wtf is car and driver smoking

RustyFox · Jul 2, 2004

IMHO, the Car and Driver folks are biased. Who cares. So am I. I don't like their magazine, so I don't buy it. I used to when I was a kid. They test way too many cars that are out of my price range anyway.
Car and Driver AND Road and Track are both owned by a French company. That's all I need to know. The French can bite my American muscle.

DJsZincGT · Jul 2, 2004

kirkyg said:
taller tires are worse...

kirkyg

Where did you read this or get this information? Shorter sidewall=stiffer tire, which will cause the tire to want to spin under acceleration. The taller sidewall will allow a tire to flex a little more than a tire with a shorter sidewall, which will improve acceleration by reducing wheel spin.

Drag tires are designed to flex under acceleration to keep them from spinning, and you never see a thin sidewall drag tire. Why would street tires be any different? Same concept.

J98GT · Jul 2, 2004

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. When any U.S. automaker hits a homerun with a car, C&D has always given credit where credit is due. As for Brock Yates...Any guy who chooses an early 70's Dodge Challenger to run the Cannonball run in (and keeps that car in his garage to this very day) is hardly a guy who "doesn't like American cars". That's ludicrous. If you really love American cars, then you let the U.S. automakers know when they're shoveling crap at you. You don't just give them blind loyalty, and drive around in a flexy, rattly, ill-fitting and dinosaur-engineered tub of $hit while people in beautifully engineered and built foreign cars breeze past you. You challenge the U.S. automakers to compete head to head, so that we can buy American and not have to sacrifice quality by doing so. Pull your head out of the sand. When a U.S. automaker launches a new car that doesn't make the grade in any respect, I WANT the magazines to call them out on it. And lately C&D has been calling out BMW for building new models that are overly computer-controlled, and lack the intuitive feel of earlier models. They've also come right out and called many of Chris Bangle's designs flat-out ugly. BMW & Driver??? Yeah, right... But to sum it up, it causes the big-3 to give us better quality products, and improves the driving experience. What BMW and Porsche has taught the rest of the automotive world on steering and road feel alone is worthy of a thankyou, not hatred. Unless you can't really tell the fact that the steering on a fox-chassis or SN-95 Mustang is about as accurate as a dump truck up until recent improvements from the Bullitt cars on up.

I 100% agree. I wonder if any of you people have driven a proper modern sports car (350Z, RX-8, Evo, etc). If you have and STILL can't admit that most american cars (Mustangs/Camaro's) fall short in just about every category except MAYBE straightline acceleration are blind or stupid.

I also think it is ignorant how everyone bashes car magazine editors. I personally know or have at least met several C&D editors, and I can assure you, they know how to drive. Are they Micheal Schumacher or John Force? No. But I do think it is amusing that everybody on this site thinks they can do so much better than these people who have been doing it EVERY DAY for the past 10, 20 or 30 years.

C&D tests their cars in 100% stock configuration with a standard procedure, GPS data logging equipment, and automatic correction for weather and altitude. Does that yeild the absolute lowest time that that car can possible acheive? No. But it does allow to make legitamite comparisons accross the board for the majority of the cars they test over the years. There will always be someone out there who has better air or a stickier track or a quicker shift.

scottie1113 · Jul 3, 2004

Well said. I'm a car guy who happens to own a Mustang? Will I buy another? Maybe, if it measures up to the competition in every area and not just the 1/4 mile.

I subscribe to Car and Driver and like their irreverent opinions. I don't always agree with them, but they're usually enjoyable to read. It's a contrast to Motor Trend and Automobile, and I like that. I can't drive every car out there, though I have driven quite a few, and folks, the Mustang has a lot of catching up to do.

Hopefully the new one will get close to the bar. Certainly the engine is going to be great, quality will be improved, and we'll have to see about the suspension. I know all the major car mags are going to slam it for not having IRS, and I agree with them.

SVTdriver · Jul 3, 2004

J98GT said:
I 100% agree. I wonder if any of you people have driven a proper modern sports car (350Z, RX-8, Evo, etc). If you have and STILL can't admit that most american cars (Mustangs/Camaro's) fall short in just about every category except MAYBE straightline acceleration are blind or stupid.

I also think it is ignorant how everyone bashes car magazine editors. I personally know or have at least met several C&D editors, and I can assure you, they know how to drive. Are they Micheal Schumacher or John Force? No. But I do think it is amusing that everybody on this site thinks they can do so much better than these people who have been doing it EVERY DAY for the past 10, 20 or 30 years.QUOTE]

Well then call me stupid. I have driven the 350Z. I found the blindspots to be horrific. The power to be too little. And the overall room in the car to be too small to be useful. I also found the handling to be as good as my cobra. Granted the corners were not so bumpy that the cobra would fall off the side of the road. But I corner hard enough to tear up the sidewalls of my tires. Then while my mustang may not fit very large passengers well in the back seat. I can't think of one passenger that I could fit in the 350z rear seat. The front seats on the Z have very little recline to them. And when I car pooled with my friend we could get 2 gym bags and our boots in the trunk. But only just barely. I liked the looks of the Z (Though I like the 05 better). And I like the fact that it has a carbon fiber/plastic driveshaft. But the accerelation was less than impressive. And I found the rearview mirror to have a viewing area that seemed to be about the size of an index card. Overall I believe my cobra is a significantly car.

I also find the rx-8 to be underpowered. But hey according to you I'm stupid

J98GT · Jul 3, 2004

SVTdriver said:
J98GT said:

I 100% agree. I wonder if any of you people have driven a proper modern sports car (350Z, RX-8, Evo, etc). If you have and STILL can't admit that most american cars (Mustangs/Camaro's) fall short in just about every category except MAYBE straightline acceleration are blind or stupid.

I also think it is ignorant how everyone bashes car magazine editors. I personally know or have at least met several C&D editors, and I can assure you, they know how to drive. Are they Micheal Schumacher or John Force? No. But I do think it is amusing that everybody on this site thinks they can do so much better than these people who have been doing it EVERY DAY for the past 10, 20 or 30 years.QUOTE]

Well then call me stupid. I have driven the 350Z. I found the blindspots to be horrific. The power to be too little. And the overall room in the car to be too small to be useful. I also found the handling to be as good as my cobra. Granted the corners were not so bumpy that the cobra would fall off the side of the road. But I corner hard enough to tear up the sidewalls of my tires. Then while my mustang may not fit very large passengers well in the back seat. I can't think of one passenger that I could fit in the 350z rear seat. The front seats on the Z have very little recline to them. And when I car pooled with my friend we could get 2 gym bags and our boots in the trunk. But only just barely. I liked the looks of the Z (Though I like the 05 better). And I like the fact that it has a carbon fiber/plastic driveshaft. But the accerelation was less than impressive. And I found the rearview mirror to have a viewing area that seemed to be about the size of an index card. Overall I believe my cobra is a significantly car.

I also find the rx-8 to be underpowered. But hey according to you I'm stupid

Click to expand...

You are correct on one point, those cars could be considered a bit underpowered, especially the RX-8. But besides that, they are all fairly well executed sports cars.

In my professional opinion, a Cobra has got a ways to go before it handles like a 350Z (I won't even bring up the EVO here). I would think that the shifter, clutch and seats would be more important in a sports car than rear seat space and mirror size. Even in the latest, greatest Cobra, the placement and actuation of these controls is poor at best, and the seating position is akin to a school bus. My mustang has an aftermarket shifter, brakes, clutch, seats, and pretty much everything else. When I'm forced to drive a stock mustang for work, it always disgusts me how poorly executed the interior and primary controls are compared to other modern sports cars.

S197 is much better in this regard, but it has it's own shortcomings.

SVTdriver · Jul 3, 2004

J98GT said:
You are correct on one point, those cars could be considered a bit underpowered, especially the RX-8. But besides that, they are all fairly well executed sports cars.

In my professional opinion, a Cobra has got a ways to go before it handles like a 350Z (I won't even bring up the EVO here). I would think that the shifter, clutch and seats would be more important in a sports car than rear seat space and mirror size. Even in the latest, greatest Cobra, the placement and actuation of these controls is poor at best, and the seating position is akin to a school bus. My mustang has an aftermarket shifter, brakes, clutch, seats, and pretty much everything else. When I'm forced to drive a stock mustang for work, it always disgusts me how poorly executed the interior and primary controls are compared to other modern sports cars.

S197 is much better in this regard, but it has it's own shortcomings.

Ok but when has the mustang EVER been a true sportscar? It's always been more useful than sportscar. Possibly sports sedan but the mustang has never had a state of the art suspension. And it likely never will. If you can't deal with that. Stop driving them. And sure the EVO handles better. It's got the advantage of 4WD. But yes it does have a better suspension. Though I'd be relatively sure that unless you work for a car magazine or Ford. Then you have not test driven the 05 to find out how it handles. And sure the actuation of the controls may be poor to you. But to some people they are not. My friend drives his stock 98 cobra every day. And has so far taken off evey aftermarket piece we have tried on it. even the brakes went back to stock. And as far as school bus style seating. Unless you are trying to lose credibilty. Then you know that the mustang has seating far closer to the 350z than a school bus.

J98GT · Jul 3, 2004

SVTdriver said:
Ok but when has the mustang EVER been a true sportscar? It's always been more useful than sportscar. Possibly sports sedan but the mustang has never had a state of the art suspension. And it likely never will. If you can't deal with that. Stop driving them. And sure the EVO handles better. It's got the advantage of 4WD. But yes it does have a better suspension. Though I'd be relatively sure that unless you work for a car magazine or Ford. Then you have not test driven the 05 to find out how it handles. And sure the actuation of the controls may be poor to you. But to some people they are not. My friend drives his stock 98 cobra every day. And has so far taken off evey aftermarket piece we have tried on it. even the brakes went back to stock. And as far as school bus style seating. Unless you are trying to lose credibilty. Then you know that the mustang has seating far closer to the 350z than a school bus.

I work in the automotive industry, though not for a mag or directly Ford. I have driven S197's as well as every iteration of SN95 there is (Cobra, GT, Bullit, Mach 1, etc). I'm curious (seriously, not trying to be fecitous), what brakes did your freind try on his Cobra, and why did he revert to stock?

SVTdriver · Jul 3, 2004

He used the EBC and then some ones he got from shucks. After the shucks pads he went pack to motorcraft (I think that is stock Cobra pads.). He liked the EBC more than the stock but did not find them to stop all that much better.

RICKS · Jul 5, 2004

Well then call me stupid. I have driven the 350Z. I found the blindspots to be horrific. The power to be too little. And the overall room in the car to be too small to be useful. I also found the handling to be as good as my cobra. Granted the corners were not so bumpy that the cobra would fall off the side of the road. But I corner hard enough to tear up the sidewalls of my tires. Then while my mustang may not fit very large passengers well in the back seat. I can't think of one passenger that I could fit in the 350z rear seat. The front seats on the Z have very little recline to them. And when I car pooled with my friend we could get 2 gym bags and our boots in the trunk. But only just barely. I liked the looks of the Z (Though I like the 05 better). And I like the fact that it has a carbon fiber/plastic driveshaft. But the accerelation was less than impressive. And I found the rearview mirror to have a viewing area that seemed to be about the size of an index card. Overall I believe my cobra is a significantly car.

It sounds like you're in the market for a station wagon, not a sports car!! LOL. My mom has a new 350Z. A good friend has an '03 Cobra. The Z is far better balanced in the corners, has far more communicative and responsive steering, shifter and clutch feel is miles ahead, the Mustang structure is loosey-goosey compared to the drum-tight and very stiff Z, I actually feel MORE claustrophobic in the Cobra due to poor headroom (you've got to recline the seat when you're 6'-2" like me), I'm very comfy in the Nissan, all of the controls are better placed and in easier reach in the Z, and the build-quality/fit/finish is NO contest. Mirrors? Luggage space? Rear seat? Are we talking about sporting cars here?? About the only thing the Cobra does better is haulin' butt in a straight line, and in that respect alone, it's a blowout, and yes, power is a huge factor for me as well. But this is what I'm talkin' about. Are you REALLY in-tune with what seperates a truly fine car from an archaic and average car that overachieves with fat tires and a mondo motor? Could you hop in a new 'Vette, and then a new 911, and be able to see past the Chevy's power advantage and feel how the Porsche is light-years better in every single respect you could imagine? Do you feel it in your own car when a road test calls your steering "vague" and "numb". I feel it. I'm not flaming, I'm just saying that we need to hold U.S. automakers to a high standard. I'm sick of jumping into a Mustang and having to ignore the HUGE number of poor characteristics just so I can have fun with the few good characteristics. It's not just a matter of numbers, it's not just a matter of whether a Cobra can hang on to a corner on-pace with a Z. It's a matter of how the car FEELS while it's doing it, how effortlessly it goes through it's paces, and the craftsmanship of the assembly. The new car looks to be a huge step in that direction, and that's welcome to me.

SVTdriver · Jul 5, 2004

No I am not looking for a dodge magnum station wagon. I am realistic and looking for a car with utility as well as power. Again I ask when was the mustang EVER a real sportscar. I guess I should ask you. Are you trying to discuss a mustang? They have ALWAYS had backseats. I expect the new mustang to be better than the current one. I don't have expectations for it to handle like a true sportscar. It never has been. This is like critics who didn't like the last batman movie because it didn't have a good plot. It's a batman movie not gone with the wind. Just like this is a mustang not a corvette (more money, less seating), porsche (even more money, less seating), 350Z (only the base model is the same price, still less seating). And yes I carry luggage in my car. I like to drive away for the weekend. And I don't want to buy another car as my daily driver. I was working for a garbage company and brought clothes to change into so I didn't get foul thins on my upholstery. I think my clutch is fine. But it is better than the one in my friends 98 (So it may be aftermarket. I bought the car used.). I haven't had the stock shifter in the car for 65k miles. And built my own shift lever to fit me over 40k ago. I actually use my mirrors to keep from hitting other cars. Which I damn near did in the 350Z. And yes I could see the superior handling in the porsche (I know someone who owns a ruf converted turbo model). But I could also see the far greater price tag (He's into for about $160k so far). I live in a city. We don't have very many fast corners in downtown Seattle or the eastside (Police frown on highspeed manuevers). And yeah so the 350Z may handl better in the corners. He's got to get to the corner before I do. Or he's stuck behind me.

BlackPony2000 · Jul 5, 2004

ok people i have been reading this for the past few days, and i can tell you that i am far from being unbiased... i am a true Mustang guy... loved them from a kid and now i own a 2000. well lets face it, the mustang is not the ideal sportscar, never has been and probably never will be. If you want a sportscar, then you are going to have to dish out some cash...ford has been selling mustangs for 40 years. the car is not intended to be the top of the line sports car that it looks like people here are looking for. they are marketing these cars to the people as a whole...not just the sector that wants to drive like i think tha should be driven. I agree that they are lacking in the handling/power department, but how many of you are willing to dish out the 45,000 that the vette is going for?? that is why the mustang has stayed in the lower power ranges.. cause it's about the money.. if ford were to start putting 400 hp in the mustangs and 500 in the cobras... they would get really expensive really quick. That is why they do it in stages... they work on the platform they have and slowly increase the power till it gets where it needs to be. you can see this already in the latest generation... they started out with 225 hp and what are they now 265 hp? that's what a 20% increase in power? and supposedly they are going to be up to 290 with the 05's? sure it's not the most powerful car out there, but it is ok. with the new suspension and the more power, this new mustang will be the best yet IMO. just remember that the current stangs are riding on a suspension designed in the 70's, at least they are getting rid of it!! as a mustang crowd we will always ask for more power, as most of us will never be satisfied with what we have. It is just our nature as humans and car guys/gals to be that way. So i say bring out the 05 so we all can have a little more fun...

RICKS · Jul 5, 2004

Well, it's not fair to pan the Z because of rear seating or cargo, that's not what that car is about. It would be just as silly for me to nag the Mustang for not having burlwood fold-out snack trays in the back of the seats, that's not what a Mustang is about. I see fine out of the Z, it's no better/worse than most other sports cars. No, the Mustang never has been and is not a "sports car", so it's rather purposeless to flame sportscars (like the Z) for not having attributes that you value in your Mustang. Your movie analogy doesn't hold water with me, because a movie doesn't have to have snooty aspirations to be a well crafted and timeless piece of art. Dumb & Dumber comes to mind as being totally low-brow, and an absolute timeless classic work of comedic art. Same goes for Monte Python's Holy Grail. It doesn't have to be an epic classic artsy-fartsy Oscar winner to be genius. It just has to be fantastic at what it sets out to do. Most of the Batman movies were pretty much "average" entertainment. I wasn't satisfied with any of them, not because it was an action movie, but because they were mostly pretty bad action movies. I don't mean to dog on anybody's car here, I'm a Mustang owner too. But just because a Mustang is a car for the masses, an affordable car, a car with flexible utility, is no reason to make excuses for the things that are lousy about it. I think that the Focus is an excellent example of what I'm talking about. With the Focus, Ford proved that you don't have to sacrifice good steering and handling and driving dynamics just because you can only afford an entry-level commuter. Look at the quantum leap Ford took when it punted the Escort into the grave, and replaced it with the Focus. Both entry level cars, both got similar mileage and had similar seating etc.etc.etc..., but one was a tired, old, outdated and archaic handling and driving car, the Focus light-years ahead on all accounts. Same exact market segment, but one car a fine car top to bottom, and the other one well...not nearly as fine. That's progress, and that's why in comparison tests the Mustang lags so so far behind lesser-powered, but far more developed, sorted and modern-tech new platforms from Europe and Japan. Ford CAN build a Mustang that has all of the utility and affordability that you want and enjoy, that also rightfully earns the praise of critics and can go head-to-head against the best from overseas. And I think this new car will do just that. And the reason Ford has invested the resources in doing this is because they know that the market will not settle for anything less than that. The car it is replacing is long long overdue for retirement, just like the Escort was. If Ford had not done a from-scratch re-do of the Mustang, and just did another upgrade and re-style of the current platform, who here can argue that it would not die a certain and imminent death? Ford could drop 600 h.p. under the hood, and the car would still die. What does that tell you? That's all I'm trying to say. I love love love my '97, BUT, I know that when I take my first drive in an '05 it will AMPLIFY the shortcomings and obsolescence of my '97. Now, in some ways the faults and shortcomings and idiosyncracies of my '97 can be called "personality". But, "personality" appeals differently to each individual, it doesn't equate to greatness. I'll always love my '97, but it can't compete with progress, it's not as good a car as what's being produced today. It's faster than most, but it's got a list of bad attributes and bad habits as long as my arm that progress and redesign should correct.

Teen'93stang5.0 · Jul 5, 2004

SadbutTrue said:
C&D just had a cover feature in which they chose a Mazdaspeed Miata over a Factory Five AC Cobra kit car, by almost 2 to 1 (the one with the Lotus Elise... I can almost understand taking an Elise over a Cobra, they're both rare and the Elise is amazing, but a MIATA?!?!). They even said that the Miata had twice the "Gotta Have It" factor... we're comparaing a Miata to a freaking Shelby Cobra here. I lost faith in them pretty much instantly with that article.

i was just reading that too, i was like WTF am i paying for this magazine subscription for.............i couldnt believe that crap....kinda makes you wonder about the editors and writers they have working there,

i bet the coat room is full of pink sweaters

SVTdriver · Jul 5, 2004

Ok so if I shouldn't pan the 350Z about it's lack of utility. Then why should I pan the mustang for it's lack of being a sportscar. When that is not what it's all about? I agree the mustang needed a total redesign. No question about it. But I personally find it dumb. When people compare mustang to sportscars. Best case scenario it's a sports coupe. And even that may be pushing it a bit. I drive my cars on regular city streets. So cornering for any car is really about the same. No matter if it's a ferrari or a model T. They all have to obey the speed limit. When I get it out into the open road with some twisties. Sure it's not as nimble as some of the other cars out there. But it handles pretty well. And it doesn't go flying off the road with the slightest bump. And I guess to me. Complaining about a dated interior. When I and even you have 1997 mustangs. Which means the interior was 4 years old (Hardly able to be considered dated). Now if I owned a 2004. That would be a different story. Then the interior is a decade old. And yes despite some improvements it is old and dated. And yes the suspension is obsolete. But it still works until you try pushing it to what other more modren cars can do. Then it needs the aftermarket. I look forward to the 05. I just wish I could find a decent salesperson to deal with.

RICKS · Jul 5, 2004

I never read back to page 2, so I'll throw my take at some issues brought up there.

1. I don't necessarily blame Yates on the shaker scoop, I can understand some people considering it a bit useless and silly on the new Mach, considering the maze of ducting that air has to go through before it finally hits a throttle body. And while it was a styling statement on 2nd gen T/A's, from the mid-70's on up, it was totally non-functional. Disco was cool too, but it's history now. I'm indifferent on shakers, they're a must-have on old classics because they fit the era, but I don't really desire one on a modern car. But I don't think that brands Yates as "anti-American", give me a break.

2.

If driven properly these cars can amaze you.

If driven properly?? What is that supposed to mean? First, don't you have to drive ANY car "properly" if you're aiming to experience its potential? And secondly, how do you know what kind of driver I am?? Improper? I don't have any idea what that statement had to do with anything. It's amazing what a WS6 equipped 1979 Trans Am can do "when driven properly", but if you dropped one of those into a comparison against state-of-the-art hardware, it would compare horribly, even if you could manage to wrestle it around the track at a similar pace.

3. I like Pat Bedard, he does his homework and he battles all of the nutball California left-wing kooks who would outlaw gas powered vehicles if they could. How is that un-American?

RICKS · Jul 5, 2004

But I personally find it dumb. When people compare mustang to sportscars. Best case scenario it's a sports coupe.

I totally agree with you. My point is that with new technology and better engineering it can be light years better than it is currently, hence the new '05. You seem to consider your car "good enough for me". If U.S. automakers took that attitude, settled for "good enough", the imports would take over the entire market and U.S. cars of all types would be mediocre in comparison. There seems to be this stubborn "hanging-on" to the SN95, attempting in absolute futility to compare it to competitor's brand-new fresh platforms. It's a losing battle. The fact that Ford is doing a 100% all-new Mustang is proof enough that the outgoing platform can't compete in the market anymore. If it COULD, you can bet that Ford would let it ride for another 5 years and invest its resources in other areas needing help.

SVTdriver · Jul 5, 2004

My car is good enough for me. I don't even remotely think it is good enough for everyone. But I do question the objectivity of C&D. To me they seem to still be hung up on the domestic cars are inherently garbage. Which as I have stated before is just no longer true. And them rating the lotus better because of a judgement call catagory. Just brings it to question even more. But not because they rated the cobra replica worse. But because it did not come in first in every quantifiable catagory. And comparisions of the 350Z and the stang. To me is just not a really good comparision. They are 2 different cars. The mustang was until now a nose heavy car. While the Z was more balanced. Thankfully the 05 will be better.

kirkyg · Jul 5, 2004

Common sense tells you the lower profile the tire / same size rim will give you a lower gear ratio and get you started off the line quicker. Wider = better taller = worse.

kirkyg

SVTdriver · Jul 5, 2004

Again then why would the professional drag racers not have thin 35 series or lower tires?

wtf is car and driver smoking

RustyFox

New Member

DJsZincGT

J98GT

scottie1113

SVTdriver

J98GT

SVTdriver

J98GT

SVTdriver

RICKS

New Member

SVTdriver

BlackPony2000

New Member

RICKS

New Member

Teen'93stang5.0

SVTdriver

RICKS

New Member

RICKS

New Member

SVTdriver

kirkyg

SVTdriver

Similar threads

wtf is car and driver smoking

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency