2015 Ford Mustang - General Discussion

[Tornado]

What's the difference between a Supra and a Mustang?

 

[Wolfe]

^ I agree 100% with Keef, a sportscar isn't just everything that's "fun," it means something specific. And it has nothing to do with power-to-weight or accelerating in a straight line; the sort of cars that Eunos_Cosmo posted were what originally defined the term.

I mean, I can't say I don't disagree with the Mustang not being a sports car. But there are plenty of sports cars with 4 'usable' seats.

I think a 2+2 can still be a sportscar.

What's the difference between a Supra and a Mustang?

The Mustang is built for bang-for-buck performance, while the Supra was a GT car.

 

[Zenith]

I would argue that, barring the Corvette, the Mustang was the most fun American car to drive in 1964. You need to place your own experience within the context of early 60's American cars. The Mustang really was the Miata of it's day. The next 'sportiest' car in the lineup would have been the Thunderbird, but that wasn't even close by 1964.

First gen Mustangs remain very light with reasonably small proportions and adequate power. The fact that they begun being raced almost immediately shows that they did have sporting pretensions.

It is worth noting that people raced everything in the 60's and modified them to hell.

I would agree that it was the Miata of its day, but being modifiable as the Mustang was does not make the stock car sporty.

In fact a Mustang won it's class in the 1964 Tour De France Automobile, barely a few months after the car's release. This was before Shelby and further competition development.

In the Touring Class, should be noted.

edit: Your sportage point is invalid. This doesn't look like a sports car anymore than it performs like one. Really stretching on that claim...

It has styling features that resemble a sports car. High waistline, the way the bodywork on the doors cuts upward to reduce the visual mass, the crease on the side that runs from the front to the rear. That resembles a sports car, it is therefore a sporty car.

For the record, I previously owned 2 1965 Mustangs. Both Coupes.

Cool, care to post some pictures? I'm always happy to ask someone else about their Mustang.

Also, the car was sportier than most other American made cars at the time, and not nearly as big and heavy.

Been over this, being less unsporty than another car does not make a car sporty.

But seriously, you are still clawing at the walls trying to prove a null point, so I don't care.

The Mustang was, and has always been a sports car.

Clawing at the walls? Please. You've got the attitude here. You've contributed nothing to the conversation that EC and JD didn't first, if you don't care to argue against my point, don't. I get far more mental stimulation from discussing things from people who don't demonstrate the maturity of an angry 14 year old.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The Mustang created the "pony car" class of American automobiles—sports car-like coupes with long hoods and short rear decks

Pilfered from wikipedia. I think that definition should make everyone happy.

I will never agree that the Sportage looks anything like a sports car. None of the styling cues you said have really anything to do with sports cars. Here is a sports car with a low belt line, and no character lines or 'crease lines' to speak of:

Also: Modern 'touring' class:

Touring in racing basically means based on road going cars, no?

 

[DeathSmiles]

Zenith - Your problem is you are assuming this conversation somehow upsets me. Quite the opposite. This is keeping me awake at work, right now.

You are the one who seems to be upset, since there's a nice personal attack at my character attached to every reply since this started, from you.

Cool, care to post some pictures? I'm always happy to ask someone else about their Mustang.

No, I don't. And I don't need to state anything else on that subject. The point I wanted to make was already made, and we aren't about to discuss out mutual love of older Mustangs, right now.

It has styling features that resemble a sports car. High waistline, the way the bodywork on the doors cuts upward to reduce the visual mass, the crease on the side that runs from the front to the rear. That resembles a sports car, it is therefore a sporty car.

Yea, no. Now you are just being silly, and it's hard to argue against a person who isn't even trying to stay relevant within his own argument.

Been over this, being less unsporty than another car does not make a car sporty.

It doesn't. But being a lighter than most Coupe and Roadster being designed and built with purpose to be a sports car, does.

Clawing at the walls? Please. You've got the attitude here. You've contributed nothing to the conversation that EC and JD didn't first, if you don't care to argue against my point, don't. I get far more mental stimulation from discussing things from people who don't demonstrate the maturity of an angry 14 year old.

Blah blah blah, personal attack about how I'm not contributing to the thread (regardless of the fact that all my posts uhhh, have been)!

Classic BS.

 

[Zenith]

Edit: In response to EC.

The Mustang created the Pony Car class. I would disagree with Wikipedia's definition that a Pony Car is simply a coupe with a long hood and short deck. I think most people here would have far more selective definitions of the term "Pony Car" but this is the issue of using general definitions such as those found on Wikipedia and Merriam Webster.

There are plenty of sporty cars with high belt lines, small windows, and long, strong creases. Here's one.

Here's Webster's definition.

resembling a sports car in styling or performance

The Camaro is a sports car, the Kia Sportage resembles a Camaro in styling, the Kia Sportage is a sporty car. This is Webster's definition, not mine. I am using the Sportage to demonstrate a flaw in Webster's definition. It's too broad.

Those are modern Touring Cars, weren't you just talking about how we should evaluate the original 1964-1/2 Mustang by its merits in its own time?

No, I don't. And I don't need to state anything else on that subject. The point I wanted to make was already made, and we aren't about to discuss out mutual love of older Mustangs, right now.

Hm. I'd love to see a PM of these Mustangs if you ever get the chance.

Yea, no. Now you are just being silly, and it's hard to argue against a person who isn't even trying to stay relevant within his own argument.

No, I'm demonstrating a flaw in using the dictionary's definition. You responded with a post arguing that I'm somehow not staying relevant to the definition of "sporty". I notice that there's nothing in your post that refutes my point about the Kia Sportage being a sporty car by the yours and the dictionary's definition.

It doesn't. But being a lighter than most Coupe and Roadster being designed and built with purpose to be a sports car, does.

Which coupes and roadsters of that period are you speaking of?

Blah blah blah, personal attack about how I'm not contributing to the thread (regardless of the fact that all my posts uhhh, have been)!

Classic BS.

In a post that started with...

Zenith - Your problem is you are assuming this convversation somehow upsets me. Quite the opposite. This is keeping me awake at work, right now.

You are the one who seems to be upset, since there's a nice personal attack at my character attached to every reply since this started, from you.

Okay.

 

[Tornado]

The Mustang is built for bang-for-buck performance, while the Supra was a GT car.

The end of the third generation and the fourth generation were, since everything coming from Japan at that point was unless it was the NSX or RX-7.


The car originally basically amounted to a Toyota Celica with a bigger engine and more equipment; and the definition Keef gave for its classification applies pretty much identically to the Mustang.

 

[Wolfe]

I missed that one, I wouldn't classify the Supra as a sportscar myself.

 

[Slash]

Nothing wrong with Mustang II.. Remember Ford Probe? That originally was planned as Mustang replacement..

I agree the Ford Probe would have been a worse replacement but they only really good things about the Mustang II was the IFS, 30+mpg in the 6cyl and the blocks from the V8's.

Once again, the original Mustang had nothing sporty about it.

Here's to another disagreement.




I don't know....this looks pretty sporty for me (for it's day). Then again compared to later models this is rather weak.

Before you say anything I know this is a '65 fastback and irrelevant to the conversation.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Thread:

Semantics arguments are so futile.

 

[McLaren]

My definition of a "sports car":

1. Two doors
2. Not front-wheel drive
3. Two useable seats for driver and passenger
4. Not a truck

That's my definition of a sports car. NSX? Sports car. Austin Healey? Sports car. Miata? Sports car. RX7? Sports car. Supra? Sports car. Mercedes SLK? Sports car. BMW Z3/Z4? Sports cars. Porsche 911/Boxster/Cayman? Sports cars.

E30/E36/E46/most M3s ever made? Not sports cars, but "sporty" grand touring cars. RX8? Not a sports car. Fiat 500 Abarth? Not a sports car. Focus ST? Not a sports car. Mitsubishi Evo? Not a sports car. Honda Civic Si? Integra Type R? Toyota Celica? AE86?

Mustang? Not a sports car. A sporty grand tourer with room in the back to bring friends. Never in its history has it been designed to be a sports car, but a sporty car with a little extra. Perhaps that's why it and cars like it have sold so well, because they're fun like sports cars but somewhat versatile and practical.

Someone inform Lotus that they did it wrong, then.

 

[Blackbird.]

Edit: Dude we live in the same area driving similar cars. Any chance you might have seen me driving around?

Possibly. I'm on my phone right now and I'm sorry to say I don't remember off the top of my head what you drive.

 

[Wolfe]

Someone inform Lotus that they did it wrong, then.

Not being a sportscar doesn't diminish a car's abilities or make it "uncool." It just means it's not a sportscar...you haven't done it "wrong" if you've done something else.

You don't have to dislike the Mustang to think it's not a sportscar. It's a pony car. Doesn't make it any less than what it always was. It's just not a sportscar...

 

[DeathSmiles]

^lol

Reread the thread. This was hilarious.

 

[Wolfe]

I'm late to the party and we're up to 700 posts now. I don't care about the Mustang or these semantics that much. I do think it's silly to equate "sportscar" to "fast in a straight line," or simply "fun" with no other qualifiers. Or "fast-looking" like the general public likes to define it.

At any rate it's a horribly nebulous term and should probably be avoided in any circumstance where someone could nitpick it.

 

[Tornado]

Someone inform Lotus that they did it wrong, then.

They kinda did do it wrong, though. That's (at least partially) why people just bought Miatas instead.

 

[Slash]

Not being a sportscar doesn't diminish a car's abilities or make it "uncool." It just means it's not a sportscar...you haven't done it "wrong" if you've done something else.

You don't have to dislike the Mustang to think it's not a sportscar. It's a pony car. Doesn't make it any less than what it always was. It's just not a sportscar...

By definition, a pony car, before I get too involved in this, is sport coupe, compact reliative to the muscle car with a top of the line performance engine under the hood. The term often describes an affordable, compact, highly styled car with a sporty or performance-oriented image.

The actual Merriam-Webster definition is one of a group of 2-door hardtops of different makes that are in sporty styling, high performance characteristics and affordable price range.

Exact words after a Google search.

CAn we all just agree we all have differnet opinions on what is a sports car?

 

[Wolfe]

^ Other attributes aside, a pony car is defined by its engine, while a sportscar is defined by going around corners. That's how I see it.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

And everyone else probably sees it incrementally or totally different.

We should probably move on.

 

[McLaren]

Not being a sportscar doesn't diminish a car's abilities or make it "uncool." It just means it's not a sportscar...you haven't done it "wrong" if you've done something else.

You don't have to dislike the Mustang to think it's not a sportscar. It's a pony car. Doesn't make it any less than what it always was. It's just not a sportscar...

What are on earth was that in response to?

If by Keef's definition that a SLK, Z3/Z4, & a Boxster are sports cars, then the M100 Elan is most certainly a sports car, despite Keef's #2 rule.

 

[Slash]

What are on earth was that in response to?

Search me.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Honda Beat? Sports car.

 

[Wolfe]

What are on earth was that in response to?

If by Keef's definition that a SLK, Z3/Z4, & a Boxster are sports cars, then the M100 Elan is most certainly a sports car, despite Keef's #2 rule.

What is it about the SLK/Z3/Z4/Boxster that make the M100 Elan a sportscar? I agree with Keef, FWD = not a sportscar. That doesn't mean the Elan isn't a better car than the SLK.

I admit I don't know what's so shocking or amusing (re: DeathSmiles) about this.

Honda Beat? Sports car.

Lightweight two-seater MR built for fun in the twisties? No question. Who cares if it has a 3-cylinder kei engine.

 

[Keef]

Porsche 911?
Lotus Evora?
Hyundai Genesis?
Subaru BRZ?
Japanese Market RX-7? (4 seats)
Toyota Supra? (4 seats)

I'm about 6 feet tall and can fit in the Evora, Genesis, BR-Z, and Supra just as well as a Mustang. Mustang rear seats aren't exactly huge.

I mean, I can't say I don't disagree with the Mustang not being a sports car. But there are plenty of sports cars with 4 'usable' seats.

I'm 5' 11" and can barely sit behind myself in an E46 sedan. There's no way you can reasonably sit behind yourself in any of those cars, and I've tried a 4-seat FC (an option in the US), a Genesis Coupe, and FR-S.

If you think the Mustang isn't a sports car then you need to come up an objective reason and one that applies in other situations as well. I've got one.

I can list a million reasons why this makes no sense, but you are entitled to your own views and opinions, regardless of what the actual definitions dictate.

This is also lacking objectivity.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

It's pretty simple. The Mustang has always shared a platform with more humble cars. To me, a true sports car is one that has a bespoke platform designed specifically to be a sports car. MX-5, S2000, Elan, Evora, etc all fit this fairly objective idea.

Of course there are always exceptions, but this is my general idea of a sports car.

 

[McLaren]

What is it about the SLK/Z3/Z4/Boxster that make the M100 Elan a sportscar? I agree with Keef, FWD = not a sportscar. That doesn't mean the Elan isn't a better car than the SLK.

The 4 German cars are sports cars solely because they're RWD, but the M100 Elan isn't despite the fact that the Lotus was called one of the greatest point-to-point cars & praised for its unique suspension setup. Or the fact that Lotus, arguably one of the top manufacturers when it comes to handling perfection, came to the conclusion that the car would perform better under a FWD setup than a RWD.

So, let me make sure I understand the logic. Had Lotus made the M100 RWD & decreased its performance, then it would have been a sports car. But, because Lotus found a FWD setup to be much better suited & quicker, it's no longer a sports car.

One of the stupidest things I have ever read in this forum. Nothing more than pure bias against FWD cars, as if straight out of the GT5 Drift forum.

If you want to know how dumb Keef's definition is, let me bring up the fact that he does not consider this a sports car. Any car enthusiast knows this is one of the best sports cars ever built.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Seconded.

Also, the SLK was based on the C class. I don't think it should be counted as a sports car. Roadster perhaps, but not really sports car.

 

[DeathSmiles]

This is also lacking objectivity.

It just doesn't make any sense, sir. At all.

 

[Tornado]

Or the fact that Lotus, arguably one of the top manufacturers when it comes to handling perfection, came to the conclusion that the car would perform better under a FWD setup than a RWD.

I'm sure the fact that the only suitable engine/transmission GM had in their parts bin at the time was designed for FF applications had nothing to do with that.

 

[McLaren]

I'm sure the fact that the only suitable engine GM had in their parts bin at the time was designed for FF applications had nothing to do with that.

It doesn't matter if it did or didn't, though. The sole fact is that the end result was a car that performed as a sports car should & the automotive press to this day, still seem to agree Lotus of all manufacturers would be the ones to make the "impossible".