Discuss All American Muscle Cars Here. ( More Mustangs, Pontiacs and Chevys)

  • Thread starter Thread starter maur doyle
  • 424 comments
  • 16,809 views
Like I said earlier, I think Ford will at least put pressure on PD to have the latest Mustang, and at least any previous models that have been in already, because of the 40th anniversary.

I would think most of the manufacturers would stipulate having most of their latest models in the game. It's all well and good showing of some of your back catalogue, so to speak, but they would want to influence people to buy the cars they are selling now.
 
Putting a car in the game is not for advertising... :odd:
 
I'd say a large amount of it is actually.

I also like that the 2005 Mustang GT is an important part of American history.
 
Of course having your cars in the game is advertising, otherwise why bother. :boggled:

Your showing off your range of cars to appeal to people. Why have Toyota made a limited edition demo, if having your car in a game is of no advertising benefit whatsoever? In fact why would any manufacturer put their cars in a game? Yes the get a license fee, but that's buttons compared to the way negative publicity could hurt their sales.

Why are there no real cars in BurnOut? Because no manufacturer wants their cars in a game that is known purely for it's crashes, however spectacular. It's negative advertising to have cars that go fast and crash all the time, and show all the damage. The GT series is the opposite of that, which is why there is no damage.

Ask TVR if it is advertising, their sales supposedly increased by being in previous GT games.

Just an opinion, feel free to disagree. :)
 
Darin
:sly: I don't think the Japanese care about american history. And I think teh mustang in GT3 is all your gonna get in GT4.
Click to expand...

Well actually I'm pretty sure that all the cars from the previous Gran Turismo titles will be in #4, that's been confirmed hasn't it? Anyway that Includes several mustangs.

I'm not a big mustang fan either but I don't mind them being in GT4!.
 
They said there'll be more cars than in any previous GT game, not that all the old ones will return. That's been said of the tracks, not the cars.
 
Darin
Putting a car in the game is not for advertising... :odd:
Click to expand...
this is a pretty uneducated and narrow thought... the inclusion of cars in GT4 and onward are probably now 90% about advertising. TVR is the best example when they experienced massive sales growth in the Japanese and European market of their vehicles after appearing in GT.

the biggest reason why is the demographics of the players of the PS2 and GT. Generally the PS2 and likewise Gran Turismo appeal to older more sophisticated gamers and GT specifically to auto enthusiasts or soon-2-be wanna-be enthusiasts. The appearance of some of these brands in the game can generate much hype and exposure for a company's products. I myself love cars but hadn't really heard of TVR (b/c they aren't available domestically in Canada) until i saw them in early GT's. I then became very interested in them and researched more. If i had the means might even consider buying one. But this game will also be a great platform to "virtually" test drive cars... why else do you think BMW had demos set up with their new M5... for show? for the hell of it? No for advertising their new product and creating customer hype and desire by allowing the "common" folk to virtually drive their latest monster... this will absolutely have an impact on sales... maybe not overwhelmingly, but anyone who plays the GT series and falls in love with some of the street machines are probably more likely to buy one of those cars then something else.
 
OOPS :guilty:

yes, well, except for the GT´S
 
Viper Zero
Only if the real Mustangs were in GT like the original Mach 1, Boss 302 and 429, not these poser Mustangs.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I really wanna see the '73 Mach I 👍

There should only really be three mustangs in gt4: '73 Mach I, '85 SVO, and '69 Boss 429. The 3 best mustangs ever made, and that said from a camaro guy :sly:
 
Eagle
They said there'll be more cars than in any previous GT game, not that all the old ones will return. That's been said of the tracks, not the cars.
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks for clearing that up for me.
 
Well the thing is, it's not made for Japan only! It's also for America! And Europe! And fact is, without America, cars prolly would have taken awhile longer to be invented. Yes, Americans made the first automobiles. And if they are sticking a Chevelle, Cuda 444 6-pack, Camaro, atleast 4 Corvettes, and some other muscle in the game, then some more muscle from more than 1 company wouldn't be alot to ask. I mean, they already have rights for the Shelby Mustangs, just get the rights to like 3 other classic ones! The Boss 429, Mach 1, and the original 1964 1/2 Mustang. And then for the newer stuff, toss in a Roushe Stage 3, Roushe G.T.360, maby a Saleen Mustang, 1999 SVT Cobra R, 2004 Cobra, 2005 GT, and the concept 2005 GTR. Now yes thats alot of Stangs, but they all will perform pretty differently, not like the damn LANCERS or SKYLINES who are all rather identical in stats and performance. Granted the EVOs and GTR R34s are rather impressive, I just don't want 200 of the 500+ cars to be Lancers and Skylines..... I don't think that even the Japanese want that! I know I don't want this:
1968:
Mustang v6
Mustang GT v8
Shelby GT 350
Shelby GT 350 R
Shelby GT 500
Shelby GT 500 K.R.
Mustang Mach 1

1970:
Mustang GT
Mustang Mach 1
Mustang Boss 351
Mustang Boss 429
Mustang v8

Now granted some of those are radically different, several are basically the same car! Adn that is waht they doing with the Lancers and Skylines.
 
Yes, Americans made the first automobiles.

No, they did not. The first "car" (see pic.) was built by Carl BENZ (as in Mercedes-Benz) in Mannheim, Germany in 1885 and it was called Velociped. Americans (Ford) introduced they conveyor belt to allow mass production (>Model T).



veloci.jpg


just thought i´d clear that up - :cheers: mate
 
I also want to see more Mustangs in GT4. But not in the same sense as the Lancers and Skylines. Maybe the best of each generation, and a concept or 2.

As far as advertizing: If I remember, Mitsubishi praised PD for their inclusion of the Evo in GT2 stating "Partly due to the overwhelming positive response to the Lancer Evolution in the GT series, The EVO is planned for a North American release in the spring of 2002".

The GT serries isn't just a game anymore. It is a manufacturer's dream as far as advertizing goes. How many people has learned of the existence of a car solely based on playing GT? I can't be the only one.
 
Would be awesome to see the old muscle Mustang in a GT game. I'm part of a small group that actually bought the SVT Cobra R in GT3 and used it for a good part of the game, up until the part where i upgraded to around 700bhp and decided it would rule all on the rally tracks.. needless to say it was a b**ch to handle, but I still keep it as the 3rd car i purchased on GT3... ahh the memories. So I'm agreeing with the original post, more Mustangs should be in the game, and it'd be good if you could buy them second hand, if that option is kept in the game...

offtopic: and someone mentioned Holden, dunno about the rest of you but they have a great looking car range and the HSV Race Car from the V8 Supercar series would be a great addition to the game.
 
As much as I like a beautiful American car from our past (examples include: Bel-Air, 1953 and 1963 Corvette, GT350 Mustang, Thunderbird, Barracuda, Challenger...), I think Mustang should be welcome. American car lovers will love to challenge any 4-cylinder or inline-6 Japanese car and rule the track American style. Car enthusiasts will honor the classic Mustangs and give them the respect they deserve as far as racing history go. Personally, I'd like to see old and new Mustangs, even the Saleen SR that raced Rolex Sports Car in its debut year (2000). But I'd like to see this especially for two reasons. First one being that it gives you a chance to own history. The other reason is to allow American muscle fans to joyride their favorite cars. Because after all, people are people, and so when a person can find a car they can call their favorites, I'm happy.

I'm surprised this topic is still going, but I'd welcome Mustangs so I can test drive them to see if I'd like one. Then I'd like to welcome them so that if I don't like these cars, I hope someone else does. Maybe even you can learn to appreciate the cars in question. At first, I didn't like the Mini Cooper. I thought it was ugly and dorky. But over time, I've grown to love this car. And now, I think it's the coolest small car in the world. So, having a car like this can be a win-win situation.
 
^ only problem is most of the tracks in GT4 have turns ;)... so your juiced cuda will be ruling the spinning off the corner into the wall part of the race. That being said, i still support their inclusion in GT... the more the merry, choice is a wonderful thing... especially when i choose to dominate a mustang lover in my skyline gt-r and he's wondering how a "rice rocket" kicked his a$$ ;)
 
phantasm
especially when i choose to dominate a mustang lover in my skyline gt-r and he's wondering how a "rice rocket" kicked his a$$ ;)
Click to expand...

:lol: If a GTR is what a "Rice Rocket" is, then Rice me up!
 
live4speed
I'm not going to say Mustangs suck, because they don't but they are not as good as their counterparts such as the M3 and Skylines ect. They get beat on track by thoes cars without much hassle. They arn't bad cars but they could be so much better. As for crapping your pants in a car, I don't think much can get you as much as a Westfield FW400, thoes will kill corners at insane speeds and accelerate and brake like you'll never experience in any other car exept other super 7 replica's, and even then only the best one's come close.
Click to expand...


The Mustang was never created to be a supercar. It certainly wasn't built to be a counterpart to an M3 or Skyline. A mustang was crated to be a cheap, powerful hot rod that the average working person could buy and work on themselves. The focal point of the car was to be affordable, yet enjoyable for the enthusiast. I think it has done very well within the confines of that goal.

Ford could make a Mustang to compete with any car you choose to list (See 2005 Ford GT), but then it would lose it's "core", and it would cost just as much as the cars it's compared to. There are very few cars out there that have been able to match the performance and reliability of the mustang, FOR THE PRICE. Certainly not any Japanese cars.

In 1993 you could buy a Mustang LX for $14,000, get 225hp/300tq, 3200lbs, 27MPG, an engine that could be modified with a massive aftermarket for CHEAP (headers were $128!), and have reliability for well over 100,000 miles. I put a 75 shot of N20 on my 5.0 with 127,000 miles and it never even breathed hard.

Now in that same year, take the 1993 Mazda RX7. $40,000 for 240hp, the poor gas milage of a rotary, and a turbo that will freeze up on you and have to be replaced. Hmmm..that's a tough call. I can see your point.:P
 
Ford 429 Hemi
Personaly I feel that there are many Mustangs that are really part of American muscle car history!
1968 Shelby GT 350 and GT500
1970 and 71 Boss 429
1969 Mach 1
1987 LX 5.0
1999 SVT Cobra R
2003 Mach1
2004 SVT Cobra
2005 Mustang GT
Click to expand...

There was no 1999 Cobra R. I think you mean 2000R.
 
As for mustangs in GT4. I think there are going to be quite a few. I mean, think about it, well over 500 cars? They've got enough room to toss in a few variants of it. Japan may not care about mustangs, but they damn sure care about how much money we spend on their games.
 
toler
Yes, Americans made the first automobiles.
Click to expand...


Actually Mercedes made the first. You're wrong. Go back further you will find that the americans didn't make the first automobile. Instead you stopped at that mercedes. Keep going back.
 
toler
No, they did not. The first "car" (see pic.) was built by Carl BENZ (as in Mercedes-Benz) in Mannheim, Germany in 1885 and it was called Velociped. Americans (Ford) introduced they conveyor belt to allow mass production (>Model T)
Click to expand...

When Mercedes first was a car manufactorer Carl Benz was not included with the company at all. It was just called MERCEDES. A Couple years later Carl Benz was then invalved with Mercedes himself therefore calling it Mercedes-Benz Like I said in my last post, keep going back.
 
Ford 429 Hemi
Personaly I feel that there are many Mustangs that are really part of American muscle car history!
1968 Shelby GT 350 and GT500
1970 and 71 Boss 429
1969 Mach 1
1987 LX 5.0
1999 SVT Cobra R
2003 Mach1
2004 SVT Cobra
2005 Mustang GT
Click to expand...


You're saying a 2005 mustang GT is a part of muscle car history?
 
Lethalchem
The Mustang was never created to be a supercar.
Click to expand...
True. although you could say the Cobra GT was their attempt at an "affordable" somewhat supercar, at least performance wise.

Lethalchem
It certainly wasn't built to be a counterpart to an M3 or Skyline. A mustang was crated to be a cheap, powerful hot rod that the average working person could buy and work on themselves. The focal point of the car was to be affordable, yet enjoyable for the enthusiast. I think it has done very well within the confines of that goal.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with that thought... it is cheap ;)

Lethalchem
Ford could make a Mustang to compete with any car you choose to list (See 2005 Ford GT), but then it would lose it's "core", and it would cost just as much as the cars it's compared to. There are very few cars out there that have been able to match the performance and reliability of the mustang, FOR THE PRICE. Certainly not any Japanese cars.
Click to expand...
Wow... now we start show the Ford fanboyism... the verdict is still out on the GT... while it is impressive, we still haven't seen enough comparison tests against other supercars in it's class such as the enzo or mclaren f1 so let's just say it will compete performance wise, but the fit and finish won't match a Ferrari.

As for the performance and reliability... Ford's don't have a solid track record in reliability in the 80's and 90's compared to Japanese vehicles, hence why they took such a pounding in sales... while that gap has closed now, i wouldn't run around boasting on the mustang's reliability over japanese vehicles... with performance... yes i agree that it's tough to match the raw numbers for price but if you load up the stang with the options needed to match the fit and finish of the japanese cars your comparing it to, the price is almost the same.

Lethalchem
In 1993 you could buy a Mustang LX for $14,000, get 225hp/300tq, 3200lbs, 27MPG, an engine that could be modified with a massive aftermarket for CHEAP (headers were $128!), and have reliability for well over 100,000 miles. I put a 75 shot of N20 on my 5.0 with 127,000 miles and it never even breathed hard.

Now in that same year, take the 1993 Mazda RX7. $40,000 for 240hp, the poor gas milage of a rotary, and a turbo that will freeze up on you and have to be replaced. Hmmm..that's a tough call. I can see your point.:P
Click to expand...
hmmm... being a former RX-7 owner... i decided to look up some #s... although tought to find readily i did get some stats on a 94 Mustang GT (which would be the same class as an RX-7) and a 95 RX-7... here they are:

Mustang GT (5.0 V8)
$17,000 USD base price
215 bhp
285 ft/lbs torque
3405 lbs curb weight
43.4 bhp/L
0-60 6.6 sec
1/4 mile 15.0 sec
18/26 mpg

RX-7
$31,000 USD loaded
255 bhp
216 ft/lbs torque
2694 lbs curb weight
195 bhp/L
0-60 4.9 sec
1/4 mile 13.5 sec
17/25 mpg

so the mileage #s are fractionally better (1 mpg), but the stang lacks bhp, 0-60 and 1/4 mile, the torque advantage is nullified by the RX-7's superior weight advantage... you shouldn't compare aftermarket upgrades and costs... as that has nothing to do with ford vs mazda factory... of course it's cheaper to upgrage a mustang in the us... it's domestic... just like it'll be cheaper to juice an RX-7 in japan.
 
Americans made the first automobile, huh? Quick quiz.

"Americans made the first automobile" proves what?
A. Americans try to take credit for everything.
B. Americans made the Model T, in which the replier proved to be a real car.
C. Obviously doesn't know the automobile was born in Europe, not America.
D. A, B, and C.
E. None of the above

Anyhow, back to being serious. The Mustang is as much of a part as American automobile history as much as the Corvette or even the Model T. An example of a modern classic is the Dodge Viper. Here are some of the coolest American cars today (in my view): Dodge Neon SRT-4, Chevy Corvette C5 and ZO6, Dodge Magnum, Saleen S7, Chrysler PT Cruiser, and the (to impress truck fans) the Dodge Ram SRT-10. I would also include the Chevy SS-R as well. A not bad, but nostalgic machine.

Those who daresay the Mustang has nothing to do with American history? Well, here's a weird reason why you'd be wrong. If the Mustang was never created, the Camaro vs. Mustang rivalry would have never happened, and these are two of some of the best offerings from the two makes. You'd then want competition, right? These two are at the top of their game even though the Camaro is dead now. I mean, were the Holden Toranas the best in Australian history? Was the Mini Cooper, the McLaren F1, Porsche 917, and the Bentley EXP GT the best in European history? Were the Toyota 2000GT, Nissan Skyline GT-R, Toyota GT-One, Mazda 787B, and Subaru 360 influential to Japanese history? If the answers were yes, then the Mustang is just as important to American automobile history.
 
phantasm
True. although you could say the Cobra GT was their attempt at an "affordable" somewhat supercar, at least performance wise.
Click to expand...

What's a Cobra GT?

phantasm
Wow... now we start show the Ford fanboyism... the verdict is still out on the GT... while it is impressive, we still haven't seen enough comparison tests against other supercars in it's class such as the enzo or mclaren f1 so let's just say it will compete performance wise, but the fit and finish won't match a Ferrari.
Click to expand...

Yes, while I fully expect the fit and finish to be much better than what we are accustomed to in a Ford, I don't expect it to be comparable to the two cars you've mentioned. But my point is still valid, as the Ford GT STILL was not intended to be an equivolent to those cars in all areas. You've only got to compare the price tags to see that:$150,000 for the Ford GT v.s $650,000 (or somewhere in there I believe) for the Enzo, and we don't even have to mention the tag on the Mclaren.

phantasm
As for the performance and reliability... Ford's don't have a solid track record in reliability in the 80's and 90's compared to Japanese vehicles, hence why they took such a pounding in sales... while that gap has closed now, i wouldn't run around boasting on the mustang's reliability over japanese vehicles... with performance... yes i agree that it's tough to match the raw numbers for price but if you load up the stang with the options needed to match the fit and finish of the japanese cars your comparing it to, the price is almost the same.
Click to expand...

You'll never hear me say an American car is more reliable than a Japanese car overall. A civic will pull down 200,000 miles of abuse without even breaking a sweat. An American car couldn't do that in the 80's and 90's, I totally agree. But please try to keep to the same categories of vehicles. Surely you're not attempting to compare the reliability of a 100hp economy car to a high performance-oriented vehicle? The high performance Japanese cars were not as reliable as their "point A to point B" siblings. There's a reason why Mazda opted not to turbocharge their cars anymore (RX8).

phantasm
hmmm... being a former RX-7 owner... i decided to look up some #s... although tought to find readily i did get some stats on a 94 Mustang GT (which would be the same class as an RX-7) and a 95 RX-7... here they are:

Mustang GT (5.0 V8)
$17,000 USD base price
215 bhp
285 ft/lbs torque
3405 lbs curb weight
43.4 bhp/L
0-60 6.6 sec
1/4 mile 15.0 sec
18/26 mpg

RX-7
$31,000 USD loaded
255 bhp
216 ft/lbs torque
2694 lbs curb weight
195 bhp/L
0-60 4.9 sec
1/4 mile 13.5 sec
17/25 mpg

so the mileage #s are fractionally better (1 mpg), but the stang lacks bhp, 0-60 and 1/4 mile, the torque advantage is nullified by the RX-7's superior weight advantage... you shouldn't compare aftermarket upgrades and costs... as that has nothing to do with ford vs mazda factory... of course it's cheaper to upgrage a mustang in the us... it's domestic... just like it'll be cheaper to juice an RX-7 in japan.
Click to expand...

It's important to point out that I quoted a 1993 mustang v.s a 1993 RX-7. The 1993 and 1994 Mustangs are two different cars. The 1994-1998 body style is the least desirable aside from the jokes of the mid-70's : Less horsepower, longer, wider, taller, and heavier.

You do make a good point about the aftermarket price differences. 👍
 
TO DARIN:

This is what I wanted to say

Nicolaus August Otto
[size=-1]Nicolaus August Otto invented the gas motor engine in 1876.

[/size] [size=-1]Gottlieb Daimler[/size]
[size=-1]In 1885, Gottlieb Daimler invented a gas engine that allowed for a revolution in car design.[/size]


[size=-1] [/size]Carl Benz
[size=-1]Karl Benz was the German mechanical engineer who designed and in 1885 built the world's first practical automobile to be powered by an internal-combustion engine.[/size]

[size=-1]http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bllambert.htm[/size]John Lambert
[size=-1]America's first gasoline-powered automobile was the 1891 Lambert car invented by John W. Lambert.[/size]

[size=-1]http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blDuryea.htm[/size]

[size=-1] [/size]Henry Ford
[size=-1]Henry Ford improved the assembly line for automobile manufacturing (Model-T), invented a transmission mechanism, and popularized the gas-powered automobile.[/size]

[size=-1]http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bldiesel.htm[/size]
 
Back