Depends on what sport applies when you feel keeping up is the deal. The Mustang is a brick on a roadcourse. It would be nice if Ford made a great complete performance at an affordable number.

I didn't opt for a Z06 to "keep up".

Mustangs qualify for T-1 in SCCA but they haven't been competitive. Camaros certainly have been. Corvettes hold their own in T2. These are classes where the resemblance to stock is valid.

I hope there is a market for cars over $100K. I'd like to see the Cien produced.

 

If some of you guys (Bob Cosby, Snorman) read this forum regularly and collect in your mind all the tidbits of information out there, you'll see a pattern that guys like PacerX and guionM are almost ALWAYS right. They're some of the insiders on this board. And Pacer's claim about the C6 is not too unfounded from the information known. We already know the approximate power and weight of each car and YES the GT will be in trouble.

 

Ole' Bob and Snorman only like to post if it has to do with a Cobra or the GT. As far as the 93'-95' Cobra being equal to LT1 cars, what are you thinking? LT1's will have multiple car lengths on any of those Cobras.

 

/Golfclap. LOL...I'll take your word for it.
Drop me a line when GM has even a working prototype from which to draw a comparison to what you don't even know Ford will be building in 3 years.
Gee...why should they? Considering they MSRP over $15k more than a Cobra have 2 fewer seats and are a purpose-built sports car, I'd hope they would outperform one
I'm sure you do. You prop up GM like a billboard. I'm sure 99% of those here support whatever you have to say, regardless of the impending accuracy of your statements.

You have it backwards. Mustang qualifies for Touring-2 and American Sedan club racing, Corvette is Touring-1, not 2. Incidentally, Mustang dominates AS class racing, but those cars are more modified than touring class entries.
Also, Mazda Miatas and Nissan 200SX's are more successful in SCCA club racing than F-bodies...does that make them a better car?
S.

 

LOL. I see this one might get fun.

As we used to say a long time ago....line-item-style time....

Ok, I'll take your word for it. However, when he/she/it makes blanket statements such as he/she/it did, then its hard to come to any other conclusion. At least from my perspective.

Yours may be different, and that's ok with me.

Hmmmm....I went back and read what I wrote, and I could not figure out where it was that I was passing judgement. I made an observation that I believe to be an accurate description of ***most*** of the folks that post on CZ28.com. The same could be said of any number of similar websites, such as the Corral, Stangnet, ThirdGen.org, etc.

Good - I'm happy for you.

Very much correct. I'll go further and state that it will be very unlikely to have anybody on this Forum/Site buy one. I could be wrong, but if so, it will be very, very few...for more reasons than one.

We can agree! If you took offense to my previous post, it was not intentional, and I apologize.

Other than the part about it being a "halo car", I disagree with your assumptions and premise. Whether it is 100k or 150k, being beyond ones grasp is beyond ones grasp. Simple.

Hence the reason for saying "most" vice "all" or something similar. I am also in a significantly different demographic - as are many others. However, I believe my statement, as written, to be accurate.

Ditto, though I enjoy reading about Camaros, Mustangs, etc more - believe it or not.

I'd be very interested....if it was $35k. But that ain't gonna happen, so as you stated, my only interest is reading about it.

Ok. So tell me why this is important? Also please state the relationship between power, torque, rpm, gearing, and weight, and how they affect the ability of a car to accelerate (leaving other variables, such as traction and wind resistance out of the equation).

BTW....my car in modified form makes ~290 ft/lbs of torque to the rear wheels. Check the sig for recent performance numbers.

Actually, I believe the 95 Z28 had 275, but your point is valid.

Nonsense? Am I supposed to be hurt by that remark or something? You may indeed know "more than you can let on", but so long as you continue to express your opinions/facts/assumptions in such a manner as you have in this thread, expect these sorts of replies to continue whenever the urge hits. If you don't care, then don't respond.

Well, ok, should we thus kiss his/her/its *** out of fear of seeing him not be polite and restrained?

I think not.

In this particular Forum, you may indeed be correct. I should have qualified my statement - it was meant for the site in general.

I do read the Forum regularly, and pay close attention to what folks like guionM post - no kidding. However, I've never paid much attention to Pacer X....and it should be obvious why. If he/she/it is "almost ALWAYS right", then good for him/her/it.

Ok. He/she/it is still talking about something that all but the "well informed" can only read about on sites like this. You'll pardon me if I don't trust someone that talks in such silly absolutes as he/she/it does.

Unlike the GT, what you "know" is still conjecture. You may indeed end up being right. Time will tell. I'll wait for that time, thank you very much.

LOL. Truth be known, this is my first post concerning the GT. I do pay more attention to the Ford stuff than others.

 

LOL sarcasm at its finest

 

Most 95s had 275HP but the west coast cars had 285HP (only difference was the cats) 1996 cars got the WC cats.

THe point about the 96 Cobra and SS was that the Chevy still had a slightly more powerful engine although both had the same peak HP rating, Ford almost won that year.

 

I believe that you are correct!

Quote:

Other than the part about it being a "halo car", I disagree with your assumptions and premise. Whether it is 100k or 150k, being beyond ones grasp is beyond ones grasp. Simple.

What you're suggesting is that the GT was developed...at great expense and urgency to Ford....in order for Ford to gain financial profit from a handful of exotic cars over a 2-3 year period.

At 150 thou per, I'd be shocked if Ford didn't make a per unit profit on the GT. But all that is peanuts to a company the size of Ford.

When the Ford board signed off on this project, they knew full well it's purpose....it was all about image.

If Chevy ever releases a 625 hp, $100,000, ZL1....no one at GM will sign off on it because of the incremental profits such a program would generate. No siree Bob. It'll be to create excitement and buzz for the rest of the line-up.

Just like GT was envisioned to do...even for the lowliest Ford.

 

Right you are on the transposition and I appreciate the correction.
Typing too quick for my own good...

Club Racing is a wide area and I'm not sure what point the Miata thing is supposed to mean. Fast Miata lap at Mid Ohio was a 1:45 in SSB. AS winning Firebird ran 1:38's. T2 Camaros and Firebirds were in the 1:40's. T1 Corvettes in the 1:35's... Where Mustangs run with Camaros in T2, the stangs come up short, at least on the national level.

AS at the Valvoline was Camaro so the dominance is not total, one might think.

http://www.scca.org/amateur/club_rac...ffs/03results/

Drag racing is a valid sport and great hobby for many folks. It's not the sum total performance yardstick for many folks.

We'll have to see how untouchable the GT will prove to be.

 

Bob...it was a joke. If you'd seen some earleir posts you'd understand....I remember a certain F-150 thread in particular!

The one's who are in the know seem to be excited and that's a good thing! But till good info can be released most of us will have to sit and wait. Either way, we've got plenty to look forward to.

 

Z28x...my point (one of them anyways) is that peak HP numbers do not come close to telling the entire tale.

Z284ever....I agree with you 100% that Ford is doing this primarily for the "image" it creates. But like a $100k Vette, it will be beyond that grasp of most of us mere mortals....though it is a given that $100k is far less than $150k.

Joe....jokes on me I guess. And I agree that it appears we'll have plenty to look forward to....though most of us will only look forward to reading about it.

 

Well boys looks like we've landed ourselves into the timeless FordvsChevy debate in which there are never any winners. The facts are out there in whose been better in which time period so I wont add any fuel to the fire.

One thing to remember, its a good thing to actually HAVE A FordvsChevy debate similar to those raged in the muscle car era and not a domesticvsimport debate. I have a feeling soon the Big 3 are gonna send earthquakes through the automotive world with these future vehicles coming out and the imports are gonna be running for cover. Wanna bring over a Supra, Skyline, etc.? Ford and GM will have enough firepower in their lineups finally to hand these Japanese halo cars their a__. So while there are differences out there between the two camps, I say kudos to Ford and General Motors .

And one thing here Mr. Cosby. No flame intended here at all but if you have read the board often you know that 99% of the time, PacerX knows what hes talking about and hes a very, very reliable source. If he says "wait and see" in response to the Cobra and GT arguments then damnit you better believe that I'm gonna do just that!

 

For those of you that have provided a vote of confidence, I thank you.

To the rest...

Wellll.... you'll find out in due time.

 

Or not.

 

Another vote of confidence for PacerX.

I've met the guy and he's no bull-sh1tter.