wtf is car and driver smoking

RICKS said:

Whatever. I say they call 'em as they see 'em. When they criticize an american car, it's because the american car DESERVES the criticism. You just don't like the outcome, don't accept the reality, and allow emotion to overrule objectivity.

Click to expand...

I understand part of that. But then if you talk objectively. Why did the lotus beat the rest of the competition. When it lost every objectifiable catagory? The only group it won was the one based on feelings. Not actually quantifiable data. They used emotion to give it the nod. And again no I am not biased towards the Cobra. I think the S2000 was the car that won the majority of catagories.

WhiteDevil said:

I think it was Car and Driver tht put the 03 cobra vs 350Z vs G35 article out. The 03 was better in so many catigories and it got last place. I wanted to vomit.

Click to expand...

It deserved to be last. Puke your guts out, and hope that Ford improves the Mustang. The other two cars are light years ahead of it.

Having the competition raise the bar is always a good thing.

O.K., so many new points, where to start.......

1. Sorry if my "tone" isn't squishy-sweet, I think these forums get a little too sappy when everybody wears their PC hat and discussions turn into stroke-fests. But hey, that's why country music makes me vomit too. I can be edgy, but I can take what I dish out as well.

2. You gotta understand the CONTEXT of the two times the Factory Five was tested. Standing on it's own, being tested as a kit car, it's a decently done kit compared to the norm in that industry. Compared to the full-production vehicles in the recent comparo test, it's rather archaic, back-yard-ish, and brutal to live with. I'll accept the premise that the car they used for testing was set up too harshly, but it's still a car that leans more toward being a "novelty" than being a real car. More torture chamber than fun chamber as minutes would turn to hours behind the wheel.

3. WindveilGT: Valid points

4. Yes, the Superformance Cobras really are far better executed, but at a price...

5. Blazinsteed, I gotta agree with Scottie, the '03 Cobra deserved it's last-place finish in that test. Re-read the article, what they said about the car. It was dead-on honest, and it was actually very nice to the car. They raved about the power, the fun, and gave credit where credit was due. It was the "hot-rod" of the group, but by FAR not the best OVERALL CAR of the group. So it really comes down to what you want, what you prioritize, in a car's attributes. You can strap a sidewinder missile to a John Deer riding mower and run the 1/4 in the 8's, and if straight-line performance was ALL you cared about, that would be the hands-down winner over the G35, 350Z and Cobra. But C&D is writing for ALL auto enthusiasts, and where the '03 Cobra excelled in certain respects, it flat-out sucked and was outdated in all other respects compared to the light-years superior chassis and build-quality and more contemporary interior/exterior styling that it was put up against. It's like trying to argue that George Foreman should still be ranked the #1 heavyweight simply because he can still hit harder than the younger guys. Myself, I'm a power junkie. If I were shopping for a 30-35K sporty car, I'd likely walk right by the Nissan's and plunk my cash down for the Cobra. But I'm also honest to myself. I would know that I was buying a car that was inferior in so many ways, just to satisfy my thirst for power and the Mustang styling and mystique and heritage. My car of choice, for my money, would be the '03 Cobra over the G35 and 350Z. But, my car of choice is a worse car by all measures except for the go-pedal. Unfortunately, I'm a go-pedal junkie.

4. And that's the failings of many people reading these comparison tests and getting all ticked-off and crying that the magazines are biased and influenced by under-the-table payoffs and advertising revenue and all those other absolutely ludicrous and silly urban legends/myths. They want the outcome to reflect their personal biased likes and dislikes. They can't be objective. And give me a break on the "it won most of the performance tests" thing. The greatness of a car is not all in the numbers, it's in the whole, both subjective and objective. I could build a '73 Dodge Swinger that would absolutely SMOKE Corvettes and Porsches in every single test C&D could invent to throw at it. Should it win any comparo test? No! It's a flippin 1973 Swinger, it's a tub of old, archaic, only handles because I stiffened and gussetted the dogsnot out of the chassis, dog poopie. But a fast, razor-sharp handling piece of dog poopie nonetheless

5.

The only group it won was the one based on feelings.

Click to expand...

What more important attribute can you possibly imagine than the feeling you get driving the car. The "fun" factor and the "satisfaction" factor. I don't care WHAT the numbers are, or the stats are. If you drive the car and it doesn't satisfy because the engineering is not fully integrated, and it has too many bad habits and attributes that cloud the experience, that take away from the fact that the car is rip-roaring fast, like bad steering, bad shifter, bad clutch, loose structure, bad seating position, etc.etc.etc....., then it can post herculean numbers for all I care. It's still a loser of a car. "Feelings" is why the Porsche 911 has long been the king of the hill over the Corvette. It's not as fast necessarily, yes it's a bit more expensive, but drive one, and you walk away knowing the 'Vette is junk in comparison, numbers be damned.

6. Lastly (I know, everybody starts appauding...) the magazines are doing the U.S. cars A HUGE ENORMOUS FAVOR when they compare them against much more expensive and elite foreign offerings. I'd argue that it's the U.S. auto makers that PAY the magazines to get lopsided tests like that published. For the Cobra to even get mentioned, or considered, on the same level as, say, the BMW M3, at a fraction of the price, is in itself a victory for Ford. The fact that it can hold it's own is nothing but good P.R. and exposure. And the fact that the comparisons are being made directly causes Ford to place the M3 as a target, an aspiration, a goal, which eventually will result in us, the Mustang crazy fans, getting a car that is LIGHT YEARS ahead in every respect, rather than just being a hopped-up version of a cheap car. No, Ford had the foresight and the cojones to put the Cobra up head to head with the M3, took the bad criticism with the good, took it honestly, and improved from there, noting the FACT that there's still a long way to go, and alot more involved in being world-class than just putting a gorilla under the hood and fat tires on the back.


Sorry for the long post..

Ricks,

Again, the Miata and the Honda are the only "real" cars in that test. One of the two should have won if daily driveability is in play.

The Elise, while being a production car, is about as bad as the Cobra or the Lotus 7 in terms of NVH and general uselessness in everyday situations. In addition, its number just aren't that good.

The Honda wins! I am not bleeding Ford Blue. I am not picking domestic. I am giving you an honest opinion. I cannot give the nod to the Lotus due to the engine and shifter, both lifted out of the Celica GTS. My daily driver is a Celica GTS and I hate to say it, but the engine has some issues and the shifter is not as smooth as a Honda or Mazda piece. Is that good enough for you?

That's fine by me, I wouldn't want an Elise over the S2000 any day of the week myself. But I'm not going to say that Lotus bought all of the testers at C&D *******s in exchange for putting their car first. Agreed?


Whoops, I guess my streetslang term for "oral pleasure" is on Stangnet's list of profane terms.

I didn't mean to insinuate that the C&D staff got BJs from Lotus

But if that kind of stuff really did happen, that would really reinforce my lifelong assertion that working as a writer/editor/tester for one of the big auto mags would be my dream job!! (Assuming Lotus ponied up adequate dough for appropriately high-class hookers! Wow has this thread flopped into the gutter.......Oops, it's because of me )

Cook89Notch said:

This is soooooooo true. I too canceled my subscription because C&D SUCKS! The should call it BMW and Driver.

Click to expand...

Yup.

3 points I'll make, You say Brock Yates is an American Muscle car afficianado, then why was he complaining like a girl about the shaker on the new Mach-1.....? when he has great muscle of the past at home? Probably things with shakers Like 2nd gen T/A's and Old Mach-1's

"It blocks my vision and its distracting" that is basically what he said during a C&D television spot on TNN long ago. That was it for me, I clicked off the channel and canceled the subscription, I'd had enough. I really beleive if that shaker had been on a 350Z he and every other editor would have raved over it....

Now another thing that bothers me, why in the U.S copies of the magazine would they test cars we can't get? such as neat Hi-po Aussy cars or cars in Germany, France, England, and Japan etc, that are simply irrelivant the lame FWD CamCord cars are what we get stuck with.
I think I just answered that question... nevermind, because then the magazine would not be interesting/exciting (if you would call it that) and it would fail..... point taken

Patrick Bedard is one of the worst I've seen or read anywhere, I really think he's anti American (not just cars)

I'm not being bias, the magazine has no bearing on what I buy. I just got sick of them telling me I was stupid (in so many words) for liking the second to worst or worst vehicle in a comparo when "last year" it was the "best" of.... now it blows and you are all stupid and "pedantric" (one of Pat's favorites) for buying/owning it. I got really sick of reading that vehicle X is the best since radial tires and literally the next time I turn around "X" is a sh** box.

C&D can F-O :damnit:

JSSuper455 said:

Yup.

3 points I'll make, You say Brock Yates is an American Muscle car afficianado, then why was he complaining like a girl about the shaker on the new Mach-1.....? when he has great muscle of the past at home? Probably things with shakers Like 2nd gen T/A's and Old Mach-1's

"It blocks my vision and its distracting" that is basically what he said during a C&D television spot on TNN long ago.

Click to expand...

Yeah, when I seen that on TV, I then knew for sure that Brock Yates was a true Ford/Mustang hater and a real dumb azz!

-Matt.

I haven't checked this thread for a while. I guess I will go ahead and respond. Just because I personally think an 03 cobra out does just about any car on the road doesn't make me any less of a car enthusiast. Number one: If you really want to compare the cars have you sat or driven a 350 z? Interior is plastic (isn't that the complaint about the mustang), the ergonomics are horrible, and there is no trunk space or back seat. The chassis is so much better? Have you checked out the skid pad numbers lately? And since styling is in the mix it looks like a turtle. Second: The bmw's and such are twice the price of a cobra and I come from the country where they are built. The are about as special as a hundyei over there. 3rd: Yes I believe these guys are biased and I honestly think these guys consider the mustang low brow. 4th: I am not going to call all those who disagree with me idiots.....like some have in this thread. I think that is just a measure of their intellectual prowess. Ricks I respect your opinion but I think you contradicted yourself on the fun issue. If driven properly these cars can amaze you. 5th: I am done and you don't have to agree with me but please don't be an A@@ when you post and call me biased, stupid, or any other derragatory adjective for my opinion. And if you think that advertising has nothing to do with mags your sadly mistaken

RICKS said:

4. And that's the failings of many people reading these comparison tests and getting all ticked-off and crying that the magazines are biased and influenced by under-the-table payoffs and advertising revenue and all those other absolutely ludicrous and silly urban legends/myths. They want the outcome to reflect their personal biased likes and dislikes. They can't be objective. And give me a break on the "it won most of the performance tests" thing. The greatness of a car is not all in the numbers, it's in the whole, both subjective and objective. I could build a '73 Dodge Swinger that would absolutely SMOKE Corvettes and Porsches in every single test C&D could invent to throw at it. Should it win any comparo test? No! It's a flippin 1973 Swinger, it's a tub of old, archaic, only handles because I stiffened and gussetted the dogsnot out of the chassis, dog poopie. But a fast, razor-sharp handling piece of dog poopie nonetheless

Click to expand...

Exactly. While I'd probably pick something else for road trips, commuting or twisty backroads, I'd say that the old 60s/70s American muscle cars are about the most fun cars to drive around town--over any Porsche, Ferrari, etc.--for me anyway. That's why I'm looking forward to getting an 05 Mustang. I expect it will offer a lot of the low end torque around town fun my Satellite has, and still be a car good for commutes, road trips, twisties, etc.

Regarding the C&D test, I think you could set up a Factory Five to be pretty nice on the street, with more appropriate tires, better seats and quieter exhaust. It was a silly article, though I came away thinking the Lotus Elise was a bit disappointing--to me the appealing cars in that test are still the Factory Five and the Honda, but for totally different reasons.

Well I was going to stay out of this but I just couldn't. I just have to put my OPINION in here as well. I personally feel that a lot of the magazines are biased toward certain manufacturers. With that being said, I don't think that these biases are necessarily a bad thing. Look how much money Ford has thrown at it's different plants and automobiles in the past year or two. Ford, GM, and Chrysler have all had their recent share of poor quality automobiles, and that includes the car that most of us hold so dear, the Mustang. From what I'm seeing, Ford has taken a big leap forward to try and correct a lot of the complaints that these reporters, as well as the buyers, have handed them in the past 5-10 years. Take a look at the new F-150. The truck is in a completely different league than the last F-150. Why? Because they spent the money to design something with today's technology, and they currently have the best truck on the market. I think you are going to see this trickle down through many of the other models that Ford has to offer, the Mustang being the next leading candidate. No matter if you love American automobiles, or foreign automobiles, you are only kidding yourself if you honestly feel that the majority of American cars are as good or better than the foreign cars as a whole. Yeh, American cars do better in some aspects, but as a whole we are behind, and by a huge margin I might add. I am a diehard American man (Ford) and I still see the problems. The Big 3 are starting to see that and they are taking steps to correct the problems they are having. It's not something that can be remedied overnight, but something that will take several years to completely work out. The big magazines out there such as C&D, Autoweek, MT, etc. are only doing Dearborn a favor. Look at it this way, if you build a car that rules the streets, and then I come along and build one that kicks your @$$ in all but a couple aspects and I say things about your car not handling well, not having enough power, not being comfortable to drive, etc. you are most likely going to go back and work to improve on the aspects I nail you on so that you can spank me right back. It only breeds better automobiles guys, why can't you see that?

As far as the numbers they quote for the '05 go...lets wait until we get a real review. Preliminary numbers are just that; preliminary. We are looking at a mid 13 second car in my opinion for a decent driver, and maybe a little quicker for a really good driver as long as the power is near the 290 rwhp number that has been circling this and many other forums.

I too hate to read reviews in some of these magazines because unfortunately a lot of the aspects they judge a car on are opinion based, which in many instances makes for a biased outcome. For example, I can say a Camaro isn't comfortable to drive and report it and that's that. Then I could go jump into lets say a Ford with very similar characteristics as the Camaro and praise the Ford. That would be very much a possibility because I like Ford better than GM. Everyone has a certain automaker they like better than another and that is an undisputable fact. That automatically opens the door for biased judgement.

In short, when you read a review, take it for a grain of salt and go drive the car for yourself and come to your own conclusion. Opinions are like @$$holes, everybody has one.

DJsZincGT said:

No matter if you love American automobiles, or foreign automobiles, you are only kidding yourself if you honestly feel that the majority of American cars are as good or better than the foreign cars as a whole. Yeh, American cars do better in some aspects, but as a whole we are behind, and by a huge margin I might add. I am a diehard American man (Ford) and I still see the problems. The Big 3 are starting to see that and they are taking steps to correct the problems they are having. It's not something that can be remedied overnight, but something that will take several years to completely work out. The big magazines out there such as C&D, Autoweek, MT, etc. are only doing Dearborn a favor. It only breeds better automobiles guys, why can't you see that?

Click to expand...

The problem is too many people are sticking on the subject of imported car being better built. Which from everything I've seen and heard. Just simply is not true. The last detroit autoweek show that was on (Speed channel early morning) Had defects for the imported cars at 1.1 per car. Where as the Big 3 had 1.2 defects per car. The person commenting even stated he would have a hard time finding .2 defects. And that we were not as far behind as people think. So we are not a long way behind. They are nearly there and working to get better.

91_4ourBanger said:

the 05 mustang weighs more so it wont be THAT fast. id expect it to be around the same time.

Click to expand...

Negative. Weight should be a non-issue. This car has better handling, weight transfer/distribution with a better suspension. It also has a curb weight started at about 50 pounds from the current chassis. Remember alluminum engines now not iron block like it used to be. New chassis is lighter also, Weight should be very close to what it is now balanced off with extra technology (wiring and electronics).

The car should run 13.3-13.4 very close to what a mach 1 runs.

kirkyg

I say high 13s max, because remember your 1/4 times come from getting out of the hole and getting down the track.With 300 horses, I bet it will be VERY tricky to launch, and 2.3-2.4 60's will probably be pretty common, and they will get murded on the street by the current GTs at a red light, unless the 05 driver is an excelent driver and the guy in the 04 is a normal driver.I dont care what type of suspension it has, you wont be able to hook up 300 horses with 235s very well.I think C&D is a little on the slow side, but I doubt anything better than 13.7s-13.8s at the track.

hotmustang331 said:

I say high 13s max, because remember your 1/4 times come from getting out of the hole and getting down the track.With 300 horses, I bet it will be VERY tricky to launch, and 2.3-2.4 60's will probably be pretty common, and they will get murded on the street by the current GTs at a red light, unless the 05 driver is an excelent driver and the guy in the 04 is a normal driver.I dont care what type of suspension it has, you wont be able to hook up 300 horses with 235s very well.I think C&D is a little on the slow side, but I doubt anything better than 13.7s-13.8s at the track.

Click to expand...

But due to the fact that the new chassis has better weight distribution (More weight on the rear wheels now). Those same 235's should be able to grip as well as a 245. Since as you mentioned getting out of the hole is affected by traction. And your traction will be affected by weight on the rear wheels. This is why drag suspensions are designed for weight transfer to the rear wheels. This should make it easier to get out of the hole. And down the strip.

Just have to learn to launch it...the 1/4 mile will be MUCH MUCH better than 13.8's lol. The mach 1 puts out about the same power about the same weight and a worse suspension. Only major difference in stock performance would be a higher gear ratio that would gain maybe .1-.2 in the 1/4. We all know that mach 1's run 13.1's perfectly driven so i say 13.2-13.4 range.

kirkyg

concerning tire size, some of you are not looking at the entire picture.

technically 235/55/17 is using MORE rubber then 245/45/17.

How so you may ask?

due to higher profile, the diameter of the 235/55/17 tire is 1.5 inches greater then 245/45/17. that's a lot of extra rubber compared to marginal tire width difference. that's about a 1.6 inch taller tire! with the better weight distribution over the axle, I bet traction will be just as good if not better compared to the typical gatorbacks. especially if you take in account all weather types.

taller tires are worse...

kirkyg

kirkyg said:

taller tires are worse...

kirkyg

Click to expand...

Can I ask for specific stats as to why they are worse. I would think that to some degree a taller tire would be better. Or else dragsters would be running like a 25 series tire. But they aren't.