Hey this is awesome to hear! I thought I was the only one dumb enough to try it the way I did- lol, just kidding :)

Thanks!

"Now, to put a water-cooled 'Stang engine in the front of a Porsche 944 and then to wax a Bullitt out the barrel and through the twisties while the Bullitt ricochetted off the trees and boulders, that would really torque Paul D's nuts (prolly break that stud :eek:)." A. Nonymous (circa 2011)

:D

It's not Paul or the Mustang, in fact I sorta dig the new Mustangs, as I've posted multiple times. You know what really bugs me? Most trolls on this forum have been consistent, trolls since birth. But up until this recent stint of insanity Paul was actually an interesting contributor to this site, and I enjoyed reading his posts. Unfortunately he now seems convinced that everyone on this BBS who prefers a Porsche over a Mustang is a snob, and he's on a crusade to spread blue oval good will.

It's just unfortunate how far he's fallen, and I'm genuinely hoping that one of our posts gets through to him. But you're right, I don't have to click on Paul's threads and perhaps I'll just start to ignore him.

My lack of attraction to the current Mustang might be captured in the image above. Yes, there is probably some perspective enhancing the size difference between the two generations of 'Stang, but OMG that is one bloated ride.

I grew up with Mustangs and have liked a lot of them (even my BiL's Mustang II with the smog equipment- choked 302). I have seriously looked at a few and admired many owned by friends.

When I heard the latest was going to be based on the Jag/Lincoln platform, I entertained some hope Ford might go great things.
It turned out we weren't thinking along the same lines.

They dropped the irs and bloated the car. I don't blame Ford so much, as they are building what they can sell, and the Camaro is just as big. The current Mustang is quoted above as being around 3500 lbs. I'm not OK with that.
Of course I realize the same thing has happened to almost all the cars we love. My '06 Jetta is the same size and weight as the '03 Passat it replaced and I appreciate the room and it should be no surprise the current Mustang is about the size of a mid-80s Cougar (and it had irs).(Corrected below. Thanks Kaisen!)

I respect the Mustang for what it can do.
I don't admire the car.
(I do admit to regret selling my '87 924S, though)

Les

One man's insanity is another man's chuckles. :)

Well I'd love to have a 86-93 Saleen or a 944, so I'm not sure where I land with this argument.
I do have a question, while 944s are looked down upon, what's the opinion on 968's, specifically the club sports, which are considered to be be one of the better driving cars ever?

Mustang = snow tires.

Mid-eighties Cougars did not have IRS (but I could make a joke about hip replacement, and that by then they are called 'sabretooth')

If you think the Mustang and Camaro are bloated, what do you think about the 911?? Some early examples were under 2000 pounds, and now some can approach 4000 pounds. How about the 928 vs Panamera? Okay, okay, it's not a direct decendent, but the Panamera is HUGE no matter what you compare it to. And the '04-09 Cayenne is heavy, even compared to other SUVs in its class.

Unfortunately, ALL cars are getting bloated.
1970 Challenger vs 2010 Challenger
1970 Camaro vs 2010 Camaro
1990 Accord vs 2010 Accord
1990 Camry vs 2010 Camry
1990 Taurus vs 2010 Taurus
1970 Toyota PU vs 2010 Tacoma
The list goes on and on

Sorry, I was thinking about the late 80s Cougars and T Birds. My bad.

And, yes a Turbo Cab 997 is over 3600 lbs. That sort of thing makes me appreciate a Miata or Lotus (or my old E).

I don't think I mind the 4 door sedan growth as much, as they are people haulers and manufacturers keep slotting smaller cars into their line-ups.
"Sporty cars" the size of luxo-barges from 20 years gone by I find a bit much.

Maybe I'm just a regular cup of coffee kind of guy in an extra-tall-grande marketing world. When you get down to it, most car manufacturers are just trying to win sales back from SUVs. The "bigger is better" mentality just makes me tired.

Thanks for setting me straight on my irs goof.

Les

Lesbians! this thread needs lesbians!!!

Isn't that who buys Mustangs? ;)

Les

You know, the only early 911s that got under 2000 pounds, that I know about, were the race cars. A light street 911 might have gotten to around 2,200 pounds bust most were in the 2,300 to 2,400 pound range. Given that a new one is a little over 3,000 pounds, that's not bad for 45 years of progress, legislation and consumer gluttony. I'm talking curb weights here, not optomistic, drained of fuel, tires filled with helium, homologation weights...

The 928 was really a two-seat GT car, so a comparison the a 4-door sedan doesn't make much sense to me. I think Porsche went to great lengths to keep the weight down on the Panamera. If I didn't have to make the car payments, I'd gladly swap my wife's A8L for one.

I like a light car, or bike, as much as the next guy but it's hard to argue how effective the new stuff is in the real world. I don't know much about Bullitt Mustangs or well set up 944s but I do know I wouldn't bet on someone that lined up in either one of them, against my wife's '08 Boxster S. And that's the "chick car" of the Porsche model range...

Progress is sometimes not a bad thing.

JR

The new vs. old Challenger is much more eye-opening!

http://blog.al.com/engine-block/2008...new_chlgrs.jpg

I understand the financial need to base it off of another car (Chrysler 300 in this case) but the new Challenger is horribly bloated compared to the original. :eek:

Maybe, just maybe, if auto manufacturers would take a risk from time to time, they might come out with something NEW that knocks our socks off and triggers the Ohmygodigottahavethat! reaction.

Instead, they are looking back into their past to revisit their 'glory days'.

Cue the Bruce Springsteen song.

(Of course, when they DO take risks, we get things like the Pacer, Aztek, and that weird Subaru 4wheel drive sport coupe.)
Even batting .500 you strike out half the time.

Les

Driving through Hollywood once I saw a thespian lesbian cougar in a Cougar with a cougar wearing a leopard coat...not the cougar in the cougar with the thespian lesbian cougar, the thespian lesbian cougar.

Cougar lookin' great! How much money for that Cougar?, I hollered at the cougar at a stoplight. Ocelot o' money! Depends!, she hollered back.

Depends on a cougar? I asked, laughing rudely. No thanks!, I said. Cougar ain't THAT great looking!

Cougar snarled at me. So did her cougar. Then they sped off, in the Cougar.

I'm not lion!

Agreed 100%. Retro is for the unimaginative.

And before someone points out that the 911 is "the same car" as it was in 1967, there's a world of difference between keeping the same basic configuration and allowing it to evolve sensibly (and slowly) over the years and taking a model, discontinuing production for years, then bringing it back just bigger and with some modern doodads thrown onto it.

The Mustangs actually pull off retro pretty well (although it's still a bit forced - and WTF is the deal with the second set of headlights a-la Chevy Chase's "Family Truckster"?). Ford's attempt at doing it with the Thunderbird was not so great.

The "new" Camaro and Charger are laughably bad. And ugly. I don't know why on earth anyone would ever be caught dead in one. http://forums.pelicanparts.com/suppo...ys/a_pukey.gif

Thats why I keep saying, when it comes to cars, dont try to ressurect the dead!

I'm going to buy a Challenger and start weekly posting how much better it is thana 944!

It ought to be better than two 944's since it's twice the size of one. :D

I like that "weird Subaru 4wheel drive sport coupe"!

http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_...0017_large.jpg

It's clean, all business... :p