orion_squall

but hey, sadboy916

cobra, and a lot other domestics really ROCK!! SO FAST! too powerful!

I will just not argue with those, we are mature here, we shall argue with fact don't we? ^_^

2k2EXCOUPE

iTrader: (11)

Okay, take the civic.

When my sister chose her first car, she wanted a mustang. So when my sister was 16-17 she got her a brand new 1998 v-6 mustang. Cool car for a year or so, then it became A PIECE OF ****! It is always having problems and she regrets getting it.

So after all that crap, when I was getting my car I had no choice. My mom said you are getting a civic. I didnt even want a Mustang though , I wanted the Civic. So i got the civic and my sister got the mustang.

Mustangs are not that well built to say the least. Stay with the civic, in the long run, and i think even in the short run, you will be better off.

XTREME2K2CIVIC

iTrader: (5)

Civic looks better!

sadboy916

but i would take a civic

OMega

Never under to why companies keep making econo versation of their cars. I rember the old 80's vette v6's. Those thing were dogs slowest vette ever I think. I would go as far as to say the old 58 is faster.
I guess the wabees gatta have something....

orion_squall

because we are run of of petrol and not welling to be controled by middle est petrol contry.

nowdays, the winner will be a company which make car which is performant but also save gas.

perfomrance is 10% of goal but gas saving, sefety, reliability is the rest.

recently Honda is trying to design car which will cause least damage to the person who get hit by it. Honda are welling to sacrifice drag ratio and performance for it. I feel like to shoot them sometimes.

CIVIC2NV

MY 2001 civic LX beat the 2000 mustang not the GT by almsot 3 car lengths both cars were manual. The other driver is really good aswell!
I have Hp 4-1 Header, No catatlyic convertor, 2.5 inch exhaust. Cold air intake. A JET CHIP but its still not installed and wasnt used to beat the Stang. it was V6 aswell.. and I beat it pretty bad. They are way 2 heay. and 2 slow. I was actually racing it on the Highway not the streets.

ponyman

iTrader: (5)

If you want a Mustang go after a real Mustang we are talking 1960's here folks. Now those are cars you can mod easily, yeah horsepower costs money, but you can call Summit Racing and they will have just about anything you want, in stock even. You know things like the stuff you need to build a 500hp engine and place it into a 68 convertible. Now that is a real Mustang and it is one car that I would gladly give up my Civic for, the only down side is that you can't even idle through a school zone without speeding and above 25mph the car starts to get a little squirly.

Jandree22

v6 Stangs are for chicks that know nothing about cars. I've gotta say, though, that V8's will always be hot, and nothing beats the sound of an aftermarket exhaust on one of those!! Because all domestics are on a rebate kick right now, a new Mustang GT, no lie, can be found for $20-$21,000. CarsDirect.com, check it out.

BTW, I know V6 stangs are poinless, but unless your Civic is blown there's no way you're gonna beat a '00+ V6 stang....If you think a 127hp vic can beat 193 horsies, that's RE-F*CKING-DICULOUS!!! Sure they weigh more, but not like 2000lbs more

Jandree22

I hate to break it to ya, but they never made a V6 Vette

2k2EXCOUPE

iTrader: (11)

Actually, the older v-6 mustangs had 150 hp i believe. only the new v-6 have the 193, also, they have no top end power either.

its funny though, this one chick i know has a 98 v-6 mustang, and she put flowmasters on it and shes always like "yeah it sounds like a v-8" and ****. just buy the damn v-8.

2k2EXCOUPE

iTrader: (11)

Actually, i think your wrong again.

Jandree22

okay, where is this V6 Vette, and why am I wrong 'again'

2k2EXCOUPE

iTrader: (11)

because i have beat a v-6 mustang before in my car. except the new mustang v-6's, the older ones, i believe untill around 2000 or so had 150hp, making it a decent race. we have 127 and they have 150. they have also have more weight. though they have alot more torque, we can pull off them at higher speeds.

lemme find some info on the v-6 vette for you, i might be wrong, but i think there really is.

Jandree22

hmm, 127 vs 150.... I guess I can buy into that one

2k2EXCOUPE

iTrader: (11)

plus there is a huge weight difference and they have NO top end power.

i cant find anything on this v-6 corvette but i remember the corevettes being incredibly slow in the 1980's and thought there was an option of a v-6 but i guess im wrong

Jandree22 - sorry if i came off a **** , i was wrong about the corvette thing

Jandree22

it's quite alright I'm kinda a Vette buff and the V6 just kinda triggered a Red flag, hehe.... it's alright though man, not everyone can be perfect like me! (j/k )

2k2EXCOUPE

iTrader: (11)

lol, yeah, what the deal with the slow vettes then? i remember when they used to be dogs.

Jandree22

I dunno, I don't remember any of those 'dog' years... They've always packed a big 'ol V8 and a fiberglass(now plastic) body. Ingredients for a facelift goin down the track Anywho... whatever

AZD17A2

Too lazy to look up stats and post pics right now, but, the very FIRST Corvette had a "blue flame special" V6 as the ONLY engine option. This was wisely replaced by Chevy when Ford's V8 powered T-Bird came out soon after. There has NEVER been a V6 Corvette since oh, around 1956 or so. The '80s Corvettes were pretty slow, in fact, a 5.0 Mustang LX coupe could probably take one, but they were V8s nonetheless.

2k2EXCOUPE

iTrader: (11)

Yeah i guess they were just small v-8's because i know a guy who has one and its a total dog. very slow for a vette.

Jandree22

huh, so there really was a V6 in a Vette... interesting

HomerSimpson

iTrader: (5)

Only mustang you would catch me buying is the Cobra.

AZD17A2

Well, I got off my lazy virtual bum and found some stats for the V6 Corvettes. And actually, it was an inline six, not a V, but # of cylinders remains the same. Looks like it was only for the first 2 years of production, '53-'54. Look at the performance #s. My auto '03 EX could take it!!!

1954 CHEVROLET CORVETTE




PRODUCTION

Convertible
3,640





Production of the 1954 Corvette was relocated to a renovated plant in St. Louis, Missouri. The plant was designed to produce 10,000 units per year, however , it would not be until the 1960 model year until sales exceeded that number.

In its second year of production, the Corvette convertible continued with minor changes. This meant that all 1954 Corvettes were powered by the 235 c.i. Blue Flame Six cylinder engine that put out 150hp. However, the engine was uprated to 155 hp during the model year. The only way you can tell the higher output engine from the 150hp version is by special identification marks on the camshaft. The 155hp's camshaft had three dots between the fifth and sixth intake cam lobes.

The rest of the drive train on the 1954 was carryover, including the two-speed Powerglide transmission. Standard features of the 1954 model included manual brakes and steering.

One major difference from 1953 were the additional color choices, besides Polo White. Pennant Blue, Sportsman Red and Black were available, with the rarest being Black- according to best estimates, only four 1954 Corvettes were painted black. In addition, beige was an additional interior color (red was the only other choice) and all 1954 Corvette tops were beige. 1953 models had a black top

Other changes from the 1953 included the redesigned 1954 engine valve cover, some of which were chrome while others were painted blue, Late 1954s also had a a dual air cleaner setup that replaced the three-bullet design used previously.

Besides these changes, other changes were of the minor variety. Production of the 1954 certainly shot up, however, sales did not. By the end of the model year, about a third of those produced were still unsold.




SPECIFICATIONS

Wheelbase
102.0"

Track, f/r
57.0"/58.8"

Length
167.0"

Width
72.2"

Height
52.1"

Weight
2850 lbs.






ENGINE

235 c.i. Blue Flame Inline Six 3x1Vcarburetors

C.R.
8.0:1

Horsepower
150/155 @4200

Torque
140@4200






PERFORMANCE:

1954 Chevrolet Corvette

Engine:
150hp 235 c.i. Blue Flame I-6

Transmission:
Two Speed Automatic

Axle ratio:
3.55:1

Weight
2,886

Acceleration
Sec.

0-60 mph
11.0

Standing 1/4 mi.
18.0

Source:
Motor Trend, 6/1954

aferenz

The Cobra is cool, but I'd rather have a 350Z. It corners way better, straight line performance is not all that matters.

I guess you can't compare, but I rented a v6 auto in Hawaii and it was SLOW! compared to my stick ex.

AZD17A2

to your first statement. Handling is one of the reasons I like my Civic over other cars that might be faster in a straight line, but I guarantee even in stock form, my Civic will out handle a base, and probably a GT Mustang on a road course. Straight line #s are great if you're doing the 1320 all the time, but I tend to make a lot of turns everyday when I drive, and it's way more fun doing it in the Civic than many "faster" cars.

cosmo

iTrader: (3)

Only 6's in 'Vettes were the early years...1973 to the 1975 or '76 Corvettes were the slowest model years with around 165 horses in 1973 and only about 145 hp in 1975. If you ever go up against a stock '73-'76 Vette take all their money!

Kape

I'd go for the civic. My ex had a Mustang and I beat it by two car lenths. Then again, mine is standrad, hers was auto, and she couldn't drive for $hit. Also, she had an aftermarket exhaust so she though she had a V8, lol.
But yeah, the bottom line is, resale value on a Mustang is crap, gas milage is crap, I think it's just crap all arround. I like the style of the 2005 pony, when that comes out maybe we can talk.

htowncivicEX

The SVT Cobra handles as well or even better than the 350Z. You have to understand that each SVT Cobra is hand-assembled by 2 or 3 guys from the SVT team - it's not your typical Fox body Mustang put together on an assembly line.

Just because a car has high torque doesn't mean that it can't handle well. Just like automatically believing that imports handle better just because they're imports. Makes absolutely no sense.

Specially tuned dampers, special spring rates, and a lowered ride height makes the Cobra pull 0.92 G's on the skidpad. Now I don't know exactly what the 350Z pulls, but it's not better than the SVT Cobra. The previous gen Cobra R handles even better than the 2003 Cobra (0.95 on the skidpad).

SVT Cobras are bona-fide track cars, not just straight-line machines. IMO, you get a lot more for your money with an SVT Cobra than with a 350Z. Not to mention that I think the Z is fugly as heck (this is my own personal opinion, though.

V6 Mustang =
SVT Cobra =

Bolemite24

You also have to take in the fact that if you buy a Low end 2003-2004 Mustang your going to lose your *** on it. As soon as the 2005 hit the streets 03-04's won't be worth S**T. The New Mustang Base is supose to take on the cobra of 03. So don't waste your time if you bought the EX it will for sure be worth more even when the 8th gen drops.