The performance numbers I've seen indicated the Mustang to be faster under accleration testing than a C5 Corvette. I've not seen track times to indicate which car would be faster in that arena, but I'd be interested to see them if you do. All I know is what I seen, and what I seen is the Mustang posting faster numbers.
I'm just not sure what it is. The Mustang Cobra is nicer inside and far better built to my eye than a Corvette. It posts faster accleration numbers and will probably hold better resale value. If the only thing making the Corvette a more expensive car are marginally faster track times (which are as yet unsubstantiated on this NG) than it's a pretty hard sell in my eyes. Most drivers aren't paying much attention to track times.
I can physically see and feel what makes a Porsche more expensive than a Corvette. The same can't be said of the Mustang/Corvette comparison.
I disagree. I think the fact that the GT3 can post 1.03g on a skidpad with a rear engined layout is a marvel of modern technology. Technology and engineering are what make a GT3 with displacement and horsepower disadvantages faster around a track than a Z06, which has every advantage on paper.
I wouldn't call 350 cubic inches small. It may be small compared to "big block" American V8s, but it still has a significant size advantage over Porsche's largest flat six. Volkswagen's VR6 fits your description better than Chevy's
350 does, and the 3.2 litre version is reportedly good for *at least* 280Hp before adding turbochargers.
It's old school technology. GM refuses to move into the 21st century, and I think it's funny. Ford and Daimler-Chrysler are finally making the transition into the modern world and GM seems to want to stay back.
I'm hardly a Mustang fan. But the 2003-2004 Mustang has little or nothing in common with the 1979 variant. The Corvette fans are always screaming about bang for the buck, meanwhile they ignore the Mustang Cobra as well as small European entries like the Lotus Elise, now coming to the states with a sub 5 second 0-60 time and a sub $35k price tag.
And I whole heartedly agree, but see my above statement.
Every weekend at your local SCCA solo-2 parking lot you will be able to see it. I remember R&T (or was it C&D) where one was done and the 'Vette was much faster.
Even your faster numbers claim is doubtful - see
formatting link
Here are some other comparisons from the media (not that it matters that much):
formatting link
A lot of talk about subjective evaluation (which is OK - the nicer inside, etc... - I find the ergonomics on the Mustang horrid, so even if the material quality is better, which I doubt, it does not matter), some speculation (probably hold better resale value) that does not seem anywhere like what I have seen in the real world.
No. It is a much nicer car to Drive. The track times are what confirms that. Drive them both and see for yourself. Some people will prefer the Cobra, that's sure - but Chevy would not have been able to price the 'Vette where they priced it, and have it so succesful if there were not a lot of people that belive the same. (Just as Porsche would have been out of business - because you can easily get Porsche performance for a lot less than Porsche money).
Did you drive them both? I am not in the market for either - but it was clear to me. (FWIW - I do not care about the Ford vs. GM, if anything - my sport car is Ford powered).
So you prove my point - despite the fact that the 911 uses an outdated drivetrain layout it is a great car, just as Chevy uses a lot of modern technology than enables an outdated engine valve actuation technique to make a great engine.
If we are talking about building the best of the best, you want the best modern technology for everything (which is why Porsche chose a mid-engine layout for the CGT, which they technically call a 911) - but for street applications and fun - you do not need it - it is not such a big deal. The
911's chassis is a good modern one despite the fact that it does not start with the optimal initial layout, and the 'Vette's enging is a good modern one despite the fact that it does not start with the optimal initial technology.
Please read what I have said - I talked about the "Physical" size. Despite the fact that the engine has a lot of displacement, it is physically a compact unit for it's potential. OHC usually require more space than OHV designs - everything is a compromise, and with all due respect to the Ford's OHC engine - I honestly think that GM's current 'Vette OHV is a match for it with no problems. Just like Porsche used a lot of technology to go around the rear-engine layout deficiency, GM used a lot of technology to go around the compromises that come with the OHV design.
For someone that admires a vehicle with old school technology chassis layout - you sure are critical. Hypocricy might be a better word.
The 2003 -2004 Mustang uses a chassis designed in 1979 (The Fox platform) that has an IRS grafted on it. These are the facts and Ford does not deny it. If you read my original reply to this matter, I agreed that the Evo and STi provide better bang for the buck than the Corvette, but I still disagree about the Mustang - with well documented information above. I am not sure what this vendetta you have about 'Vette owners - but when people are than passionate against something - there is usually a reason for it, in my experience.
As for the Lotus Elise (once again, not my argument, but a nice try to divert attention to something unrelated) - it will be around $40K, and with all due respect - it might be a performance match to many cars - but living with a Lotus as a daily driver is a hard thing to do - not so much with a Corvette. I do not own an Elise, but as a 7 owner - I have first hand experience about Chapman's (and his succesors) way of designing cars - and you have to be a hardy fellow to be able to live with one as your main car - I sure can not. I am sure that the Elise is more refined and reliable than a
7 - but I am also sure that it will be far away from the practicality of any of the other cars we discussed here. (Compromises, compromises).
I have seen it, and I fail to see where you actually made a logical argument backed by anything other than gut speculation, half truths and subjective assesment.
The following is the only media conducted online comparison of a recent SVT Cobra (2003) to a Corvette (2003) of any kind that I could find - not that it is worth much - but since Mr. Grauman seems to put so much weight into media comparison - let's look at it - it can be found at
formatting link
- andin it the reviewers found the Mustang's interior to be "long in the toothand is in serious need of the forthcoming '05 upgrade. Grain and colormatching of plastics is good, but it still looks at least five years old,fresh from the factory." They also found the following to say about the shifter feel of the two cars: "Unlike the near-perfect shifter feel in the Corvette, the Cobra's T56 stick feels like it came straight from a '56 F-100 pickup--long throws to third and fifth gears literally have you stretching out of the seat to get the shifter into the gate."
Just as I claimed about the ergonomic design of the Mustang, the reviewers have the following to say: "the Mustang's seat/wheel/control relationships are all out of whack, and the ergonomics show their age."
They also found that the Corvette (regular one, not Z06) was slightly faster even for simple acceleration tests: "On paper, the Cobra's supercharged 4.6-liter/390-horsepower/390-lb-ft DOHC V-8 looks to defeat the Vette's normally aspirated
5.7-liter/350-horse/375-lb-ft OHV V-8. But, given the Fords' 532-pound weight disadvantage and rear-wheel hop, the Corvette proves slightly quicker off the line. The Cobra lagged just 0.14 second to 60 mph and 0.10 second and 0.01 mph covering the quarter mile."
They also found that the Corvette was faster through the slalom: "Since both cars wear nearly identical rubber and ride on four-wheel independent suspensions, we anticipated a fair fight through the slalom cones. Again, the Corvette prevailed at 2.3 mph faster"
They did find that the Mustang came to a stop faster than the Corvette, but to the best of my knowledge, the Z06 has better brakes than the standard Corvette. (Not to mention that all other performance tests will just increase the Z06's advantage over the Mustang).
All in all, it seems that I am not as dillusional as our zealot friend tries to paint me, and it also shows that the Corvette's success in the hands of "amateurs and semi-professionals" is a good way to get an idea of a car's potential, unlike the claims made by the same individual.
I will repeat my conclusion - the Cobra Mustang might offer a lot of performance for the dollar, but it is not in the same league as modern super-coupes and as such I really do not see it as a real player in this company. I will reiterate what I said in my original answer to Jim - I agree with everything he said about the Evo and the STi. It is just the assesment of the Cobra as a real competitor in this league that I do not agree with. When Chevy had a detuned Corvette engine in a Camaro I did not think that it was in the same leauge, and the same is still true with the Mustang. If Ford have done their homework - the next one might be a legitimate alternative, but until then...
At one time a large portion of the world's population believed not only that the Earth was flat, but that is was the center of our universe. Children all over the world believe Santa Claus is coming tonight to deliver them gifts. Are those things true too? Belief and reality are two seperate things.
You're utterly daft, aren't you? The GT2 (rear engined!) was their ultimate car till' the development of the Carrera GT. The Carrera GT started out it's life as a GT1 racecar, and the mid-engined layout was used so that the car could qualify for GT1 class racing. When Porsche decided to drop the GT as a race car and pan it out as a road car instead, the mid-engined layout got carried over. I'll say it again, the front engined, RWD layout is the oldest one around, if any drivetrain type could lay claim to outdated, that's the one!
If this is the definition of what makes a great engine, the 2.0 litre I4 in Honda's S2000 is an *amazing* engine!
I smell bullshit abound. I can;t find any proof of this *anywhere*, why don't you prove it? The 996 and the Carrera GT have about as much in common with each other as my dog has in common with my Volkswagen.
A C4 is always a Corvette, but never a C3 or a C5. And you would never call a C4 a C5, would you? So why the hell would you call a Carrera GT a 911?
OHC and SOHC are not the same thing. Do some research.
Gee, and here's a portion of one of the C&D articles I remember reading:
"Road trips are also made pleasant by the unique leather furniture, which has suede inserts and Cobra insignia, and by the white-face instrumentation, which is electroluminescent and very evenly lit. The usual Fox-platform ergonomics prevail, but the shifter moves smoothly, the metal-trimmed clutch and brake pedals operate with a clear sense of engagement, and the steering provides better path control than that of earlier Mustangs." Seems like they liked it just fine, even the shift action! Find it at:
formatting link
Want "real world" data? Motor Trend said: "Our seat-of-the-pants impression is that anything less than a Viper or a Corvette Z06 may be in the slow lane next to the new Cobra." Find the review here:
formatting link
The Cobra's sub-5 second 0-60 is right on top of the Vette's. I see it ranging from 4.9 down to 4.6 or so, making it right about on par with the Vette's 4.8 second time.
As I said the first time, faster to 60 MPH and the quarter mile, (despite an approximate 500 pound weight penalty over the Corvette). 0 -
60 MPH has been a yardstick for American car performance for ages.......
The sticker on the car is about $35K.
The Corvette mantra has always been "bang for the buck". The Mustang outbangs the Corvette.
While the rear engine configuration of the 911 is not the optimal one in terms of neutral handling, the rear weight bias does permit capable drivers to utilize the car's understeering traits to great advantage. The newest 911s (993/996) have largely had the understeer engineered out of them until the car is pushed to 10/10ths. The 911 has won rallye and road course competitions and remains competitive to this day.
The current small-block is an engine that
Ron, your points are well taken, but, again, we were talking "bang for the buck". The Mustang is cheaper and faster than the base Corvette to
60 MPH and through the quarter mile, and not far off the Z06 in either. With a sticker price $15K - $17K below the Z06 the car is a better performance bargain.
OHC = Over Head Cam SOHC = Single Over Head Cam DOHC = Double Over Head Cam A SOHC is a OHC engine (or specifically, a OHC engine with one cam for all the valves), a DOHC is a OHC engine (or specifically a OHC engine with two cams for all the valves).
I never said otherwise - but the Corvette's engine, OHV and all, has also been very succesful in races as well and permits capable drivers to take advantage of it - it has tons of low-end torque which is very useful on tight tracks - it has even been succesful to some degree on open tracks like Le-Mans. All I did was present an analogy showing that it is useless to get hung over one non-optimal feature of a car to dismiss it, as our learned friend has done.
I will agree with this statement if performance was really just a 0-60 measure. If it is not - my statements still stand. The real comparison have always been between the Camaro and the Mustang - this is what GM had when it was fighting Ford in this segment of bang for buck, not the Corvette. FWIW - A Subaru Forrester XT is also a great performance bargain if you are looking at 0-60 numbers. I doubt that anyone would expect one to match a proper sport car chassis on the track, or even on the street.
When these Joe Schmo's are the people who do the national championship of the SCCA - a once a year event, run by people that are often a lot more talented than your average autojournalist (no disrespect), and the results are repeated year in and year out - it is clear to come to a conclusion.
Your answer is somewhat true when you are limited to small samples, but if you are using large samples, the laws of statistics actually turn the table on this argument, even if you do not use the same subjects (people) for the test. An argument can be said (and is actually used in statistics all the time) that one driver could be more comfortable in a specific car over another (maybe because of his height, body build or experience) and will thus have more influence on the real results.
There is a reason that science does not use this method to prove hypothesis - but a measured statistical sample (equivalent to the use of a large sample of results from the national SCCA championships) is used.
That's fine. Don't buy it.
Did you check the layout of the original Benz? If so you will see that your argument is wrong about the oldest layout, but this is not relevant to the argument. The relevant thing is to make the analogy between optimal technological element of a car's design to it's overall capability. A mental leap that you seem unable to perform.
I am a big fan of this engine and the S2000 - but it does have some disadvantages as well. Including the fact that it is physically about the same size and weight as the size of the Corvette's engine (not to mention being very tall). As I said before - there are advantages and disadvantages to everything. Displacement and power per cc is just one argument in the design of an engine. The torque and power curve are an important one to, and packaging consideration are important as well. When you add price, character and reliability you will see that the being hung over the displacement and valve actuation is a poor measure of an engine's sophistication. Life is more complicated than declaring that the LS1 is a poor engine because of this, or decalring that the S2000 is amazing because it gets a lot of power from a small displacement.
Because Porsche does.
In
formatting link
specifically refer to having 3 model lines, with the 911, Boxster andBell Pepper - you can choose yourself where to classify the CGT. Likewise, from
formatting link
(See the News section) "Porsche is going to announce a 4 door luxury saloon as its fourth model line in early 2004, as a German business magazine says. The S-class competitor is said to be produced at Porsche's premises in Leipzig"
Once again, if the 4-door luxury saloon is their 4th model line, this means that the CGT is not considered a stand alone model, but is one of the 3 mentioned above - when the car uses the same name (Carrera) as 911 models - it only makes sense to consider it as the same model.
To the best of my knowledge the single/double definition defines the number of cams per head - so a V engine with one set of cams for the intake and exhaust valves should in theory be defined a SOHC (despite the fact that you will have 2 cams), not DOHC, and an engine with 2 cams (one for intake, one for exhaust) per head should be called DOHC (despite the fact that you have
4 cams) - but I belive that this is a murky issue with some marketing departments - Porsche's original Carrera and Carrera 2 cars (the 356) were referred to as quad-cam because they had 2 cams per each cylinder bank and I have geard Cadillac refer to their DOHC Northstar as quad as well.
See
formatting link
for simple text about thesubject.
At the end of the day however - SOHC is a specific kind of a OHC engine and a DOHC is a specific kind of a OHC engine - so they are both OHC designs.
All you've done is present of bunch of semi-facts twisted to your point of view in an attempt to make me look wrong/bad. The non-optimal OHV design of the Corvette's engine is one of only *many* reasons I dislike the Corvette, and I've listed some of the other for you. If you're to dense to read what I write, that's one matter, but don't you dare start accusing me of doing things that I most certainly have not.
The only place you statements stand is in your own mind. The Mustang Cobra offers performance *very* close to if not better performance than the standard C5 Corvette for a *minimum* of $5,000 less. Despite your feelings and the off-keel ramblings of one R&T staff writer, the Mustang has a pretty decent interior and Car and Driver as well as several other publications agree with me there. If you don't think that this qualifies as better bang for the buck, than there's something wrong with the way you judge value. We've agreed that subjective judgements sell cars, and it's OK if subjectively, you dislike the Mustang. But simply because you dislike a car does not make it a poor value!
The Subaru is a great performer considering it's price. But it's less than wonderful ride, cheap interior (yes, *worse* than the Ford's) and a myrid of other small things keep it from being an overall great value. Certain distinctions need to be made when heving these discussions, distinctions you fail to make at every turn.
Sadly, it's not as simply as knowing what the acronyms stand for Ronny. I sugest you do some reasearch and figure out why OHV and OHC are not the same thing. Why OHC and SOHC are not the same thing. And what makes a DOHC engine different from a quad-cam unit. Motor Trend publishes a nice little automotive dictionary, try picking up a copy! In the mean time, I'll forgive your obvious misunderstanding of the technical workings of an engine, and forget you posted this. =) Sound good?
Unfortunately, the laws of sampling are not really relevant in road tests were factors don't remain constant and driver skill makes a big difference. I might be a better driver than my brother. If he and I tested the same car, even if conditions remained constant, we might get 2 very different numbers. Which number is correct? It's important that numbers are produced under fair testing conditions. This requires that the same driver or group of drivers drives each car. Also keep in mind that automotive magazines do not perform a simple single pass when attempting to aquire performance data. The data presented in the magazine is gathered by making several runs in every categorey and measuring with advanced electronic equipment. People driving around in a parking lot, no matter how skilled, usually cannot create the same kind of relevant performance data a magazine can. Of course, all of this is assuming that the avergae person gives a shit about race-track performance. I have neighbors who own 996 Carreras, BMW M5s, Lexus GS430s, and so on. All of these represent some of the best performers in their respective classes, but they were purchased more for the snob appeal than because of their performance.
This is exactly why statistics are used, in order neutralize the problems you mention. Statistics 101.
I give up.
All I have heard is how every link or piece of information I provide is not relevant, and got ambigius references to "do my homework". Please provide links or references that will "prove" your point. Otherwise - let's just call it a day - you will be right in your mind, I will be right in mine - and we the world will continue to go around.
You post links to websites about autocrossing, articles about the Z06, and some no-name site with dynographs and 1/4 performance with no added information on how those 1/4 times were acheived, when, or where. I'm sorry I was forced to call those out, but I did. The one semi-relevant link you did post was to a Road and Track article bashing the Mustang's tranny and interior. I simply responded by posting a link to a C&D article where the writer felt differently. The only thing this proves is that I was right when I said subjective judgements sell cars.
If I post something and you choose to challenge what I say, you're going to need to come with some proof. You can argue that you don't like the Mustang, or that it's not the "all around" performer a Corvette is, and I'll probably agree with you. But when the Mustang offers 9.5/10 of the Corvette's performance for $5 grand or more less, there's no way you can argue that the Mustang isn't a better value.
My only real "point" this whole time is that the Mustang Cobra is a better value than the Corvette. If there were a link I could use to back this up, I would! Sadly, the C&D comparison I remember reading between the C5 Corvette and Mustang Cobra doesn't seem to be avaliable online. If you don't agree with me, that's fine. But focus on that rather than degrading into silly arguments about which is the most outdated drivetrain design and such things.
Certainly the Mustang - Camaro comparison is more apples to apples, but now the Camaro is dead and there's a Mustang variant that can hold its own with the base Corvette in a straight line for thousands less. You're absolutely correct that performance is more than 0 - 60 MPH, but that and the 1/4 mile have been the American standards for years, as narrowly defined as that may be. The overwhelming majority of speed contests (both legal and illegal) in the U.S. are essentially drag races, whether limited to a 1/4 mile or not.
I don't think we're that far apart on most of this stuff - you don't think the Mustang should be considered in the bang for the buck comparison and I do. Fair enough. I think it compares more closely to the Corvette (front engines, rear wheel drives, two doors) than the Subaru STi and Lancer EVO (front engine, all wheel drive, four doors) which we've already agreed are performance bargains. You've correctly pointed out that the basic Mustang platform is dated, but even with an aging product the Mustang Cobra is credited with .90g lateral acceleration to the base Corvette's .89 (.92 in a convertible) per Road & Track. R & T also had the Cobra with an identical 0 - 60 time (4.9 sec) and better 1/4 mile time (13.3 @ 108 vs. 13.4 @ 101 for a Corvette Coupe and 13.6 @ 105.7 for a convertible). The coupe speed should probably be about 105 - 106, but they published 101.
To be fair, Motor Trend compared Cobra and Corvette convertibles and found the Corvette slightly quicker to 60 MPH, through the 1/4 mile and on the skidpad. My point is that you can match base Corvette numbers with a Mustang for thousnds less. I've beaten this one to death. The last word is yours. Happy Holidays!
If the last word is mine - it is that I am glad to have an intelligent conversation with someone on this subject in the newsgroup - a rare commodity at times. As you have said - we are probably not as far away in our opinion from each other. Happy holidays to you too.
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.