

Moderators: neps, Matthew, Michael Pajaro
If you have valid criticisms or constructive comments about the movie, then by all means contribute. However insulting users on the boards (or Mustang owners etc.) is uncalled for.GN_WS6 wrote:Rubbish. I can't wait to see all of the Mustang douche bags with their new KITT clones..
I had a 2000 GT Mustang. It was garbage. It was pretty unreliable for only being 1-2 years old (when I had it)Everyone I know that has them is full of themselves and think they own the greatest car ever put on 4 wheels. (no matter which body style it is) The 4.6 liter engine is pretty much useless from a performance standpoint unless you put some kind of power adder on it (nitrous, turbo, supercharger) If you build those motors naturally aspirated, it'll cost you a mint and you wouldn't really be any faster than a stock Camaro or Trans Am of the same vintage. The Mustang GT FINALLY reached 300hp in 2005 (the f-bodies accomplished that 12 years earlier, depeding on model) up from 260hp in the '99-'04 bodystyle, but it also picked up about another 400lbs from the previous body style as well, so it wasn't really that much faster. They handle awful. Yes, much worse than the "crappy" 3rd and 4th gen fbodies. The only Mustangs I really care for at all, is the '67-'68 Fastbacks and the ORIGINAL Shelbys. The supercharged 5.4L DOHC 500hp GT500 runs a 12.7 in the 1/4 mile. 6 speed LS1 Camaros and Trans Ams were good for 12.9-13.4 with anywhere between 195-175 LESS horsepower. Oh, and they only cost $25k cheaper new than what people are paying for the new Shelby. Top speed on the GT500? 155mph. On the Trans Am? 158mph. Hmm. Gas mileage is better on the Trans Am too by 5mpg/highway. The KR version of the Shelby is rated at 550hp and they also make a "Super Snake" variant with 600hp. Both only beat the standard GT500 in the quarter by a couple of tenths, both only top out at the same speed and both cost thousands more.. So where's the upside to owning a Mustang over a later T/A or Camaro? The fbodies are more sleek, handle better, out perform all but the most expensive and "exotic" of the Mustangs and they get better mpg. If someone was willing to pay $55-$75k for a Mustang, wouldn't they be better off just buying a Corvette. For $60-$65k you can step into a new Z06 that'll run CIRCLES around the Shelby. BTW, Shelby stole the "King of the Road"/KR insignia from under the Corvette back in the 60s, Chevrolet was going to release a King of the Road Corvette with the L-88 big block 427 and when ol' Carroll got wind of this, he got it trademarked before GM could, purposely just to piss them off.goldbug wrote:If you have valid criticisms or constructive comments about the movie, then by all means contribute. However insulting users on the boards (or Mustang owners etc.) is uncalled for.GN_WS6 wrote:Rubbish. I can't wait to see all of the Mustang douche bags with their new KITT clones..
Wow, could you be anyMORE offensive and rude? Keep going and see where it gets you. Read the forum rules. In every thread you post in, you consistently rude. You whine and moan and groan about the same thing over and over again and flame others for disagreeing with you. Grow the h*ll up.GN_WS6 wrote:Rubbish. I can't wait to see all of the Mustang douche bags with their new KITT clones..
I get it. So if someone likes something you don't, they're "douchebags".GN_WS6 wrote:So I hope that answers all of your questions on my "opinions" of the majority of Mustangs and thier owners.