2015 Ford Mustang - General Discussion

[Wolfe]

@McLaren: Why be so hung up on the "sports" prefix as if it's synonymous with "good?" I drove an E30 for 7 years and love the E30 M3 to death, but it's not a sportscar either. Does that mean it's not a good car? Of course not, it's just not a sportscar. It's a two-door sports sedan. The DMV even called my E30 "coupe" a two-door sedan. It's all arbitrary categorizing whichever way you go, but what I want to know is: why is considering something not a sportscar equated with judging it harshly? Why must it be taken as considering something "less" than what it is or could be?

There are some truly great FWD cars out there -- the Elan is one -- but I wouldn't define any of them as a "sportscar" because FWD simply doesn't fit into my definition of one. I'm no FWD fan but I hardly think that constitutes spiteful bias. A "hot hatch" or a "sport compact" can easily be a better car than a "sportscar," and I have no problem identifying when that's the case. The Cobalt SS turbo, for example, puts many sportscars to shame on the track. I'd rather drive a slower RWD myself, but that doesn't change the fact that the SS is a fast and highly capable car.

 

[Keef]

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

Explain why. Whether or not I agree with others, at least they're backing their arguments.

Now, on front-drive sports cars. The elan has two doors, two seats, and is not a truck, satisfying three of my five rules. These two cars also satisfy those same rules:

Are either the Mercury Capri or the Cadillac Allante sports cars? If not, why not? And how would you objectively justify the difference without setting some arbitrary performance parameters that none of history's greatest small, light, weak, fragile, and unreliable sports cars could ever meet?

My solution is to not classify them as sports cars because they're not. Sporty cars, sure, in that they were designed and marketed with "fun" in mind, but they're most certainly not sports cars in the classical sense which is clearly typified by my four rules.

 

[McLaren]

@McLaren: Why be so hung up on the "sports" prefix as if it's synonymous with "good?" I drove an E30 for 7 years and love the E30 M3 to death, but it's not a sportscar either. Does that mean it's not a good car? Of course not, it's just not a sportscar. It's a two-door sports sedan. The DMV even called my E30 "coupe" a two-door sedan. It's all arbitrary categorizing whichever way you go, but what I want to know is: why is considering something not a sportscar equated with judging it harshly? Why must it be taken as considering something "less" than what it is or could be?

It has nothing to do with it being judged harshly. It's using stupid logic to equate that the Lotus isn't a sports car b/c it's FWD, but a SLK Mercedes is b/c it's RWD.

There are some truly great FWD cars out there -- the Elan is one -- but I wouldn't define any of them as a "sportscar" because FWD simply doesn't fit into my definition of one. I'm no FWD fan but I hardly think that constitutes spiteful bias. A "hot hatch" or a "sport compact" can easily be a better car than a "sportscar," and I have no problem identifying when that's the case. The Cobalt SS turbo, for example, puts many sportscars to shame on the track. I'd rather drive a slower RWD myself, but that doesn't change the fact that the SS is a fast and highly capable car.

A Cobalt SS is nothing more than a built-up, performance version of a FF economy car.

The Elan was built as a performance car from the get-go. Keef's definition however, is bias because of the sole fact it is FWD. It does everything else in his 4 rules. It does them all as well or better than the examples he listed. But, it doesn't get to be a sports car because it's FWD.

That's bias.

Edit*
And Keef goes & proves what a complete & utter idiotic idea he has of a sports car by bringing up a Mercury Capri & a Cadillac Allante as the same thing as an Elan just because they're FWD. Jesus F. Christ....

 

[Azuremen]

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.

I'm 6'4 and I fit reasonably in the MR-S and E36, among many other cars in those categories, so dunno what your deal is.

 

[Nessy]

I can't believe some people think the FWD Elan isn't a sports car.

 

[Tornado]

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".

It does in regards to the idea that they made it FWD purely because it was pretty much impossible to make it RWD without making it worse rather then the practical considerations (like what they would use for an engine) if they didn't. Even at the time, the automotive press heard Lotus's claim, took a look over at Mazda and got confused what exactly Lotus was referring to.

Explain why. Whether or not I agree with others, at least they're backing their arguments.

Now, on front-drive sports cars. The elan has two doors, two seats, and is not a truck, satisfying three of my five rules. These two cars also satisfy those same rules:

*Capri*

*Allante*

So the Elan (and, for that matter, something like the Porsche 911) is less of a sports car then, say...

?




Still curious why the Supra is different from the Mustang in that regard, too.

 

[DaxCobra]

I can't believe some people think the FWD Elan isn't a sports car.

Just reading through the last two pages and I had to laugh when I saw that.

 

[Wolfe]

The Elan is more like a Daihatsu Copen than a Capri or Allanté.

The Ford Mustang is more like a BMW 6-series than the Elan. (worth a try...)

 

[MisterWhiskers]

I hate FWD cars, too. BUT, some were race cars. Anyway, what happened to the topic?!

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Came to see news on the mustang...and rather I get bickering about a car that I never understood why people enjoyed.

 

[niky]

The Elan is more like a Daihatsu Copen than a Capri or Allanté.

The Ford Mustang is more like a BMW 6-series than the Elan. (worth a try...)

So the Mustang is a Grand Tourer, then, not a Sportscar?

Guys, let's get back on topic, whatever it is... I'm pretty sure we have a topic here somewhere debating what is a sportscar and what's not.

EDIT: Like so:

FWD Sports Car?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Pony car: Part sports car, part muscle car, part gt, but none of those exclusively.

 

[Slash]

Ford Mustang GT

GT usually meants "Grand Tourer", or "Gran Turismo". No one really knows though because it wasn't ever revealed by Ford.

I'm not a FWD fan but I agree some FWD cars can be sporty and be sports cars.

 

[TheCracker]

Grand Tourer and Gran Turismo are the same thing in different languages

A million hot hatches disagree with FWD not equalling 'sporty'. A 'sports car' and a 'sporty car' are different things. The Mustang has never been a sports car, but it's been a sporty car from the word go.

 

[Slash]

Grand Tourer and Gran Turismo are the same thing in different languages

A million hot hatches disagree with FWD not equalling 'sporty'. A 'sports car' and a 'sporty car' are different things. The Mustang has never been a sports car, but it's been a sporty car from the word go.

That is down to a matter of opinion.

 

[Wolfe]

^ I don't think it is, but we're never going to settle it here.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

In the vernacular, the generally accepted lexicon, a Mustang is a sports car. I don't really agree with it, but academic definitions are not always that useful nor relevant. 99% of motorists (the total number of people on this forum, world wide, one of the largest automotive-related forums on the internet, is less than 1% of the total motorists in the United States alone) see a Mustang and think 'Sports Car.'

I've already given my personal definition, as have a few others, and it's clear that even among dedicated car enthusiasts (you'd have to be to register for a car-related forum) there is really no agreement on such things. It's a useless argument that cannot be objectively solved.




Now, who's hoping for a 6.2 in the next Mustang??!

 

[MisterWhiskers]

In the vernacular, the generally accepted lexicon, a Mustang is a sports car. I don't really agree with it, but academic definitions are not always that useful nor relevant. 99% of motorists see a Mustang and think 'Sports Car.'

I've already given my personal definition, as have a few others, and it's clear that even among dedicated car enthusiasts (you'd have to be to register for a car-related forum) there is really no agreement on such things. It's a useless argument that cannot be objectively solved.




Now, who's hoping for a 6.2 in the next Mustang??!

Me. It is a sports car, I agree.

 

[Slash]

A 6.2 in the Mustang would be awesome. Been a long time since a 6+ liter engine has been installed in one, from the factory at least. Think the last year was 1973.

 

[Joey D]

Wouldn't a 6.2L just be needlessly heavy? I'm sure you could easily get just as much, if not more power out of the 5.0L.

My hope is that some day the GT500 gets an EcoBoost V8, because how awesome would a turbo'ed V8 be?

I'm excited that we are going to be getting the turbo 4cylinder and I think it's really going to sell well. People that would otherwise be looking at something like a 370Z might now consider a turbo-4 Mustang just because it fits with that demographic a bit better. And I'd strongly consider a turbo-4 Mustang if they put a double clutch 6-speed in it and allowed me to buy it in that ridiculous green.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

The Corvette's LT1 V8 is significantly smaller than the BMW 4.4 litre turbo V8, so displacement doesn't necessarily dictate size and weight. That said, the LT1 has a very low specific output. The Coyote V8 is quite impressive, especially in its head design. Upgrading it is all the Mustang needs in terms of power. What it really needs is more refinement.

 

[Keef]

And Keef goes & proves what a complete & utter idiotic idea he has of a sports car by bringing up a Mercury Capri & a Cadillac Allante as the same thing as an Elan just because they're FWD. Jesus F. Christ....

How is the Élan objectively different than the other two? Is weight the deciding factor? If so, what is the limit? How about 2700 pounds. That means the Allante isn't a sports car which we both agree on, and nor is the 2nd or 3rd generation RX7 or any NSX. Or any Ferrari since a long time ago. But the Capri still is.

What we're trying to do is define the term "sports car", and any definition which includes subjectivity is not a definition but a description.

I'm 6'4 and I fit reasonably in the MR-S and E36, among many other cars in those categories, so dunno what your deal is.

I was speaking about the rear seats which is why I said "sit behind yourself". If you can do that in the MR-S I'll bow to you.

The Elan is more like a Daihatsu Copen than a Capri or Allanté.

The Ford Mustang is more like a BMW 6-series than the Elan. (worth a try...)

"More like" isn't the most objective thing either

So the Elan (and, for that matter, something like the Porsche 911) is less of a sports car then, say...

?

Still curious why the Supra is different from the Mustang in that regard, too.

I classify a 911 as a sports car because the rear seats are not reasonably useful as seats.

As for the Supra, I've never has the opportunity to notice or try rear seats in one. I don't know, are they reasonably useful? I'm not the only one allowed to make that decision. Maybe it's a grand tourer like a Mustang.

How about somebody other than me present their list of objective criteria which make a sports car, not merely suggest one.

 

[McLaren]

How is the Élan objectively different than the other two? Is weight the deciding factor? If so, what is the limit? How about 2700 pounds. That means the Allante isn't a sports car which we both agree on, and nor is the 2nd or 3rd generation RX7 or any NSX. Or any Ferrari since a long time ago. But the Capri still is.

This is by far, even stupider than the last post you made. Look up the car to begin with.

You're basing a sports car off weight, drivetrain, & whatever other basic statistics alone & nothing else. If a SLK, Z3/Z4/Boxster are all sports cars, so is a M100 Elan. That is a fact because it does everything those cars can as a sports car, if not better. The only difference is that it's FWD, but the innovative suspension & chassis setup make it overcome that.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

There is no objective criteria, Keef. Marketing types won't let that happen. We'll never have a species-like genetic classification. It would be bad for business. If Lotus billed the Elan as a sports car, which they did, and it was generally received as a sports car, which it was, then who are you to say it isn't?

Automotive genres are nebulous seas of subjectivity and marketing sway. Don't try to make a science out of it, please.

 

[DeathSmiles]

What is a sports car? What is a non-sport car? The term is not ironclad to a specific doctrine of statistic, as McLaren, and Eunos have shown. It depends on the vehicle, and it's general purpose within the context of it's release period.

The Mustang is a sports car because it was designed as and resembled one, and was a sportier ride (the margin of which is irrelevant) than most large ass heavy vehicles of the era.

FWD drive, AWD, RWD, One Wheel Drive. Doesn't matter. The end result however, does.

Trying to put stringent "laws" on what makes a car a sports car or not, is impossible to do. End point, they are all road cars, so if we get really damn technical, sports cars would only be cars meant for actual "sporting" events, right?

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

 

[Slash]

Wouldn't a 6.2L just be needlessly heavy? I'm sure you could easily get just as much, if not more power out of the 5.0L.

My hope is that some day the GT500 gets an EcoBoost V8, because how awesome would a turbo'ed V8 be?

I'm excited that we are going to be getting the turbo 4cylinder and I think it's really going to sell well. People that would otherwise be looking at something like a 370Z might now consider a turbo-4 Mustang just because it fits with that demographic a bit better. And I'd strongly consider a turbo-4 Mustang if they put a double clutch 6-speed in it and allowed me to buy it in that ridiculous green.

I would like to see a turbo v8, but I don't think that will happen any time soon. Also The 6.2L has much room for improvement and weight can be significantly reduced with a redesign. If they converted the block to aluminum I'm sure that in itself would shave off at least 80-100lbs from the total weight of the engine.

If they build it like Roush did, a 7.0L wouldn't be out of the question either. Naturally aspirated on E85 it made 800hp.

Ford has said the 5.0L is pretty much out as much power from the factory as it can take safely, and that is why they are stressing not to modify the new model Mustangs. If you install anything, or do anything to it, you void the warranty, regardless of wether or not it breaks.

The Corvette's LT1 V8 is significantly smaller than the BMW 4.4 litre turbo V8, so displacement doesn't necessarily dictate size and weight. That said, the LT1 has a very low specific output. The Coyote V8 is quite impressive, especially in its head design. Upgrading it is all the Mustang needs in terms of power. What it really needs is more refinement.

I agree the Coyote's head design is brilliant but the 5.0 can't really take much more.

 

[Blackbird.]

Ford has said the 5.0L is pretty much out as much power from the factory as it can take safely, and that is why they are stressing not to modify the new model Mustangs. If you install anything, or do anything to it, you void the warranty, regardless of wether or not it breaks.

I agree the Coyote's head design is brilliant but the 5.0 can't really take much more.

I beg to differ.

 

[McLaren]

Ford has said the 5.0L is pretty much out as much power from the factory as it can take safely, and that is why they are stressing not to modify the new model Mustangs. If you install anything, or do anything to it, you void the warranty, regardless of wether or not it breaks.

Riiiighht.

That's why the car is not only underrated from the factory on advertised power, but why Ford also offers a complete factory-supplied catalog of parts consisting of exhausts, camshafts, forged cranks, & superchargers for the 5.0 GT. Or why they sell Roush Stage 1/2/3/R cars right on their own lots, under Ford warranty.

As for what the 5.0 can take, there are already more than sufficient twin turbo setups running over 800whp. The supercharger setups aren't any different from the last 2 generations of Mustangs & are far from pushing the boundaries of the Coyote engine.

 

[Slash]

Then Ford is contradicting themselves.

http://www.themustangnews.com/conte...s-of-modifications-to-2011-2012-5-0-mustangs/