1965 Ford Shelby Mustang GT350 vs. Crossfire
Re: 1965 Ford Shelby Mustang GT350 vs. Crossfire
I find it difficult to compare cars these days based on performance alone.
I recently read a road test for the 2007 Toyota Camry which reported a 14.9 second 1/4 mile run... a damn Camry running 14's!
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2530b.shtml
Prior to purchasing our Crossfire we were looking at a 2006 Chevrolet Impala SS (also sold as the Grand Prix GXP & Monte Carlo SS) that comes standard with a 5.3L 303 HP V8 that flat Hauls AZZ!! I test drove a few of these animals and they are very impressive!!! 0-60 in the 5 - 6 second range. 1/4 mile in the mid/low 14's and tops out at 150 mph... all this and she gets 28 mpg on the hwy due to displacement reduction technology.
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2528a.shtml
The Crossfire "Is What It Is"... a great car that deserves more credit that what it's given. Just be cautious when lining up with those 4 door Camry's, Impala SS's/Grand Prix GXP's and sportier Monte Carlo SS's.
I recently read a road test for the 2007 Toyota Camry which reported a 14.9 second 1/4 mile run... a damn Camry running 14's!
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2530b.shtml
Prior to purchasing our Crossfire we were looking at a 2006 Chevrolet Impala SS (also sold as the Grand Prix GXP & Monte Carlo SS) that comes standard with a 5.3L 303 HP V8 that flat Hauls AZZ!! I test drove a few of these animals and they are very impressive!!! 0-60 in the 5 - 6 second range. 1/4 mile in the mid/low 14's and tops out at 150 mph... all this and she gets 28 mpg on the hwy due to displacement reduction technology.
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2528a.shtml
The Crossfire "Is What It Is"... a great car that deserves more credit that what it's given. Just be cautious when lining up with those 4 door Camry's, Impala SS's/Grand Prix GXP's and sportier Monte Carlo SS's.
Last edited by PC HOTROD; 09-13-2006 at 04:53 PM.
Re: 1965 Ford Shelby Mustang GT350 vs. Crossfire
I'd been looking at a new "road" car for several years. Criteria set were: 1) price 2) manual transmission 3) rear wheel drive 4) had to be faster than my old '91 SHO.
Lots of BMW's would do this, but failed test 1. Other candidates were the 350Z - cool, fast, but zip luggage space and somehow I couldn't get excited about it. Got real interested in the RX8, read a lot of positive press, then I drove one. Positive expectations fell flat when the rubber hit the road.
The Crossfire hit my radar screen when it came out, but as has been said, it was panned as being "underpowered". Last fall had a slow day, went by the Chrysler dealer at lunch and they had a new 2004 6 speed on the lot.
While not scientific, I like testing cars on a bit of interstate that has exits nominally 2 miles apart. While quite an abbreviated test, running this ramp to ramp lets me test the car on curvy bits (the ramps themselves), see how it goes in a straight line, and how the brakes work. Testing the RX8 and the Crossfire on this same section of interstate, the Mazda won't hit 130 (indicated). The Crossfire does. Real world vs magazine road tests? Don't really know, just what I saw. Heck, could have been speedometer error, but the Crossfire FELT faster. Torque of the V6 vs the rotary? Could be, but I buzzed the rotamotor to redline to keep its power up on the curve.
Impressed me enough so that I really started looking for one in the used arena. Finally found an '05 base with only 6,850 miles. Love it so far - just can't find enough excuses or time to drive it! The bottom line is that a car is more than one part of the performance envelope - its a package. Like my Miata, the Crossfire isn't the fastest thing in a straight line. But add curves to the equation, factor in a sexy body, the Mercedes blood line and you have a real winner.
Henry Payne
'05 Base
Lots of BMW's would do this, but failed test 1. Other candidates were the 350Z - cool, fast, but zip luggage space and somehow I couldn't get excited about it. Got real interested in the RX8, read a lot of positive press, then I drove one. Positive expectations fell flat when the rubber hit the road.
The Crossfire hit my radar screen when it came out, but as has been said, it was panned as being "underpowered". Last fall had a slow day, went by the Chrysler dealer at lunch and they had a new 2004 6 speed on the lot.
While not scientific, I like testing cars on a bit of interstate that has exits nominally 2 miles apart. While quite an abbreviated test, running this ramp to ramp lets me test the car on curvy bits (the ramps themselves), see how it goes in a straight line, and how the brakes work. Testing the RX8 and the Crossfire on this same section of interstate, the Mazda won't hit 130 (indicated). The Crossfire does. Real world vs magazine road tests? Don't really know, just what I saw. Heck, could have been speedometer error, but the Crossfire FELT faster. Torque of the V6 vs the rotary? Could be, but I buzzed the rotamotor to redline to keep its power up on the curve.
Impressed me enough so that I really started looking for one in the used arena. Finally found an '05 base with only 6,850 miles. Love it so far - just can't find enough excuses or time to drive it! The bottom line is that a car is more than one part of the performance envelope - its a package. Like my Miata, the Crossfire isn't the fastest thing in a straight line. But add curves to the equation, factor in a sexy body, the Mercedes blood line and you have a real winner.
Henry Payne
'05 Base
Re: 1965 Ford Shelby Mustang GT350 vs. Crossfire
Well said HPMotors!
Considering that we are only housing 215 hp it sure makes good use of it.
Something that I noticed about the Crossfire when driving is that it does not have a so-called flat spot in the power band. Most magazine tests always reference where a vehicle falls flat, but not the Crossfire... it seems to have a good pull all-around. Maybe due to the advance intake system.
It's All Good!
Considering that we are only housing 215 hp it sure makes good use of it.
Something that I noticed about the Crossfire when driving is that it does not have a so-called flat spot in the power band. Most magazine tests always reference where a vehicle falls flat, but not the Crossfire... it seems to have a good pull all-around. Maybe due to the advance intake system.
It's All Good!
Re: 1965 Ford Shelby Mustang GT350 vs. Crossfire
Originally Posted by dynamicS
Whoa woo whoa! I find it very hard to believe the S2K has more power than the Limited XF. I've raced one a couple months ago from a 30 mph roll, and all it did was make a lot of noise while it stayed right behind me for a at least a 1/4 mile. And I doubt it can take the Limited off the line from a dig.
The S2K has 240 hp, BUT the torque is far less than the XF and, as you noted, you need to get way up in the rev band to get the benefit of that torque in the s2k...needless to say, it's not a great off the line car.
Re: 1965 Ford Shelby Mustang GT350 vs. Crossfire
I don't know about others, but driving down the road in 1/4 mile sections to get somewhere isn't how I judge a car's performance, nor is it how I drive to get from point A to point B. I have a friend that owns a Viper, one of the first... it's fast, it's dangerous ...
... but ...
Can it take going 135 MPH for long periods of time? I had a 1966 MGB, it was a dog off the line, but on the road it handled every curve the engineers could throw at it and it ran and ran and ran and ... well ... ran at high speeds for long periods of time.
To me, a cars performance should be rated on the long run. The 1/4 mile segments ... those are just peeing contests - IMO.
I think my XF takes the long runs better than my friends Viper ... and when people see his Viper they know what it is ... when the see my XF ... I get asked what it is.
... but ...
Can it take going 135 MPH for long periods of time? I had a 1966 MGB, it was a dog off the line, but on the road it handled every curve the engineers could throw at it and it ran and ran and ran and ... well ... ran at high speeds for long periods of time.
To me, a cars performance should be rated on the long run. The 1/4 mile segments ... those are just peeing contests - IMO.
I think my XF takes the long runs better than my friends Viper ... and when people see his Viper they know what it is ... when the see my XF ... I get asked what it is.
Re: 1965 Ford Shelby Mustang GT350 vs. Crossfire
Firstly, I absolutely love my Crossfire.
When I test drove it for the first time, I knew I would buy it but I also began scheming as to how to get more straight line acceleration.
Mine is an auto and I agree the the SRT is the one to get if you really want acceleration. I am just frustrated that if top end was compromised a little, a whole lot more could have been gained down low by specifying lower diff gears- damn those autobahns!!
When I test drove it for the first time, I knew I would buy it but I also began scheming as to how to get more straight line acceleration.
Mine is an auto and I agree the the SRT is the one to get if you really want acceleration. I am just frustrated that if top end was compromised a little, a whole lot more could have been gained down low by specifying lower diff gears- damn those autobahns!!
Re: 1965 Ford Shelby Mustang GT350 vs. Crossfire
Originally Posted by adoni
I don't know about others, but driving down the road in 1/4 mile sections to get somewhere isn't how I judge a car's performance, nor is it how I drive to get from point A to point B. I have a friend that owns a Viper, one of the first... it's fast, it's dangerous ...
... but ...
Can it take going 135 MPH for long periods of time? I had a 1966 MGB, it was a dog off the line, but on the road it handled every curve the engineers could throw at it and it ran and ran and ran and ... well ... ran at high speeds for long periods of time.
To me, a cars performance should be rated on the long run. The 1/4 mile segments ... those are just peeing contests - IMO.
I think my XF takes the long runs better than my friends Viper ... and when people see his Viper they know what it is ... when the see my XF ... I get asked what it is.
... but ...
Can it take going 135 MPH for long periods of time? I had a 1966 MGB, it was a dog off the line, but on the road it handled every curve the engineers could throw at it and it ran and ran and ran and ... well ... ran at high speeds for long periods of time.
To me, a cars performance should be rated on the long run. The 1/4 mile segments ... those are just peeing contests - IMO.
I think my XF takes the long runs better than my friends Viper ... and when people see his Viper they know what it is ... when the see my XF ... I get asked what it is.
Trust me, at 135 mph my Viper is idling at around 3,000 rpm of its 6,000 rpm red line. It will do 135 all day. I've had it to 140 on one occasion, and I honestly didn't realize I was going that fast until I noticed the traffic a half mile ahead of me (that was doing 75) looked as though it had stopped.
I can't give you an honest opinion on how it compares to my Crossfire at those high speeds because I've only had the Crossfire up to around 110. But I've read where it's rock steady at autobahn speeds and I wouldn't doubt it.
As for the Viper being scary and dangerous, the answer is yes, if you get a little crazy with it, it will come back and bite you. But what else would you expect from a 450 hp SNAKE?
In the real world, day in day out driving, I totally agree with ya, give me the Crossfire. Maybe that's why I haven't taken the Viper out of the garage even once since the Crossfire showed up.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
RED DOG
-C-I-C-C-I Discussion
25
07-26-2015 07:25 AM
WindRestrictor
Commercial Sponsor Classifieds
0
06-16-2015 12:18 PM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)