Comparing a Genesis to a Mustang GT is like comparing a Mustang GT to an M3...except it won't end anywhere near as close as this comparo did.
Comparing a Genesis to a Mustang GT is like comparing a Mustang GT to an M3...except it won't end anywhere near as close as this comparo did.
Whoa. Best thing about this board is (was?) its slightly off-kilter esprit d'corps. Some marque-bashing has gone on lately, not confined to this thread. Would be glad to see it go.
So begs the guy with the K Car collection. Coincidence?
Guy referred to as "The Father of the Mustang" leaves ford over their refusal to build cars like the k-car and the minivan, goes to Chrysler, and does exactly that, bringing chrysler back from the brink and leading the company to build the most turbocharged vehicles of any manufacturer in the world (anyone remember the article about the 86 GLHS spanking the old shelby..MUSTANG?) while coming to be regarded as one of the greatest American CEOs of all time. Coincidence?
Vigo wrote:So begs the guy with the K Car collection. Coincidence?Guy referred to as "The Father of the Mustang" leaves ford over their refusal to build cars like the k-car and the minivan, goes to Chrysler, and does exactly that, bringing chrysler back from the brink and leading the company to build the most turbocharged vehicles of any manufacturer in the world (anyone remember the article about the 86 GLHS spanking the old shelby..MUSTANG?) while coming to be regarded as one of the greatest American CEOs of all time. Coincidence?
Technically, he was fired due to personal conflicts with Hank the Deuce.
JFX001 wrote:Vigo wrote:Technically, he was fired due to personal conflicts with Hank the Deuce.So begs the guy with the K Car collection. Coincidence?Guy referred to as "The Father of the Mustang" leaves ford over their refusal to build cars like the k-car and the minivan, goes to Chrysler, and does exactly that, bringing chrysler back from the brink and leading the company to build the most turbocharged vehicles of any manufacturer in the world (anyone remember the article about the 86 GLHS spanking the old shelby..MUSTANG?) while coming to be regarded as one of the greatest American CEOs of all time. Coincidence?
Oddly enough... I just dropped a deuce.
(off topic for Viggo, who I expect to disagree strongly)
CEO's become famous for turning a profit, not for the quality of their vehicles. Like the original Mustang, the K car was a lackluster platform redeemed by its low price, forward-thinking packagaing and spot-on marketing. Though my K car was dirt cheap and its Mitsubishi engine was reliable as an anvil (though just as inspiring), the 3-speed transmission was junk and the rest of the car's bits - suspension, styling, bench seats, one speaker AM radio - were a throwback to the previous decade. You could see where the bean counters had cut corners in practically every facet of the automobile.
(/off topic)
All this OT about Lee Iacocca makes me hungry for some Yocco's hot dogs.
Vigo wrote:So begs the guy with the K Car collection. Coincidence?Guy referred to as "The Father of the Mustang" leaves ford over their refusal to build cars like the k-car and the minivan, goes to Chrysler, and does exactly that, bringing chrysler back from the brink and leading the company to build the most turbocharged vehicles of any manufacturer in the world (anyone remember the article about the 86 GLHS spanking the old shelby..MUSTANG?) while coming to be regarded as one of the greatest American CEOs of all time. Coincidence?
My sister bought a '80 Aries new. She literally junked it with 45k on the odo. That, after two transmissions, 3 camshafts, one rebuild of the door hinges, rust, and finally, the drivers door falling off. Great car, that Aries.
I have a 67 Mustang, Yea I know the technology is bad vs todays car. I really like the 2005 mustang, the new ones have a terrible rear end. It looks like they have the same issue as BMW- RE cant get the back of the car right. IE Bangle Butt. I currently have a z4 M coupe that I run at DEs and have owned M3s. I also race a BMW E30 in the Lemons and Chump car. What I am getting to is that I like both cars. I have driven 06-09? Saleens at Sebring and M3s. Yes the numbers are about the same, but the cars really feel different. It comes down to you driving style or what you like on the track. Yes the BMW cost more, but I also see 12 year old M3s with 160K miles on them out at the track with no issues. Motor has not been opened up, yes suspension completely replaced. I dont see 12 year old Mustangs out at Sebring. Unfortunately all the 10 year old Mustangs become wanna be drag race cars. Blown up and scrapped. Yes the cars live different lives at 10 years, but I feel you get what you pay for and the BMWs seems to last longer. I guess its a pay up front and drive it longer, or buy 2 for the same price and get the same longevity mentality.. Neither is right or wrong.
I guess it depends on where you are at. Here in the land of the UAW I see a butt ton of Mustangs, most of them in very well kept condition, many autocross and road race car candidates, many holding very good value (I just looked at a 1985 GT Convertible in white with a ton of Saleen parts on it for $9500.00 and it was worth it) I seldom see BMWs around here for sale and those that are strongly resemble Tijuana Taxis.
The M3 does have a rear seat, much bigger than the Mustangs. So the M3 is a 5 seat sedan that (almost) matches the performance of a 2+2.
If you have a family, you will probably need to get the M3. The M3 is a more usable car, and has always been recognized as that.
I think the fact that this thread is 5 pages long is very good news for Ford.
An exec down the hall from my office just bought an '11 GT a couple of weeks ago, so it's just out of the break in period and ready to be flogged. His next door neighbor has a 993 C4S, and they're planning to head up in the mountains next weekend. Nah, I'm not jealous.
Technically, he was fired due to personal conflicts with Hank the Deuce.
Whether you leave or are fired doesnt matter much when you've already got your next offer lined up. It pretty much comes down to the last sentence you said to your boss, doesnt it? And what were those conflicts over? Im guessing things i posted had something to do with it..
CEO's become famous for turning a profit, not for the quality of their vehicles. Like the original Mustang, the K car was a lackluster platform redeemed by its low price, forward-thinking packagaing and spot-on marketing.
Well, i didnt say the k-car was a great car (or the original mustang, for that matter). I just implied that like the original mustang, it was a great idea.
Though my K car was dirt cheap and its Mitsubishi engine was reliable as an anvil (though just as inspiring), the 3-speed transmission was junk and the rest of the car's bits - suspension, styling, bench seats, one speaker AM radio - were a throwback to the previous decade. You could see where the bean counters had cut corners in practically every facet of the automobile.
There is not ONE other bottom-of-the-barrell econo FWD platform originating from that time period that i would rather own. Im not saying you're wrong.. im saying everything else was worse.
My sister bought a '80 Aries new. She literally junked it with 45k on the odo. That, after two transmissions, 3 camshafts, one rebuild of the door hinges, rust, and finally, the drivers door falling off. Great car, that Aries.
Hmm, sounds like she purchased a first-year base-model econocar from a company just this side of bankruptcy in an era when EVERYTHING made in the USA sucked balls. What can i say? I dont see many 81 Citations or Escorts around these days either. Im sorry she had to be in that market at that time, but if those problems were truly representative of the value of the design, im pretty sure Chrysler wouldn't have had so much success extrapolating the platform into over 28 nameplates over the next 15 years.
How have i even gotten to own so many of these darn k-cars? Oh, i know, it's because they STILL EXIST. Its contemporaries.. not so much. I wonder why?
/threadjack.
mr2peak wrote: The M3 does have a rear seat, much bigger than the Mustangs. So the M3 is a 5 seat sedan that (almost) matches the performance of a 2+2. If you have a family, you will probably need to get the M3. The M3 is a more usable car, and has always been recognized as that.
I have spent some time in the back of several two door 3 Series. An E36,E46, and E92. Also been in the back of a 95, 02 and 05 Mustang. I would say it's a toss up there is no room in either brand.
If your talking a 4 door M3 thats a different story but not by much. My brother's E46 4 door had no rear leg room if the driver or passenger intented being comfortable.
I am only 5'10" so its not like exactly like trying to fit NBA player in the back.
If only they hadn't screwed up the styling of the new mustang....
Vigo wrote:JFX001 wrote: Technically, he was fired due to personal conflicts with Hank the Deuce.Whether you leave or are fired doesnt matter much when you've already got your next offer lined up. It pretty much comes down to the last sentence you said to your boss, doesnt it? And what were those conflicts over? Im guessing things i posted had something to do with it..JFX001 wrote: He was fired, courted by Chrysler, and consequently hired.You can search for the timeline.Also, while you're searching, type in "Hal Sperlich"...that should give you some insight as to who was the vision behind the K-car and Mini-van (and, his timeline at Ford/Chrysler as well). As to why he was fired? Even though Ford is a publicly traded company, back then it was run as a monarchy.Hank II was an odd duck...in addition to being ruthless, egocentric and callous, he was paranoid that Iacocca was gunning for his (CEO) seat. In his mind a Ford, and only a Ford should run the ship.
We sure have come a long way from one guy mentioning my k-car collection to nitpicking a sequence of events in 1978 (might be wrong there, just guessing). Hal Sperlich might have been 'the vision behind' (about as vague and dubious a term as 'father of', wouldnt you say?) the k-car and minivan, but just as Ford jr DIDNT let the idea blossom, Iacocca did. In either case, the 'vision' actually seeing the light of day was an executive decision that Sperlich didnt make. That doesnt detract from him in any way but he didnt come to be regarded as one of america's greatest CEOs over it, and that was my original point regarding Iacocca's role with the k-car and chrysler. Im sure id be getting more of my facts straight if i had researched this any time recently, but these events happened before i was born, its been over a decade since i read iacocca's book, and since then ive spent a lot more time building k-cars in this decade then reading about who built them 3 decades ago. I do appreciate your concern for factual accuracy and i admit i am not an expert on the subject.
On a semi-related note, i really liked the iacocca mustang commercial from a year back (excluding the random and pointless lady parts) and i feel like not very many people saw it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwSFQSOEtkk&feature=player_embedded
Vigo wrote: We sure have come a long way from one guy mentioning my k-car collection to nitpicking a sequence of events in 1978 (might be wrong there, just guessing). Hal Sperlich might have been 'the vision behind' (about as vague and dubious a term as 'father of', wouldnt you say?) the k-car and minivan, but just as Ford jr DIDNT let the idea blossom, Iacocca did. In either case, the 'vision' actually seeing the light of day was an executive decision that Sperlich didnt make. That doesnt detract from him in any way but he didnt come to be regarded as one of america's greatest CEOs over it, and that was my original point regarding Iacocca's role with the k-car and chrysler. Im sure id be getting more of my facts straight if i had researched this any time recently, but these events happened before i was born, its been over a decade since i read iacocca's book, and since then ive spent a lot more time building k-cars in this decade then reading about who built them 3 decades ago. I do appreciate your concern for factual accuracy and i admit i am not an expert on the subject.
I am by no means an expert....I've merely read more than one book on the subject.
If you would like to separate fact from fiction, contact me off line....I would be happy to point you in the right direction.
On a somewhat related on topic note, I rather like the new Iacocca Edition Mustang.
Can't wait for the BOSS 302 to hit the streets...
I know its going to be very painful indeed, for the domestic bashers and euro fanbois to deal with a Mustang this good. Might as well learn to live with it because it IS that good.
As to bashing K-cars and old Dodges-might want to rethink that one. Considering that the old L-bodies and their ilk are STILL thrashing the new sport compact cars(my old GLHS has no difficulty pasting a beating on the much revered Mazdaspeed 3), how about a little respect.
Well, i just purchased an 06 GT, and i might be a bit biased towards Ford, but i love the thing. I was looking at an M3 ('02 if i remeber correctly...) and if my opionion matters (it really doesnt) i liked it more. I love the sounds it makes, love the looks, love the feeling when driving it. Granted i moved into it from a 92 F150, and over the last year an 1151 hmmwv, but regarless i have no complaints over the steering feel, brakes, or whatever else people generaly knock the mustang for. Im sure theres better car, and to each their own, i personaly love my car and dont care what anybody else thinks. Oh, and i got a spoiler/hoodscoop delete model and its staying that way. No boy racer body kits for my pony!
<img src="
" />
hmm...hot link didnt work. try again...
Appleseed wrote: In Herb Adams' chassis book, he states the in Trans Am, there was no real difference between identical chassis using IRS or a live axle. Bare in mind, this is on the track and not real world. Just sayin' for the IRS fanboiz.
All front engine/rear drive rally cars that had any success on non-paved rallys were solid axle, save for possibly the Sierra.
A well designed solid axle is a benefit on rough surfaces, not a detriment.
I note with satisfaction that the new Mustang has a three link axle instead of a bind-o-matic four link.
ReverendDexter wrote: Okay, so without resorting to "every other sports car has it", explain to the dumb Mustang owner *exactly* what makes IRS *so* much better than a decent SRA setup? Near as I know, the only real advantages are the ability to have your inside wheel hit a bump and not have that affect your outside wheel's traction, the ability to do some alignment tuning, and a reduction of unsprung weight.
Unsprung weight reduction is nice, but the main reason it's so common nowadays (besides the checklist factor) is that it takes up less space, since you don't have to accomodate the whole rearend and driveshaft moving around. This means you can have a larger rear seating area and trunk.
You can also mount all of those links and such to a separate rubber-bushed subframe, for another layer of NVH insulation.
Great for people haulers, not relevant for performance vehicles.
You'll need to log in to post.
