Why does ford keep letting GM beat us?
- Thread starter pony-inspired
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
PonyKeg
New Member
Bascially, a Vette is just a rolling image appliance. They're pretentious. Shrinks should prescribe them instead of Prozac.
Or Viagra, heh ...
All Chevys don't suck. The postwar pickups, up until 1954, are classics.
But Vettes -- no thanks. Mustangs rule.
Or Viagra, heh ...
All Chevys don't suck. The postwar pickups, up until 1954, are classics.
But Vettes -- no thanks. Mustangs rule.
irishpeso said:
I am a diehard Mustang man and have owned 10 Fords including 5 Mustangs, but last year I replaced my 1990 F150 (paint completely peeled off) with a new Silverado. I coundn't beat the price. The V8 Chevy was $10000 less than the similar plain Jane F150 ($13,000 vs. 23,000+). The Chevy has been great.
I'm a Ford guy, says it on my paycheck 
.
I currently have a 04F250 6.0 Sport Crew cab with black leather w/ carbon fiber accents, that is a nice interior, chipped and exhaust and the beast runs within 2th's of what my 01 Lightning ran in the 1/4 mile when it was stock. Truck listed for $42K (including the $900 sunroof option), paid $31.5K on D plan, now 18 months later I am getting 30K in trade towards my ordered 05 GT I am paying $23.5K on D plan for.
Also own an 05 F150 STX 4.6 auto and a few options, 17K +TTT, how can you beat that? I'll have my stang done (wheels, tires, mods, ect) have a nice truck to drive and still have paid less than the avaerage vette . BTW I am on the list for the Shelby, which will replace the 05 GT if it ever gets here.
.I currently have a 04F250 6.0 Sport Crew cab with black leather w/ carbon fiber accents, that is a nice interior, chipped and exhaust and the beast runs within 2th's of what my 01 Lightning ran in the 1/4 mile when it was stock. Truck listed for $42K (including the $900 sunroof option), paid $31.5K on D plan, now 18 months later I am getting 30K in trade towards my ordered 05 GT I am paying $23.5K on D plan for.
Also own an 05 F150 STX 4.6 auto and a few options, 17K +TTT, how can you beat that? I'll have my stang done (wheels, tires, mods, ect) have a nice truck to drive and still have paid less than the avaerage vette
. BTW I am on the list for the Shelby, which will replace the 05 GT if it ever gets here.Kerrdogg said:I'm a Ford guy, says it on my paycheck
I currently have a 04F250 6.0 Sport Crew cab with black leather w/ carbon fiber accents, that is a nice interior, chipped and exhaust and the beast runs within 2th's of what my 01 Lightning ran in the 1/4 mile when it was stock. Truck listed for $42K (including the $900 sunroof option), paid $31.5K on D plan, now 18 months later I am getting 30K in trade towards my ordered 05 GT I am paying $23.5K on D plan for.
Also own an 05 F150 STX 4.6 auto and a few options, 17K +TTT, how can you beat that? I'll have my stang done (wheels, tires, mods, ect) have a nice truck to drive and still have paid less than the avaerage vette
you got a sweet deal bro, over 10k off of sticker, i only got 8k off of sticker but imagine if i worked for chevy.
superduty's are pimp, i wouldn't mind one but i just don't need that much truck. last night i walked out of my bro's condo and there was an F-550 dually parked next to me. never before has my full-size 4-door beast looked like a toy.
im sick of hearing people comparing vettes to mustangs...youre not talking about the same kind of car...(apples and oranges)
and while we are talking about trucks...the 04+ f150 has no competition outside of the nissan titan period...the chevy "redesign" in 03 made the silverado ugly IMO
and no im not a chevy hater i have a 03 trailblazer and i love it
and while we are talking about trucks...the 04+ f150 has no competition outside of the nissan titan period...the chevy "redesign" in 03 made the silverado ugly IMO
and no im not a chevy hater i have a 03 trailblazer and i love it
THAT JUST PROVES HOW SLOW THE LIGHTENING IS. I mean come on, its freaking supercharged for god's sake, it should do better.
No, Im not talking about sales or looks. Im talking performance- acceleration, handling, etc. Im not sure on which diesel is best ford7.4 or gm 8.1. Diesels aint my thing, their just expensive noisemakers in my book.
Now, line up a late 90's 5.7 chevy against a ford 5.4 and you'll see what I mean. I will admit, ford has some impressive stuff, but having to supercharge a lightening or mustang , just to get it running slightly quicker than gm's N/A stuff is not impressive. Neither is their cheap "F/X" stickers and the such.
And I DO agree the new chevy look sucks but they still outperform ford's stuff.
SVTdriver
Founding Member
pony-inspired said:
Incase you hadn't noticed. But the camaro is dead Jim. It may have been faster. But it was only faster to be axed from production.
Ford has already competed with an NA 4.6. As soon as the NA 5.4 is put in a Mustang the LS1 is going to be just another car. It's amazing to me a 5.7 can't pull a mid 12's stock. Sounds like some of us are Mag racers and never go to a track.
I'd rather have the Denali.05Stangster said:
Also, why would anyone compare a Mustang and a Corvette, stock for stock? I know there are a lot of die-hard Ford guys here, but still. The Corvette is a world-class sports car, and the Mustang, well isn't. I love Mustangs as much as anyone on here, but let's still be real. Ford is very lucky GM dropped the F-body cars. The LS1 outmatched the 4.6L Ford engines every year until the '03 Cobra came out (I guess GM was pissed that the Ford 302 destroyed those ungodly GM 305 engines haha). But you have got to give credit to Ford, they do know how to sell cars. GM is in the toilet, and while Ford isn't in the greatest financial situation, they're still ahead of Ford. The Mustang is basically the only Ford I like, and I know I'm gonna catch a lot of flak for this, but I would take a Chevy or GMC truck any day over a Ford. The Fords may look better, but if I need to haul or pull something, I'm going with GM.
SVTdriver
Founding Member
WhiteHeat306 said:
The usual reason to compare a corvette to a mustang is to provoke an argument. Now whether this is one of those or not. Really just remains to be seen.
Everything Chevy makes just sounds like utter crap, I couldn't stand listening to that crappy sounding 5.7 all day, chevy will never make a car that sounds as good as the 4.6, and in my opinion I believe that adds alot to the joy factor of driving these cars everyday.
eric n
Founding Member
pony-inspired said:
So I say " GM offers NOTHING anywhere close to Mustang performance and refinement for anything near the price."
And you say compare trucks???? WTF. again: "GM offers NOTHING anywhere close to Mustang performance and refinement for anything near the price."
Your response: Compare trucks???
So I say Haley Berry is way hotter than a 60 year old Lucille Ball and you respond, " I gotta disagree with you on that one, Salma Hayek is way hotter than the woman who played GRANNY on the Beverly Hillbillies"
I'm not sure how trucks entered into this, but... 
With a 100 hp advantage, more torque, less weight, and almost certainly better suspension/related components, from the standpoint of pure performance? It will whomp a 2005 Mustang GT rather handily (so says anyone who has a body temperature above, oh, say, eighty). That's what one can get if they are willing to spend $50,000 on a vehicle. "You get what you pay for".
With market adjustments the cobra will probably be close to but not quite as much as a 'Vette... we'll see. It will have 450 hp so the performance should be neck-in-neck at worst.
Getting back to $27,000- land, bear in mind the Mustang GT offers more horsepower per dollar than the Corvette, in fact, with the LS1's no longer around, maybe more than any other production car right now.
If GM does bring back the F-Body it will be interesting. That's a big if, too - especially in light of GM's current $$$ woes, though I've seen concepts of a 2007 Camaro. If it happens, they'll be playing some catch up to the Mustang. The 2005 a hard act to follow... but GM managed to follow in the 1960s so nothing is imposible. I would expect that GM would stick to the formula of trying to make a faster yet similar car. How well that might work for them is the question.
When the LT1 was introduced in 1993, it was a big chnage in performance. Up to that point, even though Ford's 302 was making 10 poines less (225) than GM's competing 306 (235), the Mustang was still the faster car. Enter the 350. It pushed 275 horsepower and without question put the performance crown in GM's court. They had it as long as they had the F-Body...
Which brings the point. Yes, after 1993 the F-Bodies were always faster than the Mustang (in 1998, a painful 80 hp faster). And by and large, this market was about performance. But there wwere other factors besides that. The general feeling I get was that the F-Bodies stressed performance at the expense of everything else. A lot of auto reviewers indicated the same thing. Huge hump in the passenger floorwell for the cat converter. Tiny cabin, huge outside. Lots of blind spots. Spoty reliability compared to the 'Stang. On and on.
When I was buying a V6 back in 1997, I myself evaluated and test-drove all three. All had 3.8L motors; The Mustang had 150 hp compared the the F-Bodies' 200. The drive in the F-Bodies was far more satisfying to me; no question they were quicker. But I far preferred the Mustang in every other regard - looks, interior, overall "driver friendliness" if you will. And I think that was a huge selling point to others as well.
So your question: why cant Ford make something to compete with GM and same cost? I'll answer that by asking it rather: why can't GM make something to compete with Ford and same cost?
The Mustang has run unopposed for three years now.
With a 100 hp advantage, more torque, less weight, and almost certainly better suspension/related components, from the standpoint of pure performance? It will whomp a 2005 Mustang GT rather handily (so says anyone who has a body temperature above, oh, say, eighty). That's what one can get if they are willing to spend $50,000 on a vehicle. "You get what you pay for".
With market adjustments the cobra will probably be close to but not quite as much as a 'Vette... we'll see. It will have 450 hp so the performance should be neck-in-neck at worst.
Getting back to $27,000- land, bear in mind the Mustang GT offers more horsepower per dollar than the Corvette, in fact, with the LS1's no longer around, maybe more than any other production car right now.
If GM does bring back the F-Body it will be interesting. That's a big if, too - especially in light of GM's current $$$ woes, though I've seen concepts of a 2007 Camaro. If it happens, they'll be playing some catch up to the Mustang. The 2005 a hard act to follow... but GM managed to follow in the 1960s so nothing is imposible. I would expect that GM would stick to the formula of trying to make a faster yet similar car. How well that might work for them is the question.
When the LT1 was introduced in 1993, it was a big chnage in performance. Up to that point, even though Ford's 302 was making 10 poines less (225) than GM's competing 306 (235), the Mustang was still the faster car. Enter the 350. It pushed 275 horsepower and without question put the performance crown in GM's court. They had it as long as they had the F-Body...
Which brings the point. Yes, after 1993 the F-Bodies were always faster than the Mustang (in 1998, a painful 80 hp faster). And by and large, this market was about performance. But there wwere other factors besides that. The general feeling I get was that the F-Bodies stressed performance at the expense of everything else. A lot of auto reviewers indicated the same thing. Huge hump in the passenger floorwell for the cat converter. Tiny cabin, huge outside. Lots of blind spots. Spoty reliability compared to the 'Stang. On and on.
When I was buying a V6 back in 1997, I myself evaluated and test-drove all three. All had 3.8L motors; The Mustang had 150 hp compared the the F-Bodies' 200. The drive in the F-Bodies was far more satisfying to me; no question they were quicker. But I far preferred the Mustang in every other regard - looks, interior, overall "driver friendliness" if you will. And I think that was a huge selling point to others as well.
So your question: why cant Ford make something to compete with GM and same cost? I'll answer that by asking it rather: why can't GM make something to compete with Ford and same cost?
The Mustang has run unopposed for three years now.
05Stangster said:Hey Meat96, are we havin fun yet?
Quote "You forgot about the 6.8 liter V10. Ill put that up against a chevy 6.0"
And you forgot about the Vortec 8100 V8
(496 cubic inches - that would be a Big Block)
Chevy 8.1 V-8 330 HP, 450 ft/lbs. 10 - 14 mpg.
Ford 6.8 V-10 362HP, 457 ft/lbs. 8 - 10 mpg.
That would be a better match, and I would go against you.
Sorry, but I'm gonna jump ya on this one, I have an 01 F350 6.8L v-10, and I can tell you FOR A FACT it will out pull an 8.1L Chevy. I chained tail to tail with a loud mouth at work who's a diehard Chevy guy, and it was over in seconds. he wont even talk to me, just accuses me of having a modified truck, cause its got a K&N air filter! with the exception of the air filter, my truck is BONE stock... V10, auto, 4.30 gears, SRW 4x4.
spectre30075
New Member
- Nov 16, 2004
- 39
- 0
- 0
Mach428 said:
Chevy's build quality is utter crap too, at least based on my experiences (I've owned 4). I'll never buy another GM product. Maybe they've gotten better over the last few years (or maybe not) but I'll never know. Crap electrical systems and crap transmissions. Shoddy brakes too.
