• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-

Are Pony Cars Getting TOO Big?

  • Thread starter Thread starter final5-0
  • Start date Start date Dec 30, 2009
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
Next
First Prev 4 of 6 Next Last

revhead347

Apparently my ex-husband made that mistake.
20+ Year Stangneter
Jun 14, 2004
9,302
1,645
214
46
Acworth, GA
Jan 15, 2010
#61
  • Jan 15, 2010
  • #61
When you decide to really start pushing a car while keeping some street manners, you'll really appreciate a smaller car. There is nothing that hurts you worse than weight. It's an 86' 325i BMW. I'm sure it doesn't keep up with today's standards, but awefully close. And the US Government crash tests are pretty weak sauce to be honest with you. You get 5 stars by sticking in more airbags.

Size of the car has practically nothing to do with you walking away. Statistically Pickup trucks have been the most dangerous vehicles to be in an accident in. The smaller cars today do just as well as the big ones. I'm willing to bet the 370Z does just as well as the Mustang in a crash.

Kurt
 

revhead347

Apparently my ex-husband made that mistake.
20+ Year Stangneter
Jun 14, 2004
9,302
1,645
214
46
Acworth, GA
Jan 15, 2010
#62
  • Jan 15, 2010
  • #62
Oh, and those little econobox cars do handle well if you put a few things like performance shocks and better tires on them. Don't believe me, go to an autocross event. You'll get your ass handed to you by a Civic. I did.

Kurt
 

Black95GTS

Active Member
Jan 8, 2004
1,644
3
38
43
Marlborough, MA
Jan 15, 2010
#63
  • Jan 15, 2010
  • #63
When I got into my accident in my F150, (which is WAY easier to see out of then a Mustang!) I had 200 dollars worth of damage to my vehicle but the eclipse that rear-ended me was totaled. It ran into my trailer hitch at 40mph.

So how did that manage to tear the labrum off my left shoulder? PT told me that large, full framed cars are some of the worst to get into an accident in. The frame is so strong that any movement / impact to it is felt directly by the driver. The vehicle doesn't absorb force. I have screws in my shoulder to prove it.

Moral of the story - Heavier doesn't mean squat safety wise. I'd rather have been in a 3800 pound Volvo with crumple zones then my 4800 pound truck.

Adam
 

Pokageek

Active Member
Jun 10, 2005
2,767
0
46
MA, USA
Jan 15, 2010
#64
  • Jan 15, 2010
  • #64
Black95GTS said:
When I got into my accident in my F150, (which is WAY easier to see out of then a Mustang!) I had 200 dollars worth of damage to my vehicle but the eclipse that rear-ended me was totaled. It ran into my trailer hitch at 40mph.

So how did that manage to tear the labrum off my left shoulder? PT told me that large, full framed cars are some of the worst to get into an accident in. The frame is so strong that any movement / impact to it is felt directly by the driver. The vehicle doesn't absorb force. I have screws in my shoulder to prove it.

Moral of the story - Heavier doesn't mean squat safety wise. I'd rather have been in a 3800 pound Volvo with crumple zones then my 4800 pound truck.

Adam
Click to expand...

WOW. That is quite a story..so we have two sides to this debate on cars getting larger..at least on safety. The larger cars may or may not be safer for the passengers inside .. but will cause more damage to your car if you're on the other end of it... which could mean more damage to you as well. So you are going to be worse off getting hit by that f150, that's for sure. I see the biggest issue being HEIGHT.. when the bumper is kissing you in the face you know, that could be an issue.

As to the mustangs.. well put those big brakes and engine in the older smaller car..and you have an argument for lighter and smaller..
 

earleys94gt

Active Member
Aug 31, 2003
1,223
16
49
Ashley, Ohio
Jan 15, 2010
#65
  • Jan 15, 2010
  • #65
crumple zones
Click to expand...
Key phrase...

As much as I hate to say it, speed has something to do with it too.

If that Eclipse had hit you at 55 or at 25, the results may have been different.

Regardless of what side you are on in this "debate", I think we can all agree there are MANY factors involved.

On a side note, the new Camaro is hidious!
 

Gearbanger 101

Straight Outta Locash
20+ Year Stangneter
Aug 10, 2002
9,457
1,377
234
Ontario, Canada
Jan 16, 2010
#66
  • Jan 16, 2010
  • #66
Found this on another Forum....

F150 vs. GEO Tracker



Hit him hard enough, that it drove him forward into a Ram Pick-up in front of him....



And the poor GEO....

 

88stang88

5 Year Member
Apr 28, 2005
309
7
39
St. Louis,MO
Jan 16, 2010
#67
  • Jan 16, 2010
  • #67
Those new F150's are built pretty good my brother has one and he has gotten hit 2 times in it and you can barely tell. +1 to Ford for making that worth the money.
 

Pokageek

Active Member
Jun 10, 2005
2,767
0
46
MA, USA
Jan 16, 2010
#68
  • Jan 16, 2010
  • #68
Fords rock.
 

DDSTANG94

New Member
Dec 9, 2006
465
2
0
FRASER, MICHIGAN
Jan 17, 2010
#69
  • Jan 17, 2010
  • #69
Black95GTS said:
When I got into my accident in my F150, (which is WAY easier to see out of then a Mustang!) I had 200 dollars worth of damage to my vehicle but the eclipse that rear-ended me was totaled. It ran into my trailer hitch at 40mph.

So how did that manage to tear the labrum off my left shoulder? PT told me that large, full framed cars are some of the worst to get into an accident in. The frame is so strong that any movement / impact to it is felt directly by the driver. The vehicle doesn't absorb force. I have screws in my shoulder to prove it.

Moral of the story - Heavier doesn't mean squat safety wise. I'd rather have been in a 3800 pound Volvo with crumple zones then my 4800 pound truck.

Adam
Click to expand...

+1

Its all how the kinetic energy is transferred.

You will always hear ppl say "they sure dont biuld cars like they used to"

And its true, they dont. People see a demolished car and think "back in the day you could drive a car home after a crash like that" Well you probably could, but It wouldn't be the owner driving it home because he died of massive internal injury because that "solid, sturdy, well built car transferred all the force straight into ur body.

As a Licensed EMT u learn alot about this stuff in ur training.
 

Pokageek

Active Member
Jun 10, 2005
2,767
0
46
MA, USA
Jan 17, 2010
#70
  • Jan 17, 2010
  • #70
:OT: DDSTANG, whats wrong with your trans from D&D?
 

DDSTANG94

New Member
Dec 9, 2006
465
2
0
FRASER, MICHIGAN
Jan 17, 2010
#71
  • Jan 17, 2010
  • #71
Pokageek said:
:OT: DDSTANG, whats wrong with your trans from D&D?
Click to expand...

IT has never shifted smoothly since day 1.

It has never popped out of gear or grinded, but its very "notchey and rakes" into all gears, esp 2nd, will never go into reverse the 1st time, and hard to get into 5th gear. Its almost like the synchronizes were no good, but a few ppl including D&D have told me its probably a bent shift fork? but its definitely worse when its cold out so im not sure what that means. Its not horrible, but no better than the original trans.

On a side note i take it as a isolated incident I guess, as they have a good rep locally and on the net.
 

Black95GTS

Active Member
Jan 8, 2004
1,644
3
38
43
Marlborough, MA
Jan 18, 2010
#72
  • Jan 18, 2010
  • #72
Gearbanger 101 said:
Found this on another Forum....

F150 vs. GEO Tracker



Hit him hard enough, that it drove him forward into a Ram Pick-up in front of him....



And the poor GEO....

Click to expand...

That is eerily similar to my accident. I have pics at my home pc I'll try to dig up. But now we are waaay :OT:

Adam
 

revhead347

Apparently my ex-husband made that mistake.
20+ Year Stangneter
Jun 14, 2004
9,302
1,645
214
46
Acworth, GA
Jan 18, 2010
#73
  • Jan 18, 2010
  • #73
DDSTANG94 said:
+1

Its all how the kinetic energy is transferred.

You will always hear ppl say "they sure dont biuld cars like they used to"

And its true, they dont. People see a demolished car and think "back in the day you could drive a car home after a crash like that" Well you probably could, but It wouldn't be the owner driving it home because he died of massive internal injury because that "solid, sturdy, well built car transferred all the force straight into ur body.

As a Licensed EMT u learn alot about this stuff in ur training.
Click to expand...

Amen, I don't know why people don't understand this. I have a friend that bitches that cars aren't made of metal anymore. It's not about being cheap. You can't make a car completely out of steal that crumples properly in an accident, and gets 40mpg. The metal that is on a car is thinner in order to be safer and be lighter for fuel economy.

Kurt
 

95riosnake

Member
Dec 21, 2003
630
0
17
42
Pittsburgh, PA
www.cardomain.com
Jan 18, 2010
#74
  • Jan 18, 2010
  • #74
I definitely think they are all getting too big, I sat in an 07 and hated it. It doesn't have that feel of a sports car. I like to feel hugged in by the interior of the car, and in the S197's it feels like I'm in an F250.

There's also something that really sucks that you have to put 20+" wheels on the car to give it the look of 18's on a pre '05. You then have no sidewall and a super heavy wheel/tire combo.

I'll stick to 94-04.
 

Mustank

Founding Member
Sep 11, 2001
166
1
18
45
Germany
Jan 19, 2010
#75
  • Jan 19, 2010
  • #75
Gearbanger 101 said:
Sheer size isn't necessarily going to determine how a car handles or brakes. If that were the case, these little econoboxes would be running circles around our cars. Don't you find it ironic that the '10-up Mustang is the biggest and heaviest Mustang built to date, yet handles, stops and retains better fuel economy than any model before it?
Click to expand...



Ironic, no; Sad, yes...sad that Ford didn't engineer previous Mustangs as well as the new ones.

The new Mustangs don't handle better because they're bigger and heavier. They handle better despite the fact that they're bigger and heavier...

Gearbanger 101 said:
Found this on another Forum....

F150 vs. GEO Tracker

Hit him hard enough, that it drove him forward into a Ram Pick-up in front of him....

And the poor GEO....
Click to expand...

There's a difference between a vehicle being "tough" and being safe.

The force of the crash has to be absorbed somehow. The only part of a car that really needs to be solid is the cabin. Just look at F1 and NASCAR - the cars are engineered to disentegrate and cushion the driver compartment.

That GEO Tracker was designed to crumple like it did. If it was as solid as the F150, all three drivers would have been worse off.

Bottom line: Bigger isn't necessarily safer, it just makes people FEEL safer.

And perception always trumps reality.
 

Gearbanger 101

Straight Outta Locash
20+ Year Stangneter
Aug 10, 2002
9,457
1,377
234
Ontario, Canada
Jan 19, 2010
#76
  • Jan 19, 2010
  • #76
Mustank said:
There's a difference between a vehicle being "tough" and being safe.

The force of the crash has to be absorbed somehow. The only part of a car that really needs to be solid is the cabin. Just look at F1 and NASCAR - the cars are engineered to disentegrate and cushion the driver compartment.

That GEO Tracker was designed to crumple like it did. If it was as solid as the F150, all three drivers would have been worse off.

Bottom line: Bigger isn't necessarily safer, it just makes people FEEL safer.

And perception always trumps reality.
Click to expand...
Fair enough....so tell me....which vehicle would you rather be in should these two have met head to head at closing speed of 60mph?

Go ahead....tell me it would be the Tracker.

...I know my ass would be planted in that F150!

I know you'd like this to be a clear cut comparison, but there's most certainly a compromise between bigger/heavier and safer.

And keep in mind....a NASCAR's and a street cars are two completely different animals. Stock cars are built to keep weight down and handle 200mph crashes. Street cars are not.
 

nmcgrawj

Advanced Member
Sep 28, 2003
3,651
4
68
41
Indianapolis, IN
Jan 19, 2010
#77
  • Jan 19, 2010
  • #77
Whats the point of comparing cars that are not of equal height? The F150 has a distinct advantage because of where it will hit the tracker at. There's no way the tracker can defend itself, nothing is in that area to absorb a crash.
 

Gearbanger 101

Straight Outta Locash
20+ Year Stangneter
Aug 10, 2002
9,457
1,377
234
Ontario, Canada
Jan 19, 2010
#78
  • Jan 19, 2010
  • #78
nmcgrawj said:
Whats the point of comparing cars that are not of equal height? The F150 has a distinct advantage because of where it will hit the tracker at. There's no way the tracker can defend itself, nothing is in that area to absorb a crash.
Click to expand...

That F150 above was stopped at the traffic light and rear ended by that tracker. Most other vehicles would have been an accordion after that.....but as you can see, the F150 has nary a scratch.

It got more damaged from being driven into the also stopped, full sized Dodge pick up in front of it than it did being tagged at 30mph from behind by the Tracker.

I don't deny that the vehicles ability to absorb kinetic energy will play a big part in whether someone does, or doesn't walk away from a crash....but it’s not all about eating the blow. There has to be a compromise between sturdiness and absorbs ion.
 

nmcgrawj

Advanced Member
Sep 28, 2003
3,651
4
68
41
Indianapolis, IN
Jan 19, 2010
#79
  • Jan 19, 2010
  • #79
Ok....so the tracker nose dived during braking...making the front even lower than the F150s height.

It's the height and what part of the car that gets hit. Let that be a lifted F-150 hitting it and what will the result be?
 

Black95GTS

Active Member
Jan 8, 2004
1,644
3
38
43
Marlborough, MA
Jan 19, 2010
#80
  • Jan 19, 2010
  • #80
F150 Versus Mitsubishi

nmcgrawj said:
Ok....so the tracker nose dived during braking...making the front even lower than the F150s height.

It's the height and what part of the car that gets hit. Let that be a lifted F-150 hitting it and what will the result be?
Click to expand...

See attachments. My F150 and his Mitsubishi after the crash. I was at a dead stop at a red light on Rte. 9 in Natick. My bumper was bent down and I needed a new license plate... you can see his damage for yourself.

Adam
 

Attachments

  • DSCN0264.webp
    166.9 KB · Views: 150
  • DSCN0279.webp
    102 KB · Views: 168
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
Next
First Prev 4 of 6 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Block questions
  • s_vargas54
  • Jan 25, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
21
Views
750
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Feb 8, 2026
Trogdor
M
Too much for me to repair in my current housing situation
  • My Drama Magnet 04 Gt
  • Apr 1, 2026
  • The Welcome Wagon
Replies
8
Views
299
The Welcome Wagon Apr 14, 2026
Noobz347
Progress Thread Progress Thread- From6to8's 1994 Cobra Supercharger install
  • from6to8
  • Sep 25, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 20 21 22
Replies
420
Views
9K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 6, 2026
from6to8
J
Car Diagnosis
  • j.2016
  • Aug 31, 2025
  • 2015 - 2023 (S550) Mustang -General/Talk
Replies
3
Views
336
2015 - 2023 (S550) Mustang -General/Talk Aug 31, 2025
Noobz347
Intended Headers and Trans, questions about fitment
  • from6to8
  • Aug 6, 2024
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
22
Views
2K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Feb 6, 2025
from6to8
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?