Random car thread.

[Big A]

[lowfast]

Head on shot?

[LaserSVT]

The 2016 is 1.2" shorter (nose to tail), 2" shorter wheel base, 1.4" wider, 4.3" taller and weigh 28lbs less.

But thats just numbers. They eyes will see what they want to see.

[LaserSVT]

Now there is a pair I would kill for.

[Tremor14]

The 2016 is 1.2" shorter (nose to tail), 2" shorter wheel base, 1.4" wider, 4.3" taller and weigh 28lbs less.

But thats just numbers. They eyes will see what they want to see.

he was wrong, just not gonna admit it.

[Tremor14]

[lowfast]

The 2016 is 1.2" shorter (nose to tail), 2" shorter wheel base, 1.4" wider, 4.3" taller and weigh 28lbs less.

But thats just numbers. They eyes will see what they want to see.

I guess my eye will see what it wants. I stand by the current mustang looks massive in person when parked next to a 65. As for the 71'. I can admit I was wrong by the numbers for general size. When I looked up the specs for the 71 vs 2015, the 71 with the 351c weighs 3560lbs, a 2015 GT base curb weight is 3705lbs, depending on how it was equipped the 65 is a sub 3000lb car. Not insignificant.

[lowfast]

he was wrong, just not gonna admit it.

I'm wrong all the time. Nice thing about an opinion, it's just that, an opinion.

[Tremor14]

[LaserSVT]

Yeah the first gen cars were much smaller and I wasn't arguing that. But they are smaller in most specs when compared to the 71-73s. And yes, the fully equipped GT weighs 3705 but remove the premium package and Shaker system and larger wheels/brakes and that drops it below the base weight of the 71GT. I haven't looked up the 73 Mustangs which I know are heavier/bigger.

[lowfast]

Yeah the first gen cars were much smaller and I wasn't arguing that. But they are smaller in most specs when compared to the 71-73s. And yes, the fully equipped GT weighs 3705 but remove the premium package and Shaker system and larger wheels/brakes and that drops it below the base weight of the 71GT. I haven't looked up the 73 Mustangs which I know are heavier/bigger.

I agree the 71-73's are boats and heavy but they still have a sleeker, if that is the right word, look than the newer stangs when parked side by side. The current cars fastback look does help vs the last gen. I feel the new generation Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger could all shrink about 10%-15% in every dimension and they would look more sporting, and if they could drop the same 10% in weight that would be even better.

[4bangen]

I agree the 71-73's are boats and heavy but they still have a sleeker, if that is the right word, look than the newer stangs when parked side by side. The current cars fastback look does help vs the last gen. I feel the new generation Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger could all shrink about 10%-15% in every dimension and they would look more sporting, and if they could drop the same 10% in weight that would be even better.

I thought that too, until I put 1000 miles on my 15. I wouldn't do that trip in any other mustang ever again.

[Tremor14]

[cool cat]

I thought that too, until I put 1000 miles on my 15. I wouldn't do that trip in any other mustang ever again.

It's amazing what 50+ years of technology and refinement can do for a car.

[Cooter]

I agree the 71-73's are boats and heavy but they still have a sleeker, if that is the right word, look than the newer stangs when parked side by side. The current cars fastback look does help vs the last gen. I feel the new generation Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger could all shrink about 10%-15% in every dimension and they would look more sporting, and if they could drop the same 10% in weight that would be even better.

how tall are you?