2006-New GTO and Chevelle,no Camaro
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,030
From: Frankfort, KY U.S.A.
Originally posted by WERM
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Please explain why a V8 powered, RWD Mustang II, which was similar in size and close in performance to the 1964 model and possessed many styling cues from that model is "not true to its roots" while the 70's Camaro was significantly larger, heavier, and shared no styling cues with the 1967 model is.
With the possible exception of the single model year of 1974 (when a V8 was not available) that argument has no basis. (BTW, the Z/28 was not available '75-'77).
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Please explain why a V8 powered, RWD Mustang II, which was similar in size and close in performance to the 1964 model and possessed many styling cues from that model is "not true to its roots" while the 70's Camaro was significantly larger, heavier, and shared no styling cues with the 1967 model is.
With the possible exception of the single model year of 1974 (when a V8 was not available) that argument has no basis. (BTW, the Z/28 was not available '75-'77).
In 1974 there was 3 versions of the 350 V8 available in the Camaro. In fact a V8 has always been available in Camaros every year it was in production.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 1,873
From: South Jersey
Originally posted by 30thZ286speed
Where do you get your info?
In 1974 there was 3 versions of the 350 V8 available in the Camaro. In fact a V8 has always been available in Camaros every year it was in production.
Where do you get your info?
In 1974 there was 3 versions of the 350 V8 available in the Camaro. In fact a V8 has always been available in Camaros every year it was in production.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,504
From: Ohio
Originally posted by 30thZ286speed
I believe that GM influenced the sales of Camaro, by limiting its production output as indicated in an above post. In the past 4 years you could have gone to an average Chevy dealer and they might have 1 or 2 new Camaro on the lot. Go down the road in the same town to the Ford lot and you might find 10-12 Mustangs in various trim levels. Go to a big city, and a high volume Chevy dealer and they might have 6 new Camaros to choose from. Go to a high volume Ford dealer and they will probably have 25+ new Mustangs available.
This is from my personal experince of the last few years driveing around lots trying to find a Camaro that had all the right options that I wanted. A lot of the times my local Chevy dealer had no new Camaro on the lot. In fact during the 2002 model year they recieved (2) Z28s and (1) 35th Anniversary Edition SS.
So how can they sale them when they aren't available on the lot and you can go down the road and drive home a new Mustang at any time?
I believe that GM influenced the sales of Camaro, by limiting its production output as indicated in an above post. In the past 4 years you could have gone to an average Chevy dealer and they might have 1 or 2 new Camaro on the lot. Go down the road in the same town to the Ford lot and you might find 10-12 Mustangs in various trim levels. Go to a big city, and a high volume Chevy dealer and they might have 6 new Camaros to choose from. Go to a high volume Ford dealer and they will probably have 25+ new Mustangs available.
This is from my personal experince of the last few years driveing around lots trying to find a Camaro that had all the right options that I wanted. A lot of the times my local Chevy dealer had no new Camaro on the lot. In fact during the 2002 model year they recieved (2) Z28s and (1) 35th Anniversary Edition SS.
So how can they sale them when they aren't available on the lot and you can go down the road and drive home a new Mustang at any time?
Add to that the fact that the dealers genrally stocked Black, Red, and Pewter only (good luck finding a different color easily) and the factthat all the cars were IDENTICALLY OPTIONED... and it made for a horrible selection.
And good luck finding a 6-speed on a lot... I saw ONE in a 3+ year period... I bought that one.
Last edited by Darth Xed; Jan 26, 2003 at 09:23 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,139
From: Commerce, mi, USA
Add to that the fact that the dealers genrally stocked Black, Red, and Pewter only (good luck finding a different color easily) and the factthat all the cars were IDENTICALLY OPTIONED... and it made for a horrible selection.
This is one area where I believe Ford was doing better in the Mustang, back when the FBody was still being produced. Of course the Mustang was selling more units, but even so there were more color choices for the Mustang - and I'm talking about primary colors, not silver/beige/white/black. Ford's sonic blue for example, had it all over GM's navy blue metallic IMHO (and I used to own a navy blue Formula). Ford had a nice shade of green on the 2002 Mustangs, and offers yellow. One thing Ford didn't put out though... Sunset Orange Metallic
Sunset Orange Met. 2002 Trans Am, DF Lid, FRA, K&N | DFGreen 98 GTP, Insulated SLP K&N, !U!Res, 3.5 Pulley, DHP_PCM, transcooler
| Brilliant Red Metallic 1990 IROC-Z Camaro, K&N, Camaro SS takeoff muffler | NBM 99 Formula, SOLD in Aug. 02.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,139
From: Commerce, mi, USA
Lol, you can't use the Ferarri or Porsche as an example. those are Rear or Mid engine cars. A long front overhang actually helps weight distribution.
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2003/acur...nav..12.Acura*
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2002/ferr...v..12.Ferrari*
They have overhangs to help with aerodynamics, to make room for the front wheels without needing bizarre front fender shapes, and to enhance view of the road/parking ease.
I suppose some here don't think these have a "performance look" either
Also, the Camaro has a coefficient of drag much higher than many "stub nosed" luxury cars.
Worried about mass? Yes. Every gram. It's a performance car.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
C'mon, BDnF..you are all over the board here.
You've gone from posting a picture of a Plymouth SuperBird to a Ferrari 360 to show that 4th gen proportions are "right on".
The 360 is a BEAUTIFUL car with tidy dimensions and gorgeous proportions. I wish we had a Camaro that looked that good!!!!
The Super Bird...should be appreciated for what it is....but should have no bearing whatsoever on the proportions of an F-car.
The only similarity I see is that they have four wheels
I think when you post the picture of the '54 Packard Caribbean...you may have clinched your point.....or maybe not.
You've gone from posting a picture of a Plymouth SuperBird to a Ferrari 360 to show that 4th gen proportions are "right on".
The 360 is a BEAUTIFUL car with tidy dimensions and gorgeous proportions. I wish we had a Camaro that looked that good!!!!
The Super Bird...should be appreciated for what it is....but should have no bearing whatsoever on the proportions of an F-car.
The only similarity I see is that they have four wheels
I think when you post the picture of the '54 Packard Caribbean...you may have clinched your point.....or maybe not.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 1,873
From: South Jersey
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BigDarknFast
[B]Cornpone. The reason why rear/mid engine cars have front overhangs is because they can.
Any car Can have a long front overhang, and it makes a lot more sense in rear and mid engine cars for many reasons, such as providing a place to store radiators, etc. and still allow for front cargo space. It also does help weight distribution in those cars - exactly the same reason BMW uses short front overhangs in its front engined cars. Last time I looked under the hood of a Camaro, most of that area up there was pretty empty.
Look at the Acura NSX and the Ferrari Modena:
They have overhangs to help with aerodynamics, to make room for the front wheels without needing bizarre front fender shapes, and to enhance view of the road/parking ease.
Yeah...but the Camaro had anything but a great view of the road and "parking ease". In fact, my wife refused to drive the Camaro because it was too big and she couldn't see anything beyond that dash.
Those other cars were also quite a bit smaller and lighter.
NSX - Length: 174.2 in. Width: 71.3 Weight: 3197 lbs.
512TR (Testarossa) - Length 176.4 in Width 77.8 in Weight (Dry) 3344 lbs
Camaro - Length: 193.5 in. Width: 74.1 in. Weight: 3439 lbs.
I suppose some here don't think these have a "performance look" either
Well, at nearly 20" shorter, they manage to have a "performance look" just fine. But if a Camaro requires a giant empty overhang just for a "performance look" isn't that just as bad as fake hood scoops?
Notice I said "a little mass". I suppose you'd be one of those guys who happily tools around town in a Cobra R, with no AC or stereo? Well I'm a little different. I enjoy my T-tops, AC, 12-disk CD changer, leather seats, and the like. Sure my TA is a performance car... but it's nice being able to enjoy the ride while humbling lesser cars
In "all corvettes are red" they describe the "relentless persuit of grams" in order to make the car as light as possible, to deliver world class performance. I don't see many vette owners complaining about a lack of content in their large (but lightweight) car. I would hope a 5th gen camaro would have a similar emphasis on weight reduction.
[B]Cornpone. The reason why rear/mid engine cars have front overhangs is because they can.
Any car Can have a long front overhang, and it makes a lot more sense in rear and mid engine cars for many reasons, such as providing a place to store radiators, etc. and still allow for front cargo space. It also does help weight distribution in those cars - exactly the same reason BMW uses short front overhangs in its front engined cars. Last time I looked under the hood of a Camaro, most of that area up there was pretty empty.
Look at the Acura NSX and the Ferrari Modena:
They have overhangs to help with aerodynamics, to make room for the front wheels without needing bizarre front fender shapes, and to enhance view of the road/parking ease.
Yeah...but the Camaro had anything but a great view of the road and "parking ease". In fact, my wife refused to drive the Camaro because it was too big and she couldn't see anything beyond that dash.
Those other cars were also quite a bit smaller and lighter.
NSX - Length: 174.2 in. Width: 71.3 Weight: 3197 lbs.
512TR (Testarossa) - Length 176.4 in Width 77.8 in Weight (Dry) 3344 lbs
Camaro - Length: 193.5 in. Width: 74.1 in. Weight: 3439 lbs.
I suppose some here don't think these have a "performance look" either
Well, at nearly 20" shorter, they manage to have a "performance look" just fine. But if a Camaro requires a giant empty overhang just for a "performance look" isn't that just as bad as fake hood scoops?
Notice I said "a little mass". I suppose you'd be one of those guys who happily tools around town in a Cobra R, with no AC or stereo? Well I'm a little different. I enjoy my T-tops, AC, 12-disk CD changer, leather seats, and the like. Sure my TA is a performance car... but it's nice being able to enjoy the ride while humbling lesser cars
In "all corvettes are red" they describe the "relentless persuit of grams" in order to make the car as light as possible, to deliver world class performance. I don't see many vette owners complaining about a lack of content in their large (but lightweight) car. I would hope a 5th gen camaro would have a similar emphasis on weight reduction.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Originally posted by BigDarknFast
I happen to agree with formula79 about the compromises made for the current Mustangs. Sure - today's Mustang is commercially viable... but they sacrificed a lot to make it so. They gave it granny-style upright seating, a weak V8 for the GT to not scare away parents and women, and lame stubby styling to appeal to the broadest possible customer segments. I happen to like my raked windshield and pointed, sculpted front clip, thank you very much. I like the low, racecar-like seating, the wraparound cockpit, the T-tops and the curvaceous body with big fat tires hanging out. There is no other car in its price range that looks as racy as a new Z28 or Trans Am, IMO. And there is certainly no other with so much HP and torque for the money. Yes GM did put performance first in these cars... and it shows
I happen to agree with formula79 about the compromises made for the current Mustangs. Sure - today's Mustang is commercially viable... but they sacrificed a lot to make it so. They gave it granny-style upright seating, a weak V8 for the GT to not scare away parents and women, and lame stubby styling to appeal to the broadest possible customer segments. I happen to like my raked windshield and pointed, sculpted front clip, thank you very much. I like the low, racecar-like seating, the wraparound cockpit, the T-tops and the curvaceous body with big fat tires hanging out. There is no other car in its price range that looks as racy as a new Z28 or Trans Am, IMO. And there is certainly no other with so much HP and torque for the money. Yes GM did put performance first in these cars... and it shows
It doesn't matter if you point to Camaro, Mustang, the Mopar twins, Javelins, or even Firebirds, all were based on small cheap cars.
As far as weak V8's, to steal from an old advertisment, Have you driven a Mustang lately? To say the 4.6 is weak (since 1999 at least) isn't very honest. And as far as making seating not to scare away women and parents, I appriciate the enthusiasm, but honestly? I find it hard to believe you actually believe that.
Mustangs in and of themselves are very good cars. They are quick. They are reasonably comfortable in the back the way 1st gen f-bodies were, More men bought GT Mustangs than bought Z28s, SSs, WS6s, T/As, and Formulas combined, and most likely, more men bought V6 Mustangs than bought all models of Camaro combined.
Mustangs appeal to a younger age group, and have a far more vast aftermarket than we do. Also, just off the top of my head, there's 3 magazines devoted to Mustangs. Not to mention there's a 2003 Mustang, and there will be a 2004 & 2005 as well. We can't say the same.Best of all, there is a team devoted exclusively to the development and evolution of the Mustang, and Ford's made a pretty ironclad commitment to it.
Let's give Mustang it's due. We may not like them, and we've chose to buy something else, but respect is something you gotta give the Mustang.
Being fast is one thing. Being dead puts everything else in perspective. It's like Plymouth Barracuda guys bashing F-bodies & Mustangs.
You can't brag if you don't have anything to bring to the party.
Last edited by guionM; Jan 26, 2003 at 02:20 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,139
From: Commerce, mi, USA
You've gone from posting a picture of a Plymouth SuperBird to a Ferrari 360 to show that 4th gen proportions are "right on".
The 360 is a BEAUTIFUL car with tidy dimensions and gorgeous proportions. I wish we had a Camaro that looked that good!!!!
The Super Bird...should be appreciated for what it is....but should have no bearing whatsoever on the proportions of an F-car.
The 360 is a BEAUTIFUL car with tidy dimensions and gorgeous proportions. I wish we had a Camaro that looked that good!!!!
The Super Bird...should be appreciated for what it is....but should have no bearing whatsoever on the proportions of an F-car.
). The SuperBird, as well as other cars I referenced, do indeed have a bearing on the Fbody. Today's FBody has a lot of muscle car and exotic performance car styling cues, and I think it's cool they actually have some of both! 
Would I like shorter overhangs? I suppose. But I just don't care much about the proportions, since the overall look of these cars is great anyway IMHO. And my point with all those references was that many notable muscle cars and exotics have had big overhangs.
Yeah...but the Camaro had anything but a great view of the road and "parking ease". In fact, my wife refused to drive the Camaro because it was too big and she couldn't see anything beyond that dash.
But if a Camaro requires a giant empty overhang just for a "performance look" isn't that just as bad as fake hood scoops?
I don't see many vette owners complaining about a lack of content in their large (but lightweight) car.
While I won't disagree that Mustangs are more "compromised" than f-bodies, you also must admit that Mustang stayed more true to the pony car formula than Camaro has.
). I was disappointed with its quality, the vibrating dash pad and rear view mirror, the lack of steering-wheel stereo controls, and other things. As for the 4.6, why should I be impressed with an overly complex V8 putting out 260 hp and 302 ft lb TQ, when the Z28 LS1 has 310 rated hp and 340 TQ? The Mustang back seat... speaking of which. I tried it out at NAIAS this year. I could not sit up straight without bumping my head... something I have no trouble with in my new Trans Am. Sorry Ford fans. Not all is well in Mustang land. There is hope at least on the styling front... I am impressed with the 2005 Mustang on the way.Note to self - next time I buy a car, make sure it's the one with the most magazines devoted to it
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 195
From: In a meeting
Originally posted by phantasm99
guionM, You seem to have the inside track as far as information is concerned....
That being said, from what you know did the 05 Mustang concept really have that much of an impact on B. Lutz and company?
I guess what I'm trying to say is, was this the push Camaro needed?
And as far as GM is concerned I am unfamiliar with Kurt Ritter what exactly does he do?
Thanks
Eddie
guionM, You seem to have the inside track as far as information is concerned....
That being said, from what you know did the 05 Mustang concept really have that much of an impact on B. Lutz and company?
I guess what I'm trying to say is, was this the push Camaro needed?
And as far as GM is concerned I am unfamiliar with Kurt Ritter what exactly does he do?
Thanks
Eddie
Last edited by quick; Jan 29, 2003 at 08:35 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Originally posted by formula79
How many people collect Mustang II's? Apparently there are enough people out there who feel the car was a heap and didn't deserve a Mustang name that it is simply an afterthought an not collected even nearly 30 years later.
How many people collect Mustang II's? Apparently there are enough people out there who feel the car was a heap and didn't deserve a Mustang name that it is simply an afterthought an not collected even nearly 30 years later.
)
Originally posted by formula79
Show me MustangII clubs...
Show me MustangII clubs...
MustangII.net , MustangII.org , or one of the other 218,000 sites sites dedicated to M-IIs.
A link to the official MCA Mustang II registry.
And another Mustang II registry that is hugely referenced.
And this Mustang II registry that is sponsored by RACERS!
There are 2 registries for King Cobras alone (my cars are authenticated in both registries BTW).
There are registries, racing clubs, restoration groups, cruisers... you name it - all you have to do is look for it.
The Mustang Club of America recognizes all M-IIs with their own class, and they are judged by "gold-card" judges, not amateurs.
Originally posted by formula79
show me movies featuring MustangII's.
show me movies featuring MustangII's.
You remember Charlie's Angels - the HUGE success from the late '70's? Farrah Fawcett, Kate Jackson, and Jacklyn Smith ALL drove Mustang IIs in that show - Farrah had a '77 Cobra II, Kate had a black M-II fastback V8 car, and Jacklyn drove a V8 Ghia notchback. (I think Bosley drove a Cougar or T-bird?) I'll dig up some pics for you if I have to... Farrah even had a very popular poster of her on the hood of the Cobra II - white w/ blue LeMans stripes.
There's one on the cover of Mustang Monthly for this month.
And BTW for collectibility,
In September 4 of 2001, a Cobra II went for $15,200, and a King Cobra immediately followed on September 5 for $17,000 - both on Ebay (click, then scroll down 4 headlines).
They can range fromSale 1 to Sale 2 in price and condition. The average KC goes like this... Sale 3 The average Cobra II is now fetching north of $5k for a decent car - not a show-stopper.
I know of a King Cobra that sold privately for $24,000 - it had @8k miles on it, and was mint unrestored.
Branden, I'm sorry you hate Mustang IIs, but not everyone does. In fact, they do have quite a following. I guess you just have to have that "special something" that gets you to like "cars" for what they represent and for what they are, not just one model because of it's name or who made it.
Thanks to guionM, Werm, and numerous others for giving the M-II it's fair shake in all this - I must have been hibernating or something.
It ain't the greatest car ever, but it did what it was intended to do, and it did so well IMO.
Last edited by ProudPony; Jan 30, 2003 at 09:00 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,180
From: Yadkinville, NC USA
Originally posted by guionM
At any rate, the Monza Spyder was way way better.
At any rate, the Monza Spyder was way way better.
I loved those Monza's too. Recall a few months back that I eluded to the Monza V8's and Spyders in a thread about "lost souls", and you and Z284ever came back with some good stuff.
Where do those good ol' cars go?
Anyhow, I remembered seeing this a long time ago after reading your comment above... and I have to admit that I searched for this thing for over an hour! (I just h=get possessed sometimes... it's like I have to find something just to validate my own memory... or prove to myself I'm not going crazy!
)So here they are...
From Road and Track - August, 1976
Chevrolet Monza vs Ford Mustang II
And from Motor Trend - November, 1974
Title Fight: Monza V-8 vs. Mustang V-8
Note how Chevy, Ford, MT, R&T and everybody else was comparing the Mustang II to the MONZA, not the Camaro or Firebird? Interesting, huh?
AAAhhhh yes, days gone by...
Enjoy!!!
Last edited by ProudPony; Jan 30, 2003 at 09:40 AM.