Mustangs Suck!!!!!!!!!

:finger: this kid at my school is tellin' me that mustangs are freaking the fastest things to hit friggin cement. Hes screwed to think that. I would like everyone to shove it man. He says its faster than a Vette and a Skyline GT-R , Lancer EVO among others. They are beyond by like at least .4-.7 seconds and the HP per Liter is totally weak. A 1350 HP skyline is around 2.8 liters and a 1750 HP mustang is 5-5.6 liters (correct me if iam wrong). The math is that the skyline has about 355+ HP per L and the mustang has areond 200 give or take so I am giving a warning to the mustang................Beware 5.0 fans...............The inline 6 is in your mirror and is quickly gaining ground.:mad: :sun: :smoker2:

Hey Kid,

What do you own? As for power per liter that really does not mean a damn thing. I am pretty sure you should be looking at the weight of the engine, not the displacement.

As for the Mustang being the fastest thing to hit the pavment is a farce. You can make any car fast, I have race a Datsun B210 that runs mid 11's.

For me its cost effective for me to use a Mustang. I get 25mpg and run high 11's. A skyline would be hard pressed to achive that.

Mustang's are good cars for power adders, I will just leave it at that.

tyhel:

Geez, I hate it when the kiddies are out of school for the holidays.

"1350 HP skyline is around 2.8 liters and a 1750 HP mustang is 5-5.6 liters "

Well at least you have admitted the Mustang has more HP:flipa:

As for the rest.............I dont like to flame 12 year olds:eek: :smoka:

mustangs quite possibley give you the most bang for your buck
camaros are cheap and would take a mustang more then likely but are known to fall apart faster
now mustangs arnt exactly known for quility but theyll hold up longer then a camaro
so therefore at a tidy amount of money (you can get a cobra 2000 for less then a 94-96' most sports cars
there an amazing value
yah its true alas they have a low HP per L, which really hurts there performance considering they gotta weight alot to getthat HP
but at the same time the cylinders and such make them get more of a boost and can support more NOS if im not mistaken...

they have there good and bad points, sure they wont be taking a well modded supra or 300zx anytime soon, but then again they wont break the bank and the new ones are pretty damn sexy

hey look morons. someone actually got the classification right. i hate it when dumasses try to compare lamborghini's to fiat or some stupid crap like that!:devil:

Ya, its not like you can build any car to run the 1/4 in 10sec, or handle 1 g on the skid pad. Geez some poeple.

Oh, wait you can.


I hate it when people show their ignorance

I hate Mustangs.

I really fvcking hate Ford, what a load of crap.

I hate all American automakers in general, except Pontiac and GMC

Reinterating, I hate Mustangs, I fvcking hate Ford

Why?

Probably had his Honda's ass spanked by a bunch of Mustangs. Typical.

Originally posted by Mylacc
mustangs quite possibley give you the most bang for your buck
camaros are cheap and would take a mustang more then likely but are known to fall apart faster
now mustangs arnt exactly known for quility but theyll hold up longer then a camaro
so therefore at a tidy amount of money (you can get a cobra 2000 for less then a 94-96' most sports cars
there an amazing value
yah its true alas they have a low HP per L, which really hurts there performance considering they gotta weight alot to getthat HP
but at the same time the cylinders and such make them get more of a boost and can support more NOS if im not mistaken...



You are a moron.
Camaro's build quality is no worse then a Mustangs.

HP per Liter is what ricers uset o compensate for small engines with even smaller amounts of hp.

And for the record, it's not the Mustangs "cylinders" that make them so good for forced induction (turbo, blower, nitrous), it's the DOHC. The 4.6L DOHC Cobra responds so well to forced induction due to the fact that there are 2 exhaust valves allowing spent gases to leave the cylinders faster thus creating more power with forced induction.
In the end, I'd stick with my car. Looks cooler, goes faster, responds damn good to forced induction... :smoker: :sun:

1350 HP skyline is around 2.8 liters and a 1750 HP mustang is 5-5.6 liters

wow thats some HP!!!!!

last time i checked ford made 5.0's till 95, and then started the 4.6L in 96, but where to you get a 5.6L? i might want to look into getting one!
mustangs are fast, but you can't compair them to a vette. vette's are damn fast and in a totally different group.

i thought this was the ford mustang forum? i came he to talk cars not to argue about there differences!!!

Originally posted by HiFlow5 0
i thought this was the ford mustang forum? i came he to talk cars not to argue about there differences!!! I couldn't have said it better myself. Thread closed! Thank you, HiFlow5 0, and welcome to AF!!! :D :D :D

Sorry this was your first impression... :rolleyes: