Camaro and Firebird die while the Mustang lives on...why is that?

[Angrymarshmello]

<< Like someone said, the high end versions of the Camaro and Firebird are alittle too pricey while the smaller mustang is less expensive, IMHO. >>



What? The price-per-power ratio gives the Camaro and Firebird a HUGE advantage over the Mustang - ie, a Z28 or T/A is about the same base price as a Mustang GT, with the GT only have 260~270 hp, the Z in the low 300's. The SS and WS6 versions are still cheaper than the Cobra which is a tad bit slower.



<< good to see that ford got their butts in gear with the GT's the 93-97? 4.6 V8 had a hard time fending off the 3.8 V6's in the birds and maro's as i recall! >>



Actually 93 was still the Fox body with the 5.0. The 94-95 was the SN95 body style w/ the 5.0. Then for the 96-98 model year Ford introduced the SOHC 4.6 in the GT and the DOHC 4.6 in the Cobra. It wasn't until 99 when Ford actually got some brains and gave the GT some decent power.




<< The Mustang stays on for the same reason that a local steak house serving the finest aged beef would die while McDonalds lives on...people really really like cheap crap!

All I know is that when you have a society where AOL is the largest ISP, you have to think that just about anything popular has to be crap. >>



I'm sure you buy all off-brand stuff doncha? Who makes your monitor, or your car, or the processor of your computer, or your tv, or your bed?



<< You should read the article in Motor Trend. The Mustang Cobra lost to the Camaro SS in 0-60 and 1/4. And costs more.. They also had a side article explaining HP vs BS. When it came time to testing the Mustang they found it doesn't put out as much power as Ford claims. Of course we are talking about Ford- what do you expect. Oh and BTW, there are more parts made for Camaros then Mustangs. There are more parts made for 350's than any Ford Motor or other engine. People buy cars based on looks... they don't seem to buy sports cars for there performance, seems kinda strange to me, sports cars are suppost to be fast.

Oh well, I think somewhere I read GM plans to bring back the Camaro after a few years.... interesting >>



Um, that HP loss was the whole 99 Cobra scandal - anyone with an ounce of knowledge of cars knows that it was corrected for the 01 model year and was a free fix for all 99's. (Basically the tail pipes got bent slightly because of the IRS) Oh, and can you put any part made for any 350 ever made into the LT1/LS1 engines? I don't think so. We're talking about parts made specifically for those cars. I see Mustang shops all around Dallas but I have yet to see a Camaro/Firebird specialty shop anywhere in Dallas.

 

[JC]

<sniff> It's so unfair.....makes me wish I still had my '67 RS/SS 350.....

.....and I'd like to thank all but one of you for not spelling 'Camaro' 'Camero' ----> #1 spelling petpeeve, real big in the local Easy-Ad :|


JC

 

[LAUST]

Um, that HP loss was the whole 99 Cobra scandal - anyone with an ounce of knowledge of cars knows that it was corrected for the 01 model year and was a free fix for all 99's

Yep, and if you had a 99 all you had to do is take it to the dealership and it was all replaced for free. (oops you already said that at the end of the sentance

 

[NFS4]

<<

<<

<< people really really like cheap crap! >>


The Camaro/Firebird is a crappier built, cheesier feeling car than the Mustang. The Mustang also doesn't have as many quality glitches. >>



A magazine down here (Australia), compared the Mustang with the Commodore (GM) and the Ford Falcon (Ford doh! ) The build quality on the mustang was that dodgy it wasn't funny. Panels didn't line up properly, interior creaked/groaned and fell to bits....The Aussie cars where built that much better....slightly irrelevant I know, but I find it hard you can say that the Mustang is quite good quality wise/overall finish..... >>


A Commodore is not a Camaro. Australia is not Canada (where I believe that F-Bodies are built). A Falcon is not a Mustang.

What are you even getting at? The comparison you're making to Mustangs and Camaros quality wise doesn't make sense. What are you trying to say?

I'm talking Camaros vs Mustang in quality and reliability reports. In that test, the Mustang comes out on top quite easily.

 

[notfred]

and you can get a mustang that looks like this, runs low 12 second times, and still comes with a factory warranty.

(more pics)

 

[LAUST]

<< and you can get a mustang that looks like this, runs low 12 second times, and still comes with a factory warranty.

(more pics) >>


Boy the type Blower on that Stang looks SOOO formiliar

 

[BigLance]

<< Because Ford as a company makes better decisions than GM. The net result is better quality, more desirable products and better sales. The Mustang still sells enough to make a profit for Ford. >>



Better quality ? What your you smoking, read the consumer reports. Pull your head out of your arse... Ford has never lead in quality.

And... as my good Ford friend once said... "stupid people drive fords" ... hey he said it

 

[Thegonagle]

<< A Commodore is not a Camaro. Australia is not Canada (where I believe that F-Bodies are built). A Falcon is not a Mustang.

What are you even getting at? The comparison you're making to Mustangs and Camaros quality wise doesn't make sense. What are you trying to say?

I'm talking Camaros vs Mustang in quality and reliability reports. In that test, the Mustang comes out on top quite easily. >>



SMACK!

 

[KentState]

I think this goes back at least the early to mid 90s. GM and Ford both found that sports cars where living way past their prime. Insurance was killing the market and the new interested in SUVs and trucks where shifting the market. It was possible for a teenager to get a V8 in a truck and not pay the high insurance rates of a sports car. I'm not debating the entire SUV/truck/sport truck market swing, but we all know that they make up over half of the auto market today. GM basically sunk it's last millions into the new F-Body design which surfaced in 92 0r 93(?). They understood that competing in the sports car market was not a good investment so the F-Body slipped away into a few minor changes and adopting engines from the Vette. On the other hand, Ford took advantage and slowly stepped up the power of the Mustang giving the consumer a little more each year. The future of the Mustand itself is not totally understood, but this is just another example of the power vacuum that can occur. Someone had to fill the void, and Ford had a product that was responable enough in price eventhough the segment is shrinking.

 

[Mustangrrl]

<< Mustang just looks better, feels better, and maybe ride better. >>

Thank you... oh, wait... Just kidding.
I think Mustangs are getting more and more swank, and Camaro/Firebird cars have sort of a stigma attached to them as being trashy... that's just my opinion though.
~robyn

 

[PlatinumGold]

I had an '88 Mustang LX 5.0. i drove it for over 70K miles. absolutely no problems with it.

I currently drive an Olds Intrigue and had been considering trading it in. MB i buy a new Mustang.

 

[ImTyping]

Because Trailer Park Trash can use them to kill their moms.

 

[Angrymarshmello]

That's the worst f-ing excuse I've ever seen - a kid's mom dies and you flail it in the air to show/prove your non-existant point. You sir are an inconsiderant a$$wipe. And if you actually read the story moron, they were visiting their relatives that live in the trailer park. I guess you think you're better than the "poor" people in this world? Dick. BTW, aren't most poor people Democrats?