were third behind Porsche (mostly 996's) and Nissan (all 350Z's) ; Ford (SVT Cobra's - '95 and '00) was fourth. They lost the last race to Ford and wound up switching positions with Ford. The point is that the chassis may be heavy but the power plant, suspension, and balance are all right in there. They spent a lot of time up in front of the pack, in heads up road racing, hanging with some of the best performance cars on the market. It's where the SLP Firehawks and Camaros were a few years ago in this same series.

Too bad it's too ugly to own.

How does a Mustang look more like a Mustang than a Mustang?

Another question: Ford built the Fox Mustang for 15 years. For how many more years would they have had to build it, in order for it to more look like a Mustang?

Personally, I think every Mustang built between No. 1 and today looks like a Mustang. Love them all.

dwight