Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Corbic" data-source="post: 234878" data-attributes="member: 10079">I've only had my car for about 3 months now, and I too kick my self in the ass every now and then. Piss poor handling and ancient suspension... 215hp out of a V8 that drinks gas at 18-20mpg... ugly interior..mushy steering, odd seating position..But then again, for less then two and half grand, what the hell else can you get? A gutless 110hp Civic? A busted Caviliar?Sure if I saved a few more pennies and shopped around I could score an LT1 F-body for 3k, but... yeah.. even worse interior, horrid visibility, wedge shape styling.. and reliability that makes the Mustang look like a '90 Corrola. The Mustang is cheaper than the F-body and more practical, it has better visability, better seating and only uses regular gas. It made compromises to appeal to a wider range of buyers, and that is why the Mustang is still in production and GM is going to be once again late to the game with the reintroduction of the Camaro.. 1996 Mustang GT stock is basically 0-60 in 6 seconds and 1/4 in 151996 Camaro was around 0-60 in 5.7 and 1/4 in 14.1(per C&D)1996 Turbo DSM (Talon/Eclipse) do 6.4 to 60 and 15 in the 1/4There is not a whole lot out there in that time frame that was "blistering" fast, in fact, that WAS fast. As for power-adders, I think the only real disadvantage the Mustang has over other cars (S13s, Hondas, DSMs) is you can't slap on a turbo for $1,000, swap in a engine with dramatic results for $2,600, or crank up the boost for $800 and see huge gains.</blockquote>