Re: 2007 Mustang GT vs. 1991 NSX
Which Mustang is $45k new? I thought this was a "plain" GT? Those are, what, $25k?
Which Mustang is $45k new? I thought this was a "plain" GT? Those are, what, $25k?
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
2007 Mustang GT Vs. 1991 NSX
- Thread starter Paul91
- Start date
- Joined
- 31 January 2008
- Messages
- 276
Looks like the Mustang had bad reaction times to the tree. His car was slow off the block... really slow. Did his tires spin? I didn't see any spin.
Wil- Great write up. Thanks a ton for making this all happen. The guys at Drivn were very good about organizing/coordinating everything. I didn't expect much more than 'just another online video' here, so to read a nice article makes it that much sweeter.. :smile:
"Then he started up with all the "poor man's Ferrari" crap and all the other hater verbiage that goes along with it.."
you should tell him if that was true you would see as many NSX's on the street as you see mustangs.
you should tell him if that was true you would see as many NSX's on the street as you see mustangs.
- Joined
- 29 August 2008
- Messages
- 8
VAMPNSX,
I hope you are not referring to my article because if you are then you need to read between the lines a little more. It is hard to give an unbiased opinion when in fact you are swayed by personal likes, all of which I have for the NSX more so than the Mustang. The Mustang is a good car in all its rights but again you get what you pay for. Also what a lot of people tend to forget is that NSX's were never intended to be rocket propelled missiles but instead, streetable track cars. Likewise, the Mustang was built for just that, load a bunch of HP into a car and watch it go. But take that same HP and stick it on a track filled with turns. Will the NSX come out ahead? Sure, I've seen it plenty of times. So in all reality, I was praising the NSX's ability to outperform the "statistically" better Mustang based on data gathered from reliable sources such as Road and Track, Car and Driver, etc. So there's no hating going on here, just appreciating both vehicles for their special but independent qualities.
Wil Ramirez
DrivN Editor
I hope you are not referring to my article because if you are then you need to read between the lines a little more. It is hard to give an unbiased opinion when in fact you are swayed by personal likes, all of which I have for the NSX more so than the Mustang. The Mustang is a good car in all its rights but again you get what you pay for. Also what a lot of people tend to forget is that NSX's were never intended to be rocket propelled missiles but instead, streetable track cars. Likewise, the Mustang was built for just that, load a bunch of HP into a car and watch it go. But take that same HP and stick it on a track filled with turns. Will the NSX come out ahead? Sure, I've seen it plenty of times. So in all reality, I was praising the NSX's ability to outperform the "statistically" better Mustang based on data gathered from reliable sources such as Road and Track, Car and Driver, etc. So there's no hating going on here, just appreciating both vehicles for their special but independent qualities.
Wil Ramirez
DrivN Editor
Last edited:
statistically speaking the nsx is still a little faster than the mustang, plus higher mileage nsx's tends to run a little faster than the cars that the magazines run. these cars do really get better with age.
even if they had even drivers and the mustang did the same prep, i'm sure nsx would win but not by much. the nsx is also extremely easy to drive consistant, the last time i was at the strip i was constantly in the 13.5-13.6 for 5 runs. but i wasn't not trying to get the best E.T. i was aiming for the highest trap speed with my lowest being 105mph to my highest being almost 108mph.
and nastinupe1, you don't want to hear excessive wheelspin esp on a car with a lot of torque and small rear tires like the mustang. its best to just chirp off the line and just go instead of roasting the tires for the first 2 gears.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 23 March 2008
- Messages
- 123
why do i only see 14.0 on the board in both videos, yet all i see is talk about consistent 13.6? btw, congrats! i had no idea my car was this fast.
The videos only show two of six passes. Neither involved a good lauch, hence the 14.0 ET.
With a decent launch, i.e. a 2.0 second 60-foot time, he ran 13.6.
Thanks guys. Here is the 13.66 slip:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3144/2830533145_d6f9bdef9e_m.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3144/2830533145_d6f9bdef9e_m.jpg
cmon. a 17-year old car vs. almost brand new car.
also. 3.0 L V6 vs. 4.6 L V8
also. 3.0 L V6 vs. 4.6 L V8
Yeah, when you put it like that then it is much better sounding than just "I beat a Mustang".
Oh it does doesn't it?
Especially in the time of when the US Ariel Atom comes with a GM 4 banger and the Lotus exige/elise comes with a Toyota Celica engine. But yet both cars kick some serious A$$!
Especially in the time of when the US Ariel Atom comes with a GM 4 banger and the Lotus exige/elise comes with a Toyota Celica engine. But yet both cars kick some serious A$$!
Didn't doubt the outcome for a second. :wink:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
