Camaro is King!!!

[Z-man]

Just a note: They did have a Mustang with an IRS - the Cobras from the previous body style (late 90's / early 00's) had independant rears. So they have engineered that into the design of the car.

Apparently, there is still a market for live rear axle cars. Don't forget, we look at the world through rose-colored Porsche glasses. Not everyone wants to drive a car that can actually handle some twisties thrown at it! Oh - and that would also explain the heft of the Challenger - it isn't meant to turn - it is mean to be pointed in a general direction, and get there quickly.

-Z-man.

[911boost]

Z-man is correct. The last gen Cobra had an IRS. I am guessing for cost cutting measures, and from listening to the general public, Ford ditched it in favor of a stronger solid axle.

I used to be pretty big into the Mustang. I had an SN95 platform GT (1995) and still have my 1966 Mustang. The emphasis for these cars is still definitely the 1/4 mile. I had some Steeda parts on my GT that made it actually handle pretty decently.

Say want you want about the "pony" cars, but you can hammer the hell out of them and they just keep on ticking. There is no way I'd do some of the starts in my 911 that I used to do in the Mustang.

[Dixie]

2009 and manufacturers are still using leaf springs and live axles?

Yep. Because they're inexpensive and work well. And don't bother with the "performance" advantage of an IRS. On a road course, a solid rear works just as well as an IRS. On the drag strip, a solid rear is better. It's only for street toodlin' that an IRS has an advantage. An advantage of comfort.

[dd74]

Saw a Challenger en route to Disneyland yesterday. Ugly car, plain and simple. Bulbous, square lines, and details that were so obviously retro, the car breathes lazy design.

Plus, it's enormous.

Eh, if forced, I'd take the new Camaro - in Yenko trim, thank you.

[911boost]

On a side note, I am about 100% positive that the new Mustangs don't have leaf springs in them. Mine had coils on the back.

Bill

[dd74]

BTW - the Mustang having no IRS was simply a cost issue with Ford, who was afraid it'd price the Mustang out of reach for the car's bread & butter buyers.

Honestly, after this many years, one thinks Ford engineers wouldn't be able to produce longstanding IRS for the Mustang? Baloney!

As is, a few magazines, Motor Trend in particular, has said the Mustang's solid axle rear is easily manageable (at speed) on a road as bumpy and overall crappy as Mulholland; a person just needs practice.

[Jared at Pelican Parts]

The new Challenger isnt anything special up close. Bulbous. The interior sucks as well. Like a Dodge truck.

[Jared at Pelican Parts]

I drove the piss out of a Saab NG900 with a solid axle for a long time. Never was a problem, handling wise.

[NKN84944]

I went to the auto show up here in Minneapolis this weekend and got to sit in the new camaro, challenger and G8 GXP for the first time. IMO, they look good from the outside, but those high door panels and tiny windows on the camaro and challenger drove me nuts! The interior is just not up to par for the price on any of those cars, and for a daily driver it is more important than the exterior to me. I actually like the interior of my GTO better than the new G8 GXP even. If they are trying to convince me to "upgrade" from my GTO, they are failing miserably...

[onewhippedpuppy]

Plus, it's enormous.

That's always my first thought when I see one, the things are freakin' huge! Ever see the pic of the new one parked next to the old one? If you thought the old ones were big, wow.........

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by dd74

Saw a Challenger en route to Disneyland yesterday. Ugly car, plain and simple. Bulbous, square lines, and details that were so obviously retro, the car breathes lazy design.

Plus, it's enormous.

Eh, if forced, I'd take the new Camaro - in Yenko trim, thank you.

I like the shape, but yeah...the new Challengers are gigantic beasts.

Way, way too big.

[Hebrewhomeboy]

Yeah, I don't understand the rationale behind a 4100 pound "performance" car. For some reason, American car companies can't seem to realize that lighter cars perform better. Well, except for the Corvette, which they actually kinda did correctly.


Take a look at a bottom of the line Audi interior. Compare it to a top of the line GM interior, or dodge or ford for that matter.

I really would like to buy American. When they can produce a 3000 pound car that has 300+ horsepower from a relatively small engine that still gets good gas mileage, is rock-solid reliable, and handles like a dream, and only then, will I buy American. Until then, I'll continue buying German. They may cost more, but they deliver what I want.

Oh, and slightly back on topic, new challenger is bulbous and ugly, mustang looks okay, but too heavy and kinda boring looks, and the new camaro actually manages to look decent, but it's too big, too heavy, and too cheap looking for me. When I get a V8 it will be in the form of a 928.

[911pcars]

GM design and engineering isn't showing consumers much innovation with the retro Camaro. Maybe the bureaucratic wheels at GM are indeed stuck in one direction and can't be turned toward another path. Maybe it is hasta la vista.

Sherwood

[kmhemi]

I have an original 1970 Dodge Challenger. It is SMALLER than the new one. I tried to tell a friend who bought one. He didn't believe me until he parked his new one beside my 70
I do like the new one and would buy one but not at dealer prices. its a nice car but they missed the boat on weight, size and price. just my opinion of course.

[sammyg2]

When they build one of those cars that doesn't weigh close to two tons, I'll start caring.

[911nut]

Originally Posted by 911pcars

For you guys in love:

Dodge Challenger 4100 lbs. (my Dodge Caravan weighs less)
Ford Mustang GT 3500 lbs., Live rear axle (at least it attempts to gain lightness)
Camaro 3859 lbs. Just $39,950 (independent rear, but disappointing throwback)

Is this what American manufacturers do best?

Contemporary versions of the old cars. Relying on nostalgia to sell cars. That's all I can say.

Consider the source: Motor Trend.

Are you guys just visiting the Porsche forum or what?

Sherwood

Says you.
The 997 seems to trade on a little nostalgia, don't you think?

[speeder]

Originally Posted by 911nut

Says you.
The 997 seems to trade on a little nostalgia, don't you think?

Maybe nostalgia for the 993. I could see your point if Porsche stopped building 911s with the patented roof line and shape, etc., for decades and then came out with the 997. As it is, it's just been a (very slow and gradual) evolution.

[azasadny]

These cars would sell well in my area, but nobody has a job, so not so much...

[m21sniper]

I really don't see much to fault the new Camaro with besides it's weight and price.

The looks are great, the power is great, the handling is probably sensational by camaro standards.

That being said, you can get a really nice supercharged or turbocharged 928S4 that will eat one alive and is in all ways superior for about 1/2 the price.

[VINMAN]

Originally Posted by 911pcars

For you guys in love:

Dodge Challenger 4100 lbs. (my Dodge Caravan weighs less)
Ford Mustang GT 3500 lbs., Live rear axle (at least it attempts to gain lightness)
Camaro 3859 lbs. Just $39,950 (independent rear, but disappointing throwback)

Is this what American manufacturers do best?

Contemporary versions of the old cars. Relying on nostalgia to sell cars. That's all I can say.

Consider the source: Motor Trend.

Are you guys just visiting the Porsche forum or what?

Sherwood

Alot of the guys on here including myself are "car guys". Gear heads. We like cars in general. Not everyone on here is a Euro-car snob. If it has wheels and an engine, i have an interest in it. From American muscle to euro cars, all the way up to big heavy duty trucks.
I just dont see the need for some guys to bash anyone who likes something other than a European built auto??