From: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: <<< Mustang Powered Miata >>>
Reply-To: kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown)
Organization: Minimal.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 06:28:33 GMT

In article <143@mogun.UUCP> dcg@mogun.UUCP (David Gunsul) writes:
>In article <1992Apr5.163125.19640@menudo.uh.edu>, kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>> In article <135@mogun.UUCP> dcg@mogun.UUCP (David Gunsul) writes:
>> >In article <1992Apr2.202224.1255@menudo.uh.edu>, kevin@taronga.taronga.com (Kevin Brown) writes:
>> >> In article <133@mogun.UUCP> dcg@mogun.UUCP (David Gunsul) writes:
>> >> >In article <960@xlnt.COM>, david@xlnt.com (David Johnson) writes:
>> >> >
>> 
>> Okay.  By "performance" I take it you mean straight line performance?
>
>Yes, but not excluding handling.

Oh, I agree.  A car that exhibited ONLY outstanding straight line
performance is one I would term a "musclecar" rather than a "sports
car".

>> So how much is required?  16 seconds to the 1/4 mile?  15?  14?
>
>As I said before, I don't remember to much of the definition but IMHO I would
>say about high 13 or very low 14.

So much for my Mustang GT then.  :-)

>> Nah.  Like I said, "sports car" is in the mind of the beholder.  That means
>> it's *impossible* to be "wrong" about what a sports car is.  It's a subjective
>> thing (IMHO, of course).
>
>Hmmm, you may have a point there.

I like to think I do, at any rate.  :-)

>> >Unfortunely the cars I consider a sports car are to expensive for me to ever
>> >get to drive. :-(
>> 
>> Man, can I sympathize!
>
>  8^)

I've heard you can rent Ferraris and the like for on the order of $150 per
day.  I don't know if that fee covers insurance or not.  If it does, it
would *definitely* be worth the money just to have the experience.

>> >The reason for the ungodly amount was parts, pure and simple.
>> 
>> Sheesh.  Just how much of that was labor, though?
>
>That's just the point, hardly any, they only worked on it for a couple of hours.

I have to wonder where they got their parts from.  I have a friend who owns
a Honda and the prices he pays for parts like belts, hoses, brake pads,
etc., aren't much higher than the equivalents for my Mustang.

>> I'm not saying that this is *definitely* what happens.  It's just a
>> possible explanation.
>
>That is a possible explanation for some of the American cars going bad as well.
>People now-a-days just don't get into taking care of their cars like they did
>a few years back so they run like crap.

Except for those of us who read this newsgroup, of course, as we're all
car enthusiasts here.  :-)

>It's a shame there used to be a time when the car was thought of as a friend and
>not just another machine.

I think you have a slightly optimistic view of history here (except possibly
for the period of time in which the automobile was a new invention).  I
can't think of a period in history in which most cars manufactured were
specialty cars of one form or another (e.g., musclecars).  Even during the
musclecar era, most of the cars made were the garden variety.  They just
happened to have bigger engines than they use these days.

>> >> No argument here!  Being an owner of a Mustang GT, I can attest to the fact
>> >> that it's quite well-built (even if it has a little too much flex in the body.
>> >> Fortunately, that's easy and inexpensive to fix with subframe connectors).
>
>Sometimes I think people don't give enough credit to the Mustangs and Camaros,
>everyones always pushing for improvement and don't get me wrong I like improvement
>too but these cars are old "warriors" of the drag-strip that have survived the
>toughest test of anything, time and have come out with dignity.

Yeah, you said it!  I can't say too much about the latest-generation Camaro,
but the current Mustang is the result of over a *decade* of continuous
refinement.  It's still not as good, perhaps, as a modern clean-sheet
design might be, but it's about as good as you can get with the platform
they're using (admittedly, there are few things they could do better, e.g.
the body flex and 4-wheel disc brakes.  But as I said, the former is easily
fixable with inexpensive subframe connectors, and rear disc brake kits *are*
available.  The most important feature that's missing on the current
Mustang is anti-lock brakes, which requires discs on all four corners).

>                       David Gunsul 
>                       dcg@mogun.uucp


		Kevin Brown (kevin@taronga.taronga.com)

Newsgroups: rec.autos