Final Voting For Best American Car

  • Thread starter Thread starter YSSMAN
  • 31 comments
  • 1,709 views

Final Voting for "Best American Car"


  • Total voters
    45
  • Poll closed .

YSSMAN

Super-Cool Since 2013
Premium
Messages
21,286
United States
GR-MI-USA
Messages
YSSMAN
Messages
YSSMAN
Okay kids, last round before "the big one." The voting for the most part was a bit skewed, so it has been narrowed to four choises:

The Chevrolet Corvette:
194877272_6904afc6c2.jpg


The Ford Mustang:
112114678_bca9449525.jpg


The Ford Model T:
62520778_728b2bf282.jpg


The Ford GT:
188916998_ab0ef1a949.jpg


As always, three days of voting and debate, before we move on to the final round to crown "Best World Car!"
 
Me
Model T.


The first cheap mass produced car.(well, the second, but the first to have a huge impact on society.) It formed the bulk of american traffic for the three decades after its introduction. Although production ended in 1927, many were still around as late as the 1940s. The first american sedan, it was also the first SUV. Many drivers took them to places that the T wasn't even supposed to go. Also, a T was turned into the first snowmobile. Everyone is touting the Corvette because of its racing heritage. The first T and the First corvette weren't fast by their time's standard. And, while a corvette in 1965 was considered fast, a 1925 T was considered pokey when it was new. But, the T never really changed. Sure, it got another carb, and some new bodystyles, but it was largely the same. And while it was a slow car, it had lots of sporting potential.
What did louis Chevrolet do when he left his company in 1916?(or was it 1912?) He went and hot rodded Model Ts and their engines. An average joe could get a boat tail body and place it on his stock T chassis. The same run of the mill racer could get a Chevrolet OHV head for his 4 pot.
Louis built his brother Gaston a car powered by a Ford block that won the indy 500. Hot rodding owes its entire existence to the T. All the first rods were Ts or T based. Why? cars were out before the T, why not rod them? But, if a 1912 mercedes cost more than the average worker's salary, then why would someone want to hack the fenders off to make the car go fast? Hot rodding started because people wanted to go fast but couldn't afford the faster cars. putting another carb or adding a new head and taking the fenders off was a way for the average joe to get a piece of the excitement that only the rich or well connected could get at that time. racing hopped up model Ts at small tracks around the country brought racing to people who couldn't get out to new york or Indianapolis to see what it was all about.
Plus, they were, and are, really durable. many are running around today. Sure, there might have been a sandblast, patch, and repaint, but some of the Ts one can see puttering about car shows and local streets on weekends are almost 100 years old. A patch and paintjob can't begin to fix some of the newer cars. Many hotrods are using many T components. the fact that many T bodies can sit in a field for 50 years without rusting together is amazing. Sure, they require lots and lots of bodywork, but the 1985 Toyota Celica down the street that is 70 years younger is just as rusted.

It's the spiritual grandfather of the Beetle and Corolla: purely utilitarian and very reliable. But, without many drastic modifications, they could all be made to go very fast. Plus, they are all extremely simple to work on. The average person could perform routine maintenance on his or her T without much assistance.

From an importance standpoint, the T wins by a landslide. But, the Corvette was intended as a sportscar. In that category, it excels. But, the T was just intended to replace the horse and wagon. It excelled in that, but also transformed the nation and did many things it was never even intended to do. What do you think Henry would have thought when he found out that cars using T frames and bodies were doing 180+ at Bonneville?



...From the other thread. :)
 
Whoops...

Okay, the first mass produced one to havea massive impact on society?

Hey, isn't the T sitting next to a 1970 Boss mustang?
 
Corvette:

- Innovator
- Leader
- Icon

(see other postings in previous thread for full explanation)
 
Mustang: it can be everything to everyone, a very attainable car, says a lot about America in each of it's design iterations, and stayed true to it's heritage.
 
Corvette. I don't think I need to explain in depth.

High-Test, I don't think it's a Boss. Might be a Mach 1 or a California Special, though.
 
I wouldn't say the Corvette was much of an innovator, it was an icon and it is the class leader in the US. I'm sticking with my vote for the Mustang, it's just a car that has a much wider appeal and more global recognition.
 
Sticking with my Mustang vote as well. The Corvette is the leading American sports car, but in general, my vote goes for the 'stang.
 
Because I don't like the Corvette, and my grandpa owns one....

Model T Ford.
 
I wouldn't say the Corvette was much of an innovator, it was an icon and it is the class leader in the US. I'm sticking with my vote for the Mustang, it's just a car that has a much wider appeal and more global recognition.

Well most of it's innovation credit goes twards GM models here in the US, as I am not certain what type of an effect the car had on the European-market GM products. Equipment such as fiberglass bodies, disc brakes, fuel-injection, heavy-duty transmissions and axles, independent rear suspensions, 6-speed manual transmissions, Heads-Up-Display, high-output DOHC LT5 engine, Magnaride suspension, etc... All of it first appeared on the Corvette with GM, and would later find it's way down the chain of models (usually with the F-Bodies getting first pick, Cadillac right there as well).

Of course, "Europeans did it first" is a reasonable counter to all of that, but the Corvette would always make it popular and make it affordable so that everyone can enjoy it. Added to that, Corvette Innovations would also have an effect on the competition as well, making their cars (particularly the Mustang and Viper) better models as well.
 
Again as I've said in the other thread, Corvette. It was a very tough choice between this and the Mustang. But in the end I never saw a Corvette that was ugly...and the Mustang had a generation that wasn't that appealing.
 
...I was talking with a guy at work today about the Mustang, then I brought up the Mustang II, and then it got really quiet...

I don't think Mustang fans like to talk about them...
 
I've always found that odd. They are scary good handling cars, and the early ones with the 5.0 are actually very fast indeed. Granted, they were smited by the Gremlin 304; but considering the Mustang II was less of a Pinto than the original Mustang was a Falcon, it's always struck me as odd.
Also, at least it doesn't look like this:
1983mustanggtsmxe2.jpg

That was the worst styled Mustang all the way up to 2005.
 
The Mustang II handeled well enough, but by most observers, it wouldn't have come close to the F-bodies of the era, particularly the Z/28 which took pride in how well it could be adapted for race-use. From what I understand the front-end would go out quite often on the Mustang II, I don't know if it is completely true or not, which is odd, because so many hot-rods use the Mustang II front end.

Generally speaking, there are plenty of cars that are more embarrasing from that period of time than just the Mustang II. Either way the cars were dreadfully slow compared not only to it's competition, but it's predecessors as well.

---

As for the early Fox-Body Mustangs, they weren't that bad, but the restyle that came immediately after that was argueably the best of that generation. Of the early Fox-body models, I'd have to say the SVO was pretty nice:

86mustang_svo-1.jpg


...And the Police "Slicktop" versions weren't too bad either...

 
But, then it was followed by awesome:
250px-1987_Mustang_GT.jpg

and this:
250px-Chp_92_ford_mustang_rear.jpg

immediantly followed by awesomer:
250px-1998-GT.jpg

and awesomest
250px-04-Mustang-coupe.jpg

then along came "meh"

250px-2005_Ford_Mustang.jpg

YSSMAN
it wouldn't have come close to the F-bodies of the era, particularly the Z/28 which took pride in how well it could be adapted for race-use
Of course, but when wasn't that the case?
YSSMAN
From what I understand the front-end would go out quite often on the Mustang II
And, being Pinto based, the rear end as well. Zing!
 
The Mustang II handeled well enough, but by most observers, it wouldn't have come close to the F-bodies of the era, particularly the Z/28 which took pride in how well it could be adapted for race-use. From what I understand the front-end would go out quite often on the Mustang II, I don't know if it is completely true or not, which is odd, because so many hot-rods use the Mustang II front end.
Mustang II front-ends are used because of their comapct design--no intrusive shock towers and plenty of room for a big block.

All Mustangs (at least up to the Fox bodies, 79-93(?)) pushed hard when cornered. For safety.
 
The Fox body went on from 1979 to 2004. I belive that as it stands right now, that was the longest-running platform built/sold in America...
 
The '94 to '04 SN-95 platform was a completely redesigned platform that just happened to be based on the Fox (very similar to how the current Mustang sits on a heavily redone 7 year-old Linconl LS chassis).
But few people seem to realise something considering how well a certain car handled, and it strikes me as odd that this
250px-Chevrolet_Camaro.jpg

is on the same plaform as this
250px-2002z28.jpg

which is a full 10 years more than the Fox was used in any guise (though it could be argued that they were built in Canada), heavily redone or not, yet both it and the New Edge SVT 'Stang handled crazy well anyways.
In any case, the beam axle in the current Mustang ruins any pluses that the new platform brought.
 
The '94 to '04 SN-95 platform was a completely redesigned platform that just happened to be based on the Fox (very similar to how the current Mustang sits on a heavily redone 7 year-old Linconl LS chassis).
But few people seem to realise something considering how well a certain car handled, and it strikes me as odd that this
250px-Chevrolet_Camaro.jpg

is on the same plaform as this
250px-2002z28.jpg

which is a full 10 years more than the Fox was used in any guise (though it could be argued that they were built in Canada), heavily redone or not, yet both it and the New Edge SVT 'Stang handled crazy well anyways.
In any case, the beam axle in the current Mustang ruins any pluses that the new platform brought.

People consider '79 through '04 as a single platform because suspension parts interchange and enigne and transmission mounting points are the same. I know for a fact that 1982 brought a totally and completely new Camaro because it lost the front subframe, and had brand new front & rear suspension. In the '93 redesign the floor stamping stayed the same but the front suspension was done over again.
 
But, then it was followed by awesome:
250px-1987_Mustang_GT.jpg

and this:
250px-Chp_92_ford_mustang_rear.jpg

immediantly followed by awesomer:
250px-1998-GT.jpg

and awesomest
250px-04-Mustang-coupe.jpg

then along came "meh"
250px-2005_Ford_Mustang.jpg

What the hell?! How can the '05+ Mustang be "meh"? It's so good I even love the V6! It's one of the best Mustang designs ever! Of all the things on this entire forum I may disagree with this is by far the one that takes the cake.
 
[opinion]It's unoriginal, poorly detailed and overly styled. The rear end was slapped on as an afterthought. The front end is too chunky. The only one that looks anything like good is the V6. The wheels on the GT are far too big to fit the car's contour. It has all of the elegance of a dump truck. The car looks far too large. Etc.
The Mustang immediately preceding it proved that Ford could do a retro car without blatantly copying an older design, and the current Mustang, along with the Ford GT, and even the Ford 500 just shows that Ford can't make a decent looking car without completely ripping off an original design.[/opinion]
Not to mention the fact that the New Edge 'Stang was a better handling car, and was faster.
 
...A BOSS 302 remake would be a welcome edition to the Ford lineup against the Camaro and Challenger, but that would mean Ford would have to come up with a new engine, as the Shelby GT's extra 25 BHP isn't enough to cope with the Camaro's 367/400 BHP or the Challenger's 345/425 BHP.
 
The wheels on that GT40 Concept are my favorite over the production car's. The new BOSS might get 390BHP from the use of the FR500 based V8.
 
Word... They keep pointing that the "BOSS 290" V8 could find it's way to the US complete with 380 BHP, but the problem is that it is iron-construction, and generally a truck engine. That of course is the problem that has plagued the GT500, too heavy of an engine that minimizes performance both in acceleration and handeling. Too bad really, as they could have stolen the Aluminum setup from the GT, but nooooooo, Ford had to be cheap.

If I was the head of the engine department at Ford, I'd be working on a redo of the 302 or 351, cast in aluminum, and include the use of pushrods. That way you can keep costs down, push power up, and thereby increase reliability much like that of GM's L and LS series engines that see use in their cars and trucks.

...Ford had a program similar to that in development, called the "Hurricane" V8. It was rumored to be a V8 between 6.0L and 6.3L, be of aluminum and pushrod, and have over 400 BHP. It was meant to be a direct-answer to the LS2 and the LQ4 (now replaced by the L92), and thus could have been a great engine. But when gas prices began to sit above $2.00 on a regular baisis and with the lack of models to place the engine in, development was at first placed on hiatus, and then scrapped altogether.

...Bad move on Ford's behalf, IMO. Cheap, reliable power has been their problem since they dropped the 5.0L in 1996, as the 4.6L has not lived up to most expectations. Ford CAN do an engine that the public demands... But the thing is, Ford WON'T do an engine that the board doesn't see "fit".
 
Well, maybe now that the idiot who has been running the company has lef they will try to actually sell good cars in America. Of course, I'm sure the Fordf family still has a stranglehold on the company.
But remember, if they do the ca right, a 5.4 Mustang can be done right, The SVT Cobra R was probably the best American muscle car ever (and I say this despite my very real bias against the Mustang in general, usually for thje F-body). The problem is that people forget such things because the GT500 is, how do I say this...very much so not the best muscle car, or even the best (or fastest) Mustang made in the last 10 years..
 
But remember, if they do the ca right, a 5.4 Mustang can be done right, The SVT Cobra R was probably the best American muscle car ever (and I say this despite my very real bias against the Mustang in general, usually for thje F-body). The problem is that people forget such things because the GT500 is, how do I say this...very much so not the best muscle car, or even the best (or fastest) Mustang made in the last 10 years..

Yes. Yes yes yes. The Cobra R was *so*choice*:

ford-svt-mustang-cobra-r-248.jpg


Even over this:

52796-500-0.jpg


^ That would have been it if it were a fastback. Independent rear suspension on a Mustang gets me all googly-eyed. :eek: Can you believe the moron in the picture actually took out the IRS when he first got it? And then the threw the parts out!! He had to have someone fab up an approximation of the (now missing) documentation. :dunce:

I disagree about the Cobra R being the "best muscle car", though, because I see it as a pony car. "Best Muscle Car" would be the Chevelle 454 - it best embodies the best & worst in what a muscle car really is.

Oh, and I would have voted "Ford Model T" if I got to this thread in time. Not that it would have amounted to much....
 

Latest Posts

Back