Up close and personal...

[Dr.Jass]

...without dramatic lighting or a professional photographer. Just had my first close-up walk-around with a brand-new Mustang GT.

It's ugly. I mean, really ugly--to the disgrace of the cars to which it supposedly pays homage.

Sorry, everyone who loves it, but to get near that car and look closely is akin to walking up to a '60s fastback and removing every interesting styling cue... put a '66 fastback greenhouse on a '67 beltline, leave in the microwave too long to melt off the details, and finish off with a tail panel more fish than filly--it looks more like a '70 Barracuda than a Mustang back there (barring the taillamps, which look like neither). Don't believe me? Photochop a license plate over the gas cap.

I'm a big fan of the basic profile--long hood, short deck--but that car's the opposite of the current Viper... it looks way better in photos than it does in person.

Let's hope, for the owners' sakes, that the Mustang isn't the build-quality and engineering abortion the GT has turned out to be... Ford got what it deserved for the wholesale whoring of that particular design (the original GT40, a design with which Ford had nothing to do).

Either way, Larry Shinoda is rolling in his grave.

 

[Da-ho]

Well all I know is what my friend that runs car transport has told me, and running them on and off and chaining them down you do get a good look at stuff and he says you cant hardly get them to light the tires they just hook and go due to nice looking 4 link rear suspension with staggered shocks and huge sway bars. The GT version has true dual exhaust with a crossover but hes into fords too so he could be biased. Choosing the lesser of two evils compare it to the new sieg heil chargers and what do you come up with? [smilie=e:

 

[Dr.Jass]

A fastback "performance" car that will get it's ass beat by a family hauler?

 

[Da-ho]

I would like to attend that particular event.

 

[beeper*71]

I would like to attend that particular event.

The Mustang would have it's hands full against the 425 horse 6.1 Hemi in this.....

Love it or hate styling be damned, thats one 4 door that's gonna haul ass. [smilie=e:

 

[Dr.Jass]

I would like to attend that particular event.

How do you make a Chrysler 300C SRT-8 run with a Mustang GT?[smilie=e:

Mustang GT:[list]> 0-60MPH: 5.2 sec
> Standing ¼-mile: 13.8 @ 102MPH
> Top speed: 149MPH
> Roadholding: 0.87g
> Braking, 70MPH-0: 183'
> Curb weight: 3523lb.
> Seating capacity: 4 adults, as long as two are kids or double amputees.[/list]Chrysler 300C SRT-8:

• > 0-60MPH: 4.7 sec
  > Standing ¼-mile: 13.2 @ 109 MPH
  > Top speed: 173MPH
  > Roadholding: 0.89g
  > Braking, 70MPH-0: 162'
  > Curb weight: 4212lb.
  > Seating capacity: 5 adults with legroom to spare for all.

So, I guess the answer to my question above is "race with 3 passengers in the 300."

You should be able to attend "that particular event" anytime on Main Street USA... and note how the SRT-8 runs away with its tires blazing. [smilie=e:

Not too bad for the "outdated" 16V pushrod engine architecture against the "modern" 24V OHC 4.6L, huh?

 

[Da-ho]

Thanks doc, I will have to show this to my ford loving friend. You would think the mustcrat would weigh less then that-it looks like it would but thats the numbers. [smilie=e:

 

[b-body-bob]

I like how the heavier 300 outbrakes the Mustang :beer: I guess it's a tradition, Mustangs have never had enough brakes since the beginning.

 

[SANDWICH]

it still beats any mopar perfromance out there today.

 

[mr340]

it still beats any mopar perfromance out there today.

Mustang GT:

• 
  > 0-60MPH: 5.2 sec
  > Standing ¼-mile: 13.8 @ 102MPH
  > Top speed: 149MPH
  > Roadholding: 0.87g
  > Braking, 70MPH-0: 183'
  > Curb weight: 3523lb.
  > Seating capacity: 4 adults, as long as two are kids or double amputees.

Chrysler 300C SRT-8:

• 
  > 0-60MPH: 4.7 sec
  > Standing ¼-mile: 13.2 @ 109 MPH
  > Top speed: 173MPH
  > Roadholding: 0.89g
  > Braking, 70MPH-0: 162'
  > Curb weight: 4212lb.
  > Seating capacity: 5 adults with legroom to spare for all.

Am I reading these numbers incorrectly???
I'm seeing that the Mopar will open a huge "Can"O"Whoopa$$" on that FoMoCo product... [smilie=e:

 

[SANDWICH]

the 300 looks like a generic square family car with a grate for a grill. I'll take the .6 sec lose and the way better looks with the G.T [smilie=e:

 

[OrphanedV8s]

I like how the heavier 300 outbrakes the Mustang :beer: I guess it's a tradition, Mustangs have never had enough brakes since the beginning.

I dunno Bob the first time I stepped on the brake pedal in my 68 'Stang I almost hit the windshield it had power disc brakes! [smilie=2:

Dave

 

[richrmixture]

you did forget one important comparison number, Doc. Money?

Though i basically agree with your assessment, (although I admit, I compare the new mustang to the one it replaces and it is a clear winner by that standard) bang per buck is not a factor to be completely ignored.

 

[Dr.Jass]

the 300 looks like a generic square family car with a grate for a grill. I'll take the .6 sec lose and the way better looks with the G.T [smilie=e:[/quote]
Actually, unless you're blind or retarded there's no mistaking the 300C for any other car on the road, whereas the Mustang shows no creativity of design whatsoever. The same guys who wail about whoring heritage with the Hemi and/or Charger names salivate over a half-assed, totally-derivative and completely lame design. Ford's design studio employs the biggest whores of all.

Throw in Ford's 20+ year heritage of garbage electricals and numerous long-term mechanical gremlins, and I fail to see any appeal... Ask a current $150,000+ Ford GT owner whether he likes the $4 Speedi-Sleeve repair on his megadollar crankshaft better than the $5000+ repair on his front control arms.

Considering that, for their current prices, the 300C SRT-8 is the better value... and if it's is too expensive, wait for the Magnum or Charger SRT-8, either of which is within farting distance price-wise of the abortive Mustang, but will outperform it in similar fashion while actually being a useful, daily-driver-worthy vehicle.

 

[383man]

Well here is my take on it as I work on the new Mopars every day. First let me say I dont want any new car at all as I love old muscle (60's and 70's muscle cars) and thats why I am here. I drive an 89 truck as my daily driver and its all stock as its a truck to drive and haul my chit. That being said I think the 300 and new Charger are ugly as hell !! They look like a damn German car on steroids ! Butt ugly to me. They are fast and the Hemi runs good but until the SOB's at Mopar listen and just build what the hell they want ( a 2 door RWD V8 muscle car ) and stop building everything but that like.......... 80k Vipers , 4 cyl turbo FWD , PT what ever , V10 trucks and who the hell knows what else as all every Mopar nut has wanted for 20 years is a RWD 2 DOOR V8 MUSCLE CAR. Every one I talk to just wants Ma to build that......a RWD V8 2 door muscle car. At least Ford did that in the fact that the new Mustang sorta looks like the old Mustang muscle car. Yea it could be faster and have a larger V8 but what the hell its a Ford and us Mopar people want to smack it anyway. The 300 6.1 is faster but not the 5.7 and sorry but I feel the new Stang is much better looking then the ugly 300. Dont get me wrong as the 300 is a nice riding and running car its just butt ugly and has 4 doors !!!! Now if you really want to talk Stangs I will take this 67 Pro Street Stang with the 460 roller eng I built thats in it. [smilie=e: Ron

[img]http://pic7.picturetrail.com/VOL188/1011563/1887759/79171280.jpg[/img]

 

[Not A Duster]

Actually, unless you're blind or retarded .

Well - I guess I'm both - because I don't want a f*ckin' bargain - version rebadged mercedes - even if I could afford it.

 

[71GTX]

Actually, unless you're blind or retarded .

Well - I guess I'm both - because I don't want a f*ckin' bargain - version rebadged mercedes - even if I could afford it.

[smilie=r: [smilie=b: :beer:

 

[SANDWICH]

all that is, is your opinion jass. and I'm not speaking about the comparitive mechanics of the cars.

I am far from a retard also.

 

[Jester]

all that is, is your opinion jass. and I'm not speaking about the comparitive mechanics of the cars.

I agree, Sammy.

I am far from a retard also

ya could've fooled me [smilie=e: j/k Copper! [smilie=e:

oh look! a shiny nickle! *bends over in front of Sammich* [smilie=2:

 

[XLR8R]

Mustang hands down. The 300 still looks like an oversized mechanical trout to me. Perhaps it gleens flies from the air with its grill? [smilie=e:
Why would you compare the SRT-8 with a generic GT? It out cubes it badly, and regardless of what you think, it is one of the ugliest things Ma ever produced.
Guess you will have to wait a while, and see what actually driving all these cars is like. Lottsa stuff sounds good on paper, but in day to day may have totally different outcome.
The 1/4 mile time is great, but seems extremely close in arguement to a certain SRT-4/old muscle car arguement. The Srt-4 may be faster, but I would rather have my foot into some fun, then something that merely goes fast.
I guess Ron summed it up pretty well.