8th Jan 2005, 10:04
You know, these Conquest are "Fast" and all, but "Get Real," how often do they actually run? I mean, everyone I know that's got one, drives it for about a month or so and something goes astronomically wrong with it so it sits. Then, they buy another one and a month or so later, they come back and hide the fact they got ripped off again, claim they have two parts cars, and say they're gonna make one great car that'll beat everything on the street. Now I'm a die hard Mustang fan, but I've always like the Conquest and came close to buying one. But as for them being faster then a Mustang, I really don't think they pose a threat. And for the Fiero that beat a Mustang, face it, the Mustang driver was laughing at both of you since you're both racing to the repair shop.
8th May 2005, 01:18
My uncle had a Pontiac Fiero, it was a great and fast little car, he never had a thing go wrong with it. And as for a Mustang, my friends nearly stock 1992 Acura Integra GS can whoop a mud hole in a Mustang, I have been there to see it. Now, a Cobra, yeah, that will beat him, easy, if its when the cars were still light weight, I have seen it for myself that even the Cobra isn't as "quick" as a GT. However, they handle a bit better, but that still isn't a matter, for the Integra beats both GT and Cobra in the twisties. And as for the StarQuests (Starion and Conquest, I'm sure someone has heard that), I'm going to have to say that Mustangs better watch out, because unless the driver is perfect in every way on launch (and I have yet to meet one here where I live, at least one that drives a Mustang) then the Mustang is toast, plain and simple. I give Ford major props for trying, but till the new ones came out, I have no respect for a car that I could beat on my mountain bike riding backward with my arms tied behind my back and my eyes covered.
15th Jun 2005, 08:00
It's true. About 5 years ago, I raced a Conquest TSI in my then new '99 Mustang GT. Everything my car had, and all I saw was the Conquest's tail lights ahead of me. After talking to the Conquest owner, it was all stock with 90K miles. I have a deep respect for these rare little cars, but I still love my 'Stang. I am currently looking to buy an unmolested '88 or '89 Conquest or Starion.
26th Sep 2005, 13:35
Well the conquest comes with 230 ft lbs of torque stock in 87 but 88-89 it comes with more, so look up your facts before talking smack... :)
13th Nov 2005, 11:20
Well I have owned a 1987 Conquest TSI for a while now. It is a great car. never has a problem that you would not expect out of a 18 year old car. It is quick, but not fast. I also have a 2000 Camaro SS. Now that car is fast. I love my Quest, but it will not outrun a 5.0 V-8 Mustang or a 5.7 V-8 Camaro unless they have serious problems or a 16 year old student driver that misses shifts.
3rd Dec 2005, 20:42
Sorry guys, no way any "conquest is going to outrun a mustang" If the conquests were such fast cars, they would still be around today, but they were very short lived due to their unpopularity. No import or rice burner can beat a mustang gt, but I will agree with you guys, the 96-98 mustang gts were lacking some power. But that is becuase they were cheaper cars than their competition. If they were a few thousand dollars more, than they would be faster.
18th Dec 2005, 23:43
A lot has to do with the driver also. It's easy to break traction in a Mustang and if you're not a good driver, you will do just that. We all love our cars and also think our car is the fastest thing on the road, but sometimes a reality check has to come into play. That said, most 4 cylinders (power adder or not) will not beat a Mustang if the person driving knows how to drive it. And let's face it, is the Conquest rare... or just unreliable? :)
24th Jan 2006, 06:59
"no import or rice burner can beat a mustang gt"
I would bet that my 'Quest or GSX can beat your mustang GT. Next car will probably be an Evo... But I agree, if you have a 'Quest, or a DSM, you had better be prepared to do some wrenching.
2nd Feb 2006, 13:23
"the 96-98 mustang gt's were lacking some power. But that is because they were cheaper cars than their competition."
I am fairly certain that the base z28 was cheaper than a GT mustang and it had considerably more HP.
The Conquest sounds interesting, but I can hardly believe a 150 HP four cylinder even in a sub 3000lb car can outrun a 88-92 Mustang GT, I would strongly bet that stock, both ran high to mid 15's in the 1/4 mile. But of course the turbo crew will always benchrace as much as possible to talk up the often disrespected cars.
5th Feb 2006, 11:46
I owned an 87 Conquest TSI turbo and it was a very quick car no doubt. Unfortunately, it had a lot of problems and wasnt very reliable.. I have since owned a 90 Mustang LX 5.0, 95 Pontiac Trans Am with the LT 1 motor, 2000 Ram Air Trans AM with the LS 1 corvette motor, and a 04 Mustang GT with several mods to it... that 2000 ram air trans am in stock form will eat that conquest up I assure you and my 04 mustang gt will do the same thing to that conquest.. but I do think the conquest tsi was ahead of its time (including the beautiful interior) and was a fun car to drive.
28th Jun 2006, 01:33
I had an '88 Conquest way back when I was in high school (in the mid 90's). These cars WILL NOT beat a stock 5.0 Mustang in the quarter mile... not even close. Much less even a '93 Z28. I used to race my Conquest at an elevation of 5000ft in Pueblo, CO and even there, the stock NA Mustangs would walk away from me after about 60 MPH. The very best ET I got with mine (even after I rebuilt the motor) was a 16.5 at around 90MPH. I ran just about every weekend in the summer...16.6-16.8 was usually my ET. Remember, I was at 5000 feet of elevation, but still, no chance against even a stock 5.0 Mustang. My stock WRX wagon runs about the same ET as a lightly modded 5.0 Mustang (about 14.8 at 98MPH), and I assure you any stock WRX would hand a Conquest its ass hands down.
It was a fun car for high school. They suck in the snow and I'd say that it had to be the least reliable car I have ever owned. In fact, my '56 Chevy that was in dire need of a restoration was more reliable than that DSM piece of crap. Every six months something major went wrong with that thing. I'll never buy another DSM product for the rest of my life. There's a very good reason they aren't around anymore... they all broke down and are in the junkyards!