Quote:
Originally Posted by Outlaw
First, calling a Ford GT a muscle car is just a plain stupid thing to say.
|
oh isn't it? And what is it then? An exotic car? A supercar? It's just a piece of expensive muscle car, and that's how it's treated by owners like the gentleman of a few pages before. Automotive stupidity. Further evidence of that is that Jeremy Clarkson bought it (and had endless problems with it until he decided to sell it).
Quote:
Beyond that...
You're correct if your definition of an, "engineering marvel", is a car that requires a $5k+ engine out service every 15k miles or 3 years. Admittedly I'm not up on the newer ones so they may be a little better but, still, there's not much engineering marvel in them. They are simply race engines and suspensions with a crappy car wrapped around them. Admittedly the 328 and older are smokin' hot to look at (the newer ones are really bland IMO), but, that's about it.
GM's stock 2 liter turbo Ecotec engine has as much torque as a 3.5 liter Ferrari 355 engine. The difference is the Ecotec produces it at 2600 rpm while the Ferrari needs 6000 rpm. With a $600 ECM reflash that does not void the factory warranty the Ecotec will produce 290 bhp and 340 ft-lbs of torque (as much torque as a Ferrari 430 at less RPM).
My turbo Ecotec has 35k miles on it with no issues (although I have replaced the tires already).
Anyone can make a race engine that's design life is one race (or 15k miles at 500 miles/month) and slap it into a car with ridiculous maintenance requirements
An engineering marvel is a solid engine that lasts.
Now don't get me wrong, my next toy car will probably be a Ferrari, but, they are not, "engineering marvels", by any stretch of the imagination.
And just for the record, a Laguna Seca Mustang handles at 1.03g (as compared to the 1.02g of a 2010 Ferrari 458 Italia).
--Outlaw.
|
LOL all that palava and then you're gonna get yourself a Ferrari?! Brilliant
