Dear Muscle cars, My R is a muscle car too

[FriscoBrah]

I’ve never seen stock SS’s run mode 11s nor have I seen stock LS SS’s run 12.5 stock...

Sponsored

 

[Harlaquin]

Except a car like the Mustang GT PP2 can do a shit ton more than drive in a straight line. These aren't your grandpa's muscle cars these days.

The mustang gtpp2 was part of the lighting lap and went head to head with the R. Now it did do better... marginally.... barely... and not 50k better. Like I said for the money nothing beats the R. I mean if I poured 50k into my R to bring it up to the cost of the mustang gt pp2. Nothing would touch it. For what you get for the money... there are just way better options.

 

[Harlaquin]

I’ve never seen stock SS’s run mode 11s nor have I seen stock LS SS’s run 12.5 stock...

BINGO!

 

[aldo]

Car meets are for guys who just talk shit and worry about scratches

 

[jred721]

Yeah but cost to performance ratio the r still has it beat. When you compare dollar to dollar not much beats the R. I mean if I poured 80k into the R to bring it up to the dollar value of these performance muscle cars it would rule them all.

Thats where I disagree. CTR is good value for money but doesn't beat the Mustang necessarily. Mustang offers a 480 Horsepower V8, 0-60 UNDER 4 Seconds, great chassis, great exhaust note, looks, and a RWD platform all for 50K or realistically under that without PP2, that right there is insanely good value for money. Lap times aren't what define a car's value for money, especially when 90% of CTR owners probably don't even bring their car to the track and even if they do, they daily drive it most of the time. Also, not advocating for the Mustang over the CTR necessarily, just saying these are the facts.

 

[ablueSI]

There is a narrow definition for "muscle car" and it isn't open to interpretation.

End of conversation really.

Disagree with you there. Someone in this thread already argued 4 cyl and 6 cyl Camaros/Mustangs could be considered muscle cars. I disagree with that because IMO they need a V8.

What I'm saying is that people re-define car categories all the time and it becomes an arbitrary argument. Of course we all have a general idea of what a muscle car is, but it isn't that simple.

This honestly does not even matter.

 

[NoelPR]

Sometimes I think that should be mandatory to do annual psychology tests on import owners.

 

[Captaindicki]

Why go to a American muscle car meet, when you have CivicX?

 

[Harlaquin]

Why go to a American muscle car meet, when you have CivicX?

As stated it was not a muscle car meet just a car meet. Just in this area it seems all that goes is muscle cars.

 

[Harlaquin]

Thats where I disagree. CTR is good value for money but doesn't beat the Mustang necessarily. Mustang offers a 480 Horsepower V8, 0-60 UNDER 4 Seconds, great chassis, great exhaust note, looks, and a RWD platform all for 50K or realistically under that without PP2, that right there is insanely good value for money. Lap times aren't what define a car's value for money, especially when 90% of CTR owners probably don't even bring their car to the track and even if they do, they daily drive it most of the time. Also, not advocating for the Mustang over the CTR necessarily, just saying these are the facts.

I hear you but my point is R 32k that performance mustang with 480hp is 50k. If I put an additional 18k worth of performance parts on my R to bring it up to that 50k of the mustang I would be vastly out performing it at that level. So in that regard no.its not worth 50k for the mustang for what you get.

 

[NoKz]

Muscle Car? No. Performance vehicle? Yes.

 

[nothome17]

Just try not to be a Rachel Dolezal in the car scene.

 

[jred721]

I hear you but my point is R 32k that performance mustang with 480hp is 50k. If I put an additional 18k worth of performance parts on my R to bring it up to that 50k of the mustang I would be vastly out performing it at that level. So in that regard no.its not worth 50k for the mustang for what you get.

yeah but that mustang comes with a warranty out of the box, ready to drive off the lot versus modifying a CTR and probably diminishing it's reliability to achieve performance that would beat the Mustang in a straight line and a track. Modifying a car is and always has been cheaper than buying a car that offers the same or performance out of the box, but it doesn't mean they aren't worth it.

 

[NoKz]

Just try not to be a Rachel Dolezal in the car scene.

I IDENTIFY AS DOMESTIC.

 

[NoelPR]

I hear you but my point is R 32k that performance mustang with 480hp is 50k. If I put an additional 18k worth of performance parts on my R to bring it up to that 50k of the mustang I would be vastly out performing it at that level. So in that regard no.its not worth 50k for the mustang for what you get.

By judging by your way of thinking. Now I understand the reason of the post. Case Closed

Sponsored