take it from me who had one mustangs suck. maybe a older 60's or 70's mustang yes that's nice but a newer gt won't even come close to the craftsmanship of a crossfire. a crossfire is a beautiful car i love them.

 

ya...maybe it would win...
but your mustang would look like sh*t next to my crossfire.

 

Now this thread is going a bit over the top here. The XF is nice looking, but the quality isn't that much better than the Mustang. Yes, we all know by now that there is a Mercedes lurking under the skin, but, it is still a Chrysler. It's pretty hypocritical for someone who owns a Chrysler to snub a Ford owner. The current GTs are very nicely done, with high quality interiors, well done fit and finish, and excellent reliability. Is it a luxury car? No, it never has been. It's a muscle car. That is why Ford decided to keep the solid rear axle. A lot of owners in the demographic who buy mustangs, want to easily customise the car and set it up for high horsepower and drag racing. The solid rear axle is nearly bullet proof and inexpensive to modify. Also, I think with a little TLC and some minor custom touches such as springs, wheels, and exhaust, the current GTs are very bada$$. The sound of a nice V8 will always be better than any 6 or 4 regardless of tuning. I am a car guy. I like all kinds of cars for their differences and uniqueness. I'd gladly park a Mustang next to the XFire.

 

i like all makes and models as well... hell i use to have an '82 GT... which i still wish i had... loved that car.

out of the current design... this is my favorite...

DSC00697.jpg

 

I had a 2002 GT with Eibach springs, stripes, and Flow Masters. It sounded gnarly for sure!

 

Well I don't know about the new GT's but way back when, I had a '66 Shelby GT 350. You know the car they are trying to replicate. It may have been fast in a straight line, and they may be worth 150K+ now, but it was still a FixOrRepairDaily piece of Sh*t. 41 years later and the new one isn't as good as the old one. Geez, I wonder if their using leaf springs with that solid rear axle? Comparing an XF to a GT is a joke. If you don't know which one is by far superior, well, you haven't even been around the block. The XF is a very sophisticated ride, it's very unique, handles superbly, and even if it says Chrysler on the badge, this ain't no Chrysler.

 

Ditto!!! nothing from such stories are usable, because the fact we have no real-world benchmark data that was taken from a controlled environment with the required benchmarking tools...

So this a waste and will only encourage this thread to explode into a "my car has a bigger pen*s than yours story!"

 

Ditto!!! nothing from such stories are usable, because the fact we have no real-world benchmark data that was taken from a controlled environment with the required benchmarking tools...

So this a waste and will only encourage this thread to explode into a "my car has a bigger pen*s than yours story!" nothing against anyone posting though.

 

Your car has a pen*s??? WTF???




Back on topic...sorta. I like what Roush has done with the Mustang. Of course, he put a proper rear suspension on the car so it handles so much better than the ox cart rear end. If Ford's marketing department wants to hark back to the old road racing days of the TransAm series, then Ford's engineering department had better do something to shed some weight off those things (the GT500 is something like 4,950 lbs!!!) and upgrade the suspension. They can throw all the HP they want at the things, but it will never hang with a Corvette or Viper unless it goes on a diet.

And I say this as a fan of the Mustang!!!

 

Dude, if you haven't driven a new Mustang, then don't talk smack. For one, I'm not, nor have I ever been a badge snob. If I was, I wouldn't have traded my 10k mile (purchased new) 2005 loaded Infiniti G35 Coupe in on this Chrysler. Obviously, I like the Crossfire... well, the SRT6 at least, but I like other vehicles as well including the Mustang, BMWs, AMG Mercedes, 300C SRT8s, Lambos, muscle cars (including my 1965 Chevelle), hot rods, rat rods, and others just to name a few. I like expensive cars and cheap cars depending on what they are. I don't choose a car for how much it costs, or for what the automotive press says about it. I choose them for their individual character. The Crossfire is unique, uses German engineering, and is nice looking. I like the mustang because it has classic lines, modern conveniences, and a kick a$$ sounding and performing V8. And yeah, the Xfire may be mostly Mercedes, but it IS a Chrysler, no matter how much you try to convince your self otherwise. The splotchy paint, fake side vents with cheesy silver plastic, cheesy silver plastic window surround, cheesy silver plastic center console, fragile interior plastic coatings, cheap leather, cheap buttons and controls, cheesy cup holder, crappy climate control system, and other cost-cutting tid bits definitely remind you that it is definitely a Chrysler, though a very good Chrysler.

 

1 splotchy, 1 fake, 4 cheesy's, 1 fragile, 2 cheap's, and 1 crappy (all in the same breath). Now did you really mean it when you said "though a very good Chrysler"?

 

I think the new "retro" Mustang is by far the best thing Ford has done in years. The big problem for Ford is it makes the rest of the line-up look really bland/unfocused/dated. FoMoCo is struggling with all their other product lines because, with the exception of the Mustang/Trucks/Explorer there is no common product identity or common brand/styling theme to make any particular car a FORD except the nameplate. You can take one look at any Mini, BMW, Jeep, Mercedes, Dodge or even Pontiac and tell the brand without seeing the nameplate. You need to have a distinct brand identity to stand out in a marketplace flooded with cheap generic asian off-brands.

Regards the Crossfire vs. Mustang compro...pretty pointless really.

'Stangs are for the strip or stoplight street races, Crossfires are at home at an autocross event, a twisty country road or road course. Stangs have a back seat and a real trunk but look clumsy and bulky parked next to a petite, compact little sports car like a Crossfire. Apples and Oranges are both tasty and have their place. I'll take one of each !

 

The '03 - '04 Mustang Cobra is faster than both a base crossfire and an SRT-6. A Crossfire is to the SRT-6 as the Mustang GT is to the Cobra, the main difference being a supercharger. Having said that, the Mustang is still only good for drag racing. The SRT-6 is a more refined ride that handles exponentially better. The Cobra is a dangerous car at even moderate speeds around corners.

My roommate has a friend that works with this guy who owns an '03 Cobra that is modified and runs low 11 sec 1/4 miles. He always tells me that he wants to race my SRT-6 which I just decline since it wouldn't be much of a race. Well just the other day he took my roommate for a ride. They drove down a highway that My roommate and I take everyday to work. When you get onto the highway there is a long curve that is barely a turn, I have taken it over 120+ mph with no issues at all, nice and smooth like it was a straight line. I had a good laugh when my roommate told me they were taking this "turn" at around 80-100 mph and the rear tires were losing traction and sliding all over the place. He said it scared the crap out of him everytime they hit a corner the car would be all over the place. He told my roommate that the fastest he had the car was 140 mph and it was "too scary" so he had to slow down. When he started the car up the engine smoked and he said it was because it was so powerful!

PS: I Love the new mustangs. Almost bought one before I saw the Crossfire.

 

A pre 4.6 Mustang GT had approx. 260 hp and weighed in around 4,400 lbs. A newer model with the 4.6L stock was 300 hp. The first model stangs to get the 4.6L were still quite heavy in the 4,200 lb - 4,500 lb range. The latest body style, retro '70's look, averages around 3,500 lbs.

If we're comparing '04 - '07 crossfires,non srt6, weighing approx 3,200 lbs with 219 hp with a '95 mustang 5.0L automatic you may have a close race the stang will still be at 100 mph before the crossfire though. Any race against a manual tranny in the 5.0L against the 219 hp crossfire and the GT will win.

I have 3 mustangs in the garage.

'70 with a 302 boss (stick of course)
'95 5.0 stick
'07 4.6 stick


Although the newer stang is considerably faster than my '95, the '95 will take the stock non srt6 crossfire in a straight line.


I should also mention I have a '05 crossfire srt6 with 1,100 miles. That unit destroys my '07, '95 and '70 stangs.


This is not really rocket science. Bench racing as someone mentioned earlier is a fairly accurate method on making comparison in vehicles. hp to weight ratios are used regularly and are accurate within a 1-2/10ths in most cases.

As far as handling, the mustang can not take corners well at all. It is not classified as a sports car, it is classified as a luxury car by Ford. Any crossfire will win a road race involving tight corners.

check this site out for an explanation of the 0-60 times and bench racing as it was called:
http://www.cars-cars-cars.org/Car-zero-sixty-Times.htm

for a good 0-60 calculator try this one:
http://www.060calculator.com/

Horsepower
(at the flywheel): hp Curb Weight: lbs Drive Type: FWD RWD AWD Transmission: Manual Automatic
Power / Weight Ratio: 0.103125
0-60 mph: 4.593724553243623 seconds

Say it equates to 4.6 add a tenth or 2 and 4.7 is still very fast for a srt6.

That assumes the srt6 only has 330 hp. I'll know for sure next month. It will be on the dyno in the beginning of October.

Leadfoot likes to go fast!

 

I've got two stangs in the garage ('85 5.0/5 spd and '91 5.0/5 spd), and another one coming soon I hope (66 fastback A-Code).

I just traded my limited coupe on an SRT6.

The SRT6 will outrun all of them. The limited coupe MAY have hung with my stock 5.0 in the 1/4 mile, and would've smoked it on 60+/highway type racing.

The newer stangs are a good bit more powerful, but still geared towards the 1/4 mile.

At one point, I had a IRS rear-end out of an '03 cobra tucked underneath my '85 stang and it still wouldn't touch the handling of a stock XFire.

The difference in handling is where it's at...the XFire is a completely different beast. Like said before, apples and oranges, and I'll take (more than) one of each if possible!

SQ

 

can't we all just get along haha. some ppl like mustangs and some ppl like xfires. keep it at that?

 

I LIKE 'EM BOTH!

 

Can you deny any of those things I pointed out? Hey, I like the XF, but c'mon, let's face it, it has suffered from Chrysler's cost cuts. If they did correct all of it's shortcomings with real aluminum trim, better fit and finish, and all the other things, it probably would be a 70 grand car, but then I wouldn't be able to have one. Even Porsches had some really cheapo interiors and fit and finish problems, and the press always slobbered over them. So, I'm not saying it is a bad car, just that you can see where Chrysler intervened.

 

It's not about denying any of those items. It's called normal automotive manufacturing pratices. All cars are made that way with few exceptions and like you said, it would be 70k.

 

Got one of each.