I wonder why people spend 100's of thousands in cars from the 40's, 50's and 60's or even 30 grand for a classic Mustang then... It's just a chunk of metal with parts attached to itNo big deal... I admit it is better to daily drive a NEW car, maybe not a Mustang if you can't afford it but whatever... I'm currently driving my hatchback and selling the Accent so I can buy performance parts... This fall I'll get a POS beater.
Every single issue you just mentioned you WILL eventually get with any car, so what's the difference? Also yes, i AM only focusing on performance because the rest i can take care of just as easily as another guy can buy a new car. When the average guy who bought the '07 Mustang runs out of warranty and his car breaks down, does he have the tools and knowhow to fix that cutting edge technology? Won't he be faced with the same issues that i am right now, only he'll likely be forced to go to a dealership to get his fixed...while i can do mine myself for a FRACTION of the cost.
C'mon man you can't tell me that my car is going to run any less reliably than a new car if i build a new engine for it. All of the low points are inevitable....with any car. So in the long run, which is truely what should matter....NOT a warranty that's going to expire eventually and you're going to be stuck doing all the things on your own that i'm doing with my car now....the only thing that matters should be what you are going to be happy with.
Warranties are useless IMO unless you run across a factory defect. If you buy a new Mustang, it's going to be stock or mostly stock until you pay it off in 5 years unless you want to void the warranty, and chances are in 5 years your warranty is going to be expired anyways right?
So here's the question.....why are people buying new Mustangs? Not your average person, why are CAR GUYS buying new Mustangs? For the warranty? Probably not since most of them go right out and slap a blower on them and void the warranty (at least most guys around here do).
Basically, "better" is an opinion...period. All the technology in the world doesn't necessarily make a car better. Tell that to the guys who are restoring real vintage cars.....tell the owner of a '69 429 Boss Mustang that the new Mustang is better....he'll probably laugh, even though so many things might be more user friendly, like gas mileage or ride quality....who cares? Those are things that cater to taste and taste alone. In the end both cars are going to need maintenance, but something else nobody is taking into consideration is the PRICE of that maintenance...like i said earlier how many people who own new Mustangs can fix ANYTHING that goes wrong with them? Very very few...most will rely on dealerships or tuning shops to fix their cars, while i'm out in the garage doing it myself saving myself a fortune in cash and getting enjoyment out of knowing that i'm self sufficient with MY car.
So....what's better? Who cares? It comes down to the owner and what you want out of the deal.
Damn i hope this gets read...lol
Those are collectors cars....which ranks right up their with "nostalgic value". Totally different ball of wax. And no Fox (save for some special models) is ever going to be considered a collectors car, simply because they aren't that rare. Look at the production numbers on a 60's Mustang, which were not only the originals, but that all in all only shared the same body style for anywhere from 3 to 5-years and compare them to the hundreds of thousands of Fox cars that rolled off the assembly line during the 80's (a low point for the automotive industry in general) with the same chassis for 25+ years and you'll understand why.I wonder why people spend 100's of thousands in cars from the 40's, 50's and 60's or even 30 grand for a classic Mustang then... It's just a chunk of metal with parts attached to itNo big deal... I admit it is better to daily drive a NEW car, maybe not a Mustang if you can't afford it but whatever... I'm currently driving my hatchback and selling the Accent so I can buy performance parts... This fall I'll get a POS beater.
Yeah it's like the Shelby Super Snake....Carrol Shelby's own twin supercharged Shelby Cobra...just sold for $5.5 million. Now, i don't think it was worth THAT but it goes with my example of how worth is what's important to the owner. To the guy who bought that car, it's better than anything new he could've bought, and it sure as hell didn't come with a warranty
I work in an office and never tasted great-poop-on? I also owned 3 fox bodies, can afford a newer one such as 2003 (not a 2007 yet)... What does this have to do with "don't sell your fox" thread?
Some of us choose problems such as owning a fox for a reasonLike running pretty much 14 flat with MPH to run in the mid/high 13's with the type of bolt-on a 2 year old can do (CAI, pulleys, headers) Piss off people with the new "all-mighty" car with a ratty old clunking fox body 5.oh yeah baby
As said in the original post, it takes a couple of weeks of owning one before you realize you made a mistake. They can definitely be made fast, but there is no way to take away from the Minivan feel to the car. They are huge.
I'll tell you right now, the owner didn't pay for the car in that instance, he paid for the name. Carrol Shelby could own a Ford escort and have it go for $100,000.
I dunno man....it's one of only 2 that ever existed and the other one is long gone and destroyed so it's literally a piece of automotive history. Yeah, the name has a lot to do with it but it's also the only factory built twin supercharged Cobra on the planet, and Shelby said in the '60s when it was built it could do 0-60 in just over 3 seconds....that's incredible especially for the time. I wouldn't say it's worth 5.5 million but worth is only what someone is willing to pay.
I think this video is one of the best illustrations on why new is not always better than new. It doesn't deal with Stangs but the same principles apply.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=L30rnGCXziw
Seeing that the Mustang was intended to be primarily a PERFORMANCE car I don't think the S197's softer attributes (smooth riding, seating position, # of cup holders, etc.) should be factored in when determining which is better. If you feel the need to add all of these bells and whistles when deciding which car is better then I think I should point out that just about any old/new Porsche, Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Corvette, and Subaru, would be 1000x better than an S197 in both comfort and performance. So basically if I was looking for a comfort/performance car the S197 would be nowhere near my list.
And yes, I do believe the FOX is better. What people don't understand is that the s197 is PLAGUED with a HUGE ugly body (not to mention aerodynamically inferior) and 400 extra lbs. Any idiot knows that when you design a PERFORMANCE car (not fords intenrion with the S197) weight is the biggest enemy which is why I don't believe the s197 has any sort of a "head start" against the Fox. Some might argue that the engine of the s197 is more powerful. My rebuttal is that:
1) You would obviously need a more powerful motor to lug around something significantly heavier
and:
2) You can't always add more power to an engine however it is not as easy to reduce weight of a car. Which is why I believe the lighter modded Fox will always have the upper hand.
In conclusion, the Fox's performance capabilities will always trump the s197.
I think this video is one of the best illustrations on why new is not always better than old. It doesn't deal with Stangs but the same principles apply.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=L30rnGCXziw
Seeing that the Mustang was intended to be primarily a PERFORMANCE car I don't think the S197's softer attributes (smooth riding, seating position, # of cup holders, etc.) should be factored in when determining which is better. If you feel the need to add all of these bells and whistles when deciding which car is better then I think I should point out that just about any old/new Porsche, Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Corvette, and Subaru, would be 1000x better than an S197 in both comfort and performance. So basically if I was looking for a comfort/performance car the S197 would be nowhere near my list.
And yes, I do believe the FOX is better. What people don't understand is that the s197 is PLAGUED with a HUGE ugly body (not to mention aerodynamically inferior) and 400 extra lbs. Any idiot knows that when you design a PERFORMANCE car (not fords intenrion with the S197) weight is the biggest enemy which is why I don't believe the s197 has any sort of a "head start" against the Fox. Some might argue that the engine of the s197 is more powerful. My rebuttal is that:
1) You would obviously need a more powerful motor to lug around something significantly heavier
and:
2) You can't always add more power to an engine however it is not as easy to reduce weight of a car. Which is why I believe the lighter modded Fox will always have the upper hand.
In conclusion, the Fox's performance capabilities will always trump the s197.
Seeing that the Mustang was intended to be primarily a PERFORMANCE car I don't think the S197's softer attributes (smooth riding, seating position, # of cup holders, etc.) should be factored in when determining which is better. If you feel the need to add all of these bells and whistles when deciding which car is better then I think I should point out that just about any old/new Porsche, Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Corvette, and Subaru, would be 1000x better than an S197 in both comfort and performance. So basically if I was looking for a comfort/performance car the S197 would be nowhere near my list.
GearBanger101 said:I've seen if before and love that video, but lets be frank. We aren't comparing $300,000 Exotics here. And we already know that the S197 already does everything better (from a performance aspect) than the Fox.
So by your definition, “Performance” means power? What about the fact that the heavier S197 out handles and out brakes the Fox as well? Sure it’s bigger…longer and wider. But you know a nice bonus you get with that added size and weight? A little thing called stability.....both at speed and going around corners. The new chassis does a great job of centering the weight, unlike the earlier fox that puts everything out over the nose of the car. I consider the aerodynamics statement to be a moot point. Neither of these cars was built for running the Bonneville Salt Flats but if you really want to nit pick about it, running these cars full out will certainly prove that the S197 is the more “top speed” friendly of the two. And anyone who’s ever run a Fox to top end knows how they like to use both sides of the road when doing so. )
I’m not sure why anytime someone who’s pro-Fox always addresses the S197 as only being able to provide you with the “softer attributes”? To touch back on your point.....aside from the fact you’re sticking with an older car.....yes, you can always add power to the Fox in order to “outrun” the S197, but in order to equal the “total performance” of the S197, you’re going to need to address the suspension, chassis and braking system to match.
And this can get quite expensive, taking away the "low cost" factor that seems to be the basis for the majority of the arguements on this subject.
The only advantage of the extra weight is that it helps in absorbing bumps in the road better (if you can even call it an advantage). I don't know how you figure that more weight is going to make ANY car handle better. As I stated earlier, performance cars are engineered to be as light as possible. The F-40 in the video must have weighed about 2,300 lbs. and i'd say it was pretty damn stable.
Also, my definition for performance in not only about the car's power and ability to handle, but also the car's ability to "evolve". Lets face it, the aftermarket for the Fox has to be one of the biggest of any other car in existence and you can pretty much buy everything you need to smoke an s197. In the hands of an average Joe, the s197 has pretty much reached the limits of its design in the sense that there is not much you can do the the engine (besides bolt-ons) by yourself. I know i'm stating the obvious but tearing apart a 4.6 and building it back up is MUCH more difficult than building a 5.0.
The limits of the s197's design also apply to the suspension as well in the sense that if you bought every single piece to mod the suspension in your s197 you are still modding something that is inherently designed not to handle well (Just like modding a school bus). A good example of what I am trying to get at is the "Stability Control" systems on SUV's which can only help prevent rollovers to a certain extent before the laws of physics take over. In the s197's case, it's biggest design flaw which compromises it's true potential for both acceleration handling is it's weight.
BTW I also understand that it not going to be cheap to make a Fox outperform an s197 but at the same time neither is blowing 30K all at once for an s197. An even if you had the money, you wouldn't need anywhere near 30K to make a Fox outperform the s197
Also, you can even buy Fox's that were already modded for much less than the money invested in them.
I think this video is one of the best illustrations on why new is not always better than old. It doesn't deal with Stangs but the same principles apply.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=L30rnGCXziw
Seeing that the Mustang was intended to be primarily a PERFORMANCE car I don't think the S197's softer attributes (smooth riding, seating position, # of cup holders, etc.) should be factored in when determining which is better. If you feel the need to add all of these bells and whistles when deciding which car is better then I think I should point out that just about any old/new Porsche, Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Corvette, and Subaru, would be 1000x better than an S197 in both comfort and performance. So basically if I was looking for a comfort/performance car the S197 would be nowhere near my list.
And yes, I do believe the FOX is better. What people don't understand is that the s197 is PLAGUED with a HUGE ugly body (not to mention aerodynamically inferior) and 400 extra lbs. Any idiot knows that when you design a PERFORMANCE car (not fords intenrion with the S197) weight is the biggest enemy which is why I don't believe the s197 has any sort of a "head start" against the Fox. Some might argue that the engine of the s197 is more powerful. My rebuttal is that:
1) You would obviously need a more powerful motor to lug around something significantly heavier
and:
2) You can't always add more power to an engine however it is not as easy to reduce weight of a car. Which is why I believe the lighter modded Fox will always have the upper hand.
In conclusion, the Fox's performance capabilities will always trump the s197.
We all do know this is a never ending cycle, right? This same discussion has been happening since the second generation Mustang came out, and everyone said the first was better. Who cares. A Mustang's a Mustang. Why can't we all just get along?
Atleast we still have Mustangs. We could have ended up with a Probe.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?