[oldman]

Originally Posted by newmoon

And back then who cared about what a mustang/camaro would do at a track - nobody. It was all street and strip action. Come into to a gathering talking about how your car handled and you would be laughed right out.

Especially true if you had a Mustang, cause it could not handle.

I happened upon Car Craft November 2007 Budget engines
Ford 302 OEM block crank heads, after market intake carb headers279 HP and 341 ft lbs. for $2000 bucks

The Chevy OEM iron block, crank, heads made 383 HP and 439 ft - lbs.
for $1950

So please stop pretending the 5.0 was a good engine. The Windsor had the worst heads of any merican V8 ever, even the Pontiac 301. The 302 was tinny in every way and 331 cid was the max steetable size. The best thing you can do with a Fox body is to shove a LS into it, everybody knows that.

[oldman]

Originally Posted by ST1LE

Why not? If the rumors of a starting price of $70K are real, then there will be nothing like in the world at its price range.

The base Vette sells at a price point to make the ZL1 affordable. The mid engine Vette will not sell at that price point in enough numbers meaning a higher unit cost over reduced volume. The base vette is $55,500. I highly doubt the $70 K, but lets go with $15 K more. That is the price between a 2SS and the Vette, how many more 2SS are sold vs base Vett on price alone? So what does one get for the 21% rise in price to mid engine? What is faster and better handling right now than a $55 K vette? See my point. To my mind the numbers don't hold. I would say it will be a 30% price rise and the performance will allow the Vette to dominate what exactly? What vette stealing sales machine needs to be spanked down that the current Vette chassis can't do? Since there is no answer, it would be foolish to redesign a great flagship and seller on the GM side to a market that basically does not exist. All Ford GT40, NSX, Italian Supercars et all probably don't equal a single month of Vette production.

If GM does a mid engine Vette it will be a marketing sales failure of epic proportions. IMO of course.

The GT 40 was created because Ferrari backed out of a Ford merger, since then Ford has spent millions of dollars and countless hours on a flagship that the vast majority of the public does not even know it is a Ford. Who mid engine.. big deal, if I had that kind of cash, I'd.... be dead... LOL

[FastCarFanBoy]

Originally Posted by oldman

Especially true if you had a Mustang, cause it could not handle.

I happened upon Car Craft November 2007 Budget engines
Ford 302 OEM block crank heads, after market intake carb headers279 HP and 341 ft lbs. for $2000 bucks

The Chevy OEM iron block, crank, heads made 383 HP and 439 ft - lbs.
for $1950

So please stop pretending the Windsor had the worst heads of any merican V8 ever, even the Pontiac 301. The 302 was tinny in every way and 331 cid was the max steetable size. The best thing you can do with a Fox body is to shove a LS into it, everybody knows that.

Iron Windsor heads are some of the worst flowing heads ever produced and why do you keep comparing a 302 vs a 350? The 351 was a Windsor also... still used basic the same shitty iron heads as the 302 but with a set of aftermarket heads it is every bit as capable as the gen 1 SBC.

[Snowblind]

Originally Posted by DevilsReject97

LMAO!!!! And yet, this whole thread is about performance...and you have the actual balls to come on here and talk about storage and sight lines?

GTFOH!!!!!

Is their any irony in the fact that he has the username "FastCarFanBoy" and is worried about visibility and trunk space ?

I can't wait to drag me sum 18's this spring....the bloodbath will continue....

[oldman]

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

there is an excuse, it’s just not one you like to hear and that is that people care less about fractions of a second around a road course or .1 on a drag strip then they do about things like visibility and storage space. Performance can be improved if needed but unless you are going to install a Google Earth mapping camera on the Camaro your stuck with horrible sight lines. And no matter how many times Jonny talks up how the Camaro is the best driving car on Earth the sales will continue to reflect it.

Funny, maybe the Oldlady "cares" about poor rear visability, (it ain't that bad), but I can assure you muscle car owners care about performance.

Please visibility and storage space? You think a cup holder is what makes most muscle car owner's buying decision?

Look this sums it up for a real car enthusiast:

[oldman]

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

Iron Windsor heads are some of the worst flowing heads ever produced and why do you keep comparing a 302 vs a 350?

Open the hood of a V8 Mustang from 1964 to 1992 and if was not one of the pay to play "special models" it had a 289 or 302.

Open a hood of a GM V8 from base transportation to high performance it had a 350. The question is not why I'm comparing a 302 to a 350, the question is why Ford for 40 years thought a 2 bbl 302 was "good enough".

The current part of this thread were late 80s 5.0 vs IROC which ahem came with a 5.8, it is not my fault the Ford's only reply was a 300 HP 5.8 or 351W at a limited production high dealer mark-up price point (sounds all too familiar don't it), how many were sold? 300. LOL dough I could have got a Firehawk!
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...ad-test-review
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...cobra-r-review

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

The 351 was a Windsor also... still used basic the same shitty iron heads as the 302 but with a set of aftermarket heads it is every bit as capable as the gen 1 SBC.

How many 351 Windsor Mustangs were ever made, AFAIK the vast majority of them were 2bbls, Outside of 300 Cobra Rs, there was a single year 1969 with a heck of small 4 bbl on a 351W, As Ford new the motor was a joke.... Nobody at any time was shaking in fear because a 351W showed up to the party.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by shaffe

I wouldn't say that's an excuse but rather different strategy/goal. GM clearly put performance as priority #1, Ford did not.

My only point was that we are talking about a Performance Package 1 with MagneRide, Michelin PS4S tires, 6-piston Brembos, dual-mode exhaust, k-brace, stiffer springs, thicker sway bars, “unique chassis tuning” and Torsten LSD.

Its shocking to me that someone would pay $49,670 for one and not care that it actually functions.

[DevilsReject97]

Originally Posted by hotlap

My only point was that we are talking about a Performance Package 1 with MagneRide, Michelin PS4S tires, 6-piston Brembos, dual-mode exhaust, k-brace, stiffer springs, thicker sway bars, “unique chassis tuning” and Torsten LSD.

Its shocking to me that someone would pay $49,670 for one and not care that it actually functions.

I'd blow a top if it didn't perform....that's like buying a Corvette and getting a Fiero.

[Tim Adams]

Biggest reason the mid-engine Vette is coming is Le Mans. Winning Le Mans in GTLM since the Corvette came back to sports car racing has always been the #1 goal of GM and Corvette. They have taken the C7R and front engine technology as far as it can go. Time to change.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by hotlap

My only point was that we are talking about a Performance Package 1 with MagneRide, Michelin PS4S tires, 6-piston Brembos, dual-mode exhaust, k-brace, stiffer springs, thicker sway bars, “unique chassis tuning” and Torsten LSD.

Its shocking to me that someone would pay $49,670 for one and not care that it actually functions.

And like I agreed with many it seems very odd that it doesn't seem as "dialed in" as it should be. the comments from the review that is what is most disturbing to me. Not that the 1LE is that much better but that the car seemed so unsettled would bug me. Which is why I want to see if other reviews of PP1 cars mention anything similar.

[Godfatha]

Mustang guy talks $%* about the new 18 GT coming out, how it's going to wipe the floor with the 6th gen. Once it comes out that it's still slower, they start talking about trunk space and visibility. LOL

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

there is an excuse, it’s just not one you like to hear and that is that people care less about fractions of a second around a road course or .1 on a drag strip then they do about things like visibility and storage space. Performance can be improved if needed but unless you are going to install a Google Earth mapping camera on the Camaro your stuck with horrible sight lines. And no matter how many times Jonny talks up how the Camaro is the best driving car on Earth the sales will continue to reflect it.

Aaaand there's the usual desperation to come up with ANYTHING the Mustang does better.

[Godfatha]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Aaaand there's the usual desperation to come up with ANYTHING the Mustang does better.

They have to really reach, if not outright make stuff up.

[BlueSteel07]

I find it a little disconcerting that they're still griping about the mustang handling. When I rented a 2017 GT a couple of times last year, I was not impressed by the handling. Once you get close to 100 mph, the car feels like it wants to fly off the road and towards both ditches. I had the same issue with my 2003 Cobra and my recently purchased 2015 Ford Focus ST. On the country roads, it wants to follow every rut and groove which makes it feel very unsafe at higher speeds. The two GTO's I had felt much more planted. I think I might have to buy a GM car next as I'm getting tired of feeling like my car wants to kill me.