The BMWs that are winning their classes are 15+ years old. The E36 M3 that is dominating STX is from the mid-90s. The Mustangs that are winning their classes are 2007+
Just got back from scrubbing in some tires. 30 cars at the TNT Saturday, and a 60+ second nationals-style course for Sunday. Why can't we get that site here? :flame:
BTW, an STX Mustang isn't so bad as everyone assumes...took two runs in a 70% prep car and was 0.6 off my own time.
He did that in 2 runs with a car he'd never driven before. (though top level drivers seem to adapt very quickly) Also, prep level is way less than his BMW.
If "street" tires get any stickier, I'd expect the Mustang to be faster as it will be able to use more of its HP advantage.
He did that in 2 runs with a car he'd never driven before. (though top level drivers seem to adapt very quickly) Also, prep level is way less than his BMW.
If "street" tires get any stickier, I'd expect the Mustang to be faster as it will be able to use more of its HP advantage.
Even when they HAD competition from the Camaro, they sold well - better than they do now.
Also, the Mustang does not sell well overseas. The economic reality is they have got to have a car that DOES sell overseas, and a big heavy car that lumbers through the turns may be a, American car guy's dream but no one else in the world is really interested in that.
Didn't the Camaro outsell the mustang for a year or two ? I remember reading that the new Camaro outsold the mustang for the first time since the 70's.
But is the one on the Mustang? I agree, the solid rear axle can be made light and kept in check with a Watt's link, but it goes beyond just the rear axle with the Mustang. You know as well as I do how poorly they handle.
But the bottom line is, there is a reason high end sports cars use IRS, and it's not as a sales point.
High end sports cars yes but for the average american car there is nothing in the cost/ease of manufacture range as a solid rear axle.Its interesting that Nissan went back to a solid axle on a couple of their best sellers.IIRC maxima and sentra.
High end sports cars yes but for the average american car there is nothing in the cost/ease of manufacture range as a solid rear axle.Its interesting that Nissan went back to a solid axle on a couple of their best sellers.IIRC maxima and sentra.
I can't stand the new retro pony cars. I hate to say it but Ford did better than Chevy or Dodge in the styling department.
I really LIKE the more Aston Martin styled Mustang concepts, even if the headlights do look a little odd. Very interested to see how it turns out. Ford may finally have something for me to switch camps for, which says something as I also like the LS motors.
Agreed. OEM's are not going to spend all the costs in manufacturing for twice the parts on an IRS compared to a solid axle if there wasnt a real benefit to using that setup on high end cars.
I know they are FWD but earlier versions were fully independent susp and successful sellers,yet they chose to go to a solid axle design to maximize (no pun intended ) profits.Those same designs were sold overseas as well.Most car buyers have no idea what suspension front or rear their car has,some do but that amount is a low percentage.
So my point is,changing a cheap efficient suspension design to an expensive to produce design will do little to help car sales.With that in mind ford could keep the live axle design and still come up a with a profitable worldwide seller.That is there main reason for selling cars after all. JMO
A forum community dedicated to Chevrolet Chevelle owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about restorations, builds, performance, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!