theycallmealex89

i cited wikipedia so that killed my argument? since when was being right killing an argument. i know if i woulda said it without quotes you wouldnt have believed me. and even a fully optioned 35th annaversary camaro would cost roughy 4 grand less not including markup that ford does. givin i am not positive they did it on the 03's. lmao THIS IS LIKE BEATING A DEAD HORSE WITH A STICK. neither side is going to cave as some drive the ls and the others drive the mustangs, and we will always say our own is superior, in the end... it took a supercharger to keep up, lmao. im thinking that the thread is dead?

darrensls1

It has nothing to do with being right or wrong. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone so it's known for giving false information. Not that everything on there is false but you certainly can't trust everything there to be true. Thus it's not used by most people as a credibal source for term papers, reports or even internet debates.

theycallmealex89

oh i did not know this. well how about this, no blackgt88 the tbird was a luxury car and was not to compete with the corvette. you can look it up if you want. google it. dont use wikipedia or you wont believe me because its easily falsified.

Irunelevens

Weakest, most repeated (by tards) argument on this site
So the Mustang was meant to compete with the Corvette even though it started out SEVERELY underpowered and is a 2+2 pony car, but the T-Bird wasn't meant to compete with the Corvette simply because it was more luxurious? Right...

Bitemark46

If I got a dollar everytime some LS owner said that I think I'd be 10k dollars richer. You don't get it do you. 2 completely different motors. A 3.5 x 3.5 motor is not going to pull in as much air as a 3.9 x 3.62 motor. Only way to even the playing field is to force/compress the charge to get more air into the chamber. This thread went to hell in a hand basket. -Mark

theycallmealex89

the tbird was not a sports car. it is more like a jag xk8. so yea, since they made all the performance versions of their sports cars mustangs and not one performance version of the tbird.

BUT SAY YOU ARE RIGHT ok fine. how about this. tbird vs vette. vettes the winner. . JUST TO KEEP UP. not be faster.OBVIOUSLY. and mustang vs camaro. well thats just as obvious. if we cannot compare the vette which is nothing more than a camaro minus 2 seats to the cobra, then what gives you the right to compare a forced induction car to n/a? (FI is the only replacement for displacement and everyone knows this) and yea? people say it all too much, but i wasnt bitching. i was just saying it took FI JUST TO KEEP UP, not to be faster, or better. spend the excact same money, dollar for dollar and the ss will always be faster.
and you know, there are black hawks and special edition fbodys that will stomp a cobra. and they still didnt cost more than 35k. let alone 40k.

not that any of that matters. fbodys are the kings of the pony car class. just not right now as they arent being made. and if you want the best example. we shall see it in the near future. when the 5th gen comes out.

PewterScreaminMach

iTrader: (7)

My god, this thread started with an awesome video being posted and then turned into one big pile of ****.

Irunelevens

Man... you've got to be one of the most immature/retarded people on this site. FIRST OFF, they did make performance versions of the Thunderbird back in the 50s. They started off with just as much/more power than the Corvettes of the same time period, and they offered a supercharged motor in 1957 that made a touch over 300hp. It was targeted more toward luxury, but it was still just as much of a "sports car" as the first generation Corvette was. And you should be bitch-slapped for saying the Corvette is "nothing more than a Camaro minus 2 seats." Are you ******* kidding me?

theycallmealex89

ok your right about that, i was wrong, about the tbird. i wasnt positive on that but it still didnt make it the performance icon of ford. they didnt have the ford gt then. wich is a super car anyway. thats what i was getting at. the mustang was their fastest car was it not. the f-bodys are better. with the exception of the 03-04 cobras, and that is what the vette is there with the same engine and less weight to clean everything up. thats all im saying.
the video showed some awesome races. close races are always good. gives all the proof i need to know that f-bodys are superior IMO. no need for senslees bickering.

BigD 275

Back to the video. What rear gear did the Camaro have? By the very weak launch I was guessing 2.73.

Overall, nice video and good, close races.

88blackgt

the tbird hurt early vette sales so bad it was in questions whether they would even continue to produce the vette. vette was redesigned, and the tbird took a different route and became more of a luxury car.

theycallmealex, once again, you have not a ******* clue what you're blabbing on about.

Irunelevens

"Faster" does not mean "better." I'd take an LS1 F-body anyday of the week over a Mustang GT, but you are just being a retard. If the F-body had truly been a "better" overall car, it wouldn't have been outsold 4-1 by the Mustang in the last 5 years of it's production. That's not a "Ford owner" saying that... it's somebody that's realistic. Was it faster? Sure. Looks are a toss up. But straightline speed and looks are not the ONLY things that make a car "better" or "worse" than another car. Pull your head out of the sand/your ***, and open your eyes.

chad3113

iTrader: (1)

I've never really understood the whole "It took a supercharger to keep up" argument since the LS1 has about 65 more CI. I love how people say that qoute like "thats cheating" Instead of making more displacement, Ford used a supercharger, big deal.

Sarge_13

iTrader: (1)

ThisBlood147

I think we've covered every F-bod vs. Mustang cliche known to man yet again. This was a great set of races between some really closely matched cars. But ppl just HAD to start picking it apart.