3rd Nov 2004, 14:04
To the smart guy way above... out of the box 1995 mustang has 215 hp... brutal for ford's supercar... a tsi will eat alive, wanna know why? I have both of them.
13th Feb 2005, 20:52
Dude, you guys are all full of it.. specially the ones with these talons thinking that a stock talon will smoke a stock mustang.. ITS FALSE! Look at all the test results done to both the cars.. a stock 5.0 runs 14.9 while a stock awd turbo talon is around a 15.2-15.3 and for you that say they smoked a COBRA SVT your also full of it because they are running low 13's high 12's. I have a fried with a 91 Eclipse GSX stock and my 89 5.0 stock.. guess who won? ME!
27th Feb 2005, 14:03
I can't believe I just sat and read through all these posts..
How old are most of you guys? I would guess the average age is 14. I seriously doubt most of you guys are even old enough to drive, much less ever driven down a dragstrip or road course.
I have never read so much BS in my life. I think my IQ level dropped just reading this crap.
What year and model Mustangs and Talons ('90-94 Eclipses and Lasers are the same BTW) are you comparing? Are you comparing stock vs stock?
Stock vs stock, they are very comparable.
Neither are light. Fox body/SN95 Mustangs and 1g and 2g AWD Talon, Eclipse, and Laser both weigh in the 3100-3300 lbs range.
HP wise, the later 5.0 Fox body and early 4.6 SOHC GT Mustangs are in the 215-225 range. The DSMs had 195HP until '95,then 215. Acceleration is comparable between the two. Do a Google search, you can find what the stock numbers are/were for these cars stock.
Later Mustangs GTs and SVT Cobras recieved more power (and got heavier) ranging from 260-390 hp. Naturally, these are going to be slightly to a lot faster (example,comparing a 390HP '05 Cobra to a '95 tsi) than a stock DSM.
When you get into modified vehicles, you are comparing apples to oranges... If you claim my " (insert car) " will beat ANY " (insert car) ",post a timeslip or a website link to your car. I am sure you are well known in the DSM or Mustang community.
I love the my " (insert car) " beat my buddies " (insert car) " by " (insert number of car lengths) " comments. Who is to say one or either car was running up to what it should? You need to post timeslips, and not fantasy numbers.. and proof.
23rd Apr 2005, 17:54
After about a half year of having a front-wheel drive '97 GTI VR6, I am going to invest money into a 2nd generation Eagel Talon TSi AWD. If you look on Cardomain.com, you will see that TSi AWD's with modifications that do not cost a whole lot, can accelerate from 0-60 in less than 4 seconds. If you are accelerating this fast in a Mustang, you are probably also using half a tank of gas.
I used to believe that American Muscle was the way to go until I looked at the sport compact super cars such as the Evo and STi. Acceleration is much quicker. My GTI has never lost to a Mustang or even a Cobra. This car is only pushing about 210 HP also with a weight of 2800. I can't wait to see what I can do with an AWD car after some mods.
28th Apr 2005, 20:14
I have two things to talk about, not only the power, but also the appearances. I will go ahead and admit that I am a little biased because I own a 1994 mustang GT. when you compare stock to stock, I promise you the mustang (at least the 5.0, not sure about 96-98 4.6) will beat the talon, although not by much, it will. I have raced numerous turbo imports, many I have beaten, including a 15psi boost 240sx, and I am not ashamed to admit I have had my ass handed to me on a few occasions by turbo 4-cylinders, but stock for stock, not a huge difference, but the scale leans toward the mustang. As for the earlier comment about not hearing mustang owners being satisfied with handling, I beg to differ. I love the handling capabilities my car has, I routinely take curves with a posted speed of 40 mph at at least 80 with no understeer, tire bark or anything, and cobras have better handling than the gt's.
Now as for looks. I have seen some tastefully done talons/eclipses, but the majority of modified talons/eclipses are littered with APC stickers, an enormous wing that actually is probably slowing you down and adding unnecessary weight, has an exhaust pipe that not only sounds like a mosquito, but you can stick an entire arm inside it, which may I add, hampers performance instead of increasing it. When you look at stock appearances though, they are both fairly attractive cars, but I think the mustang gt's (94+) have the advantage. And most hot girls with half a brain would choose the mustangs looks over the talon/eclipse as well.
Case being in these 2 departments mustang wins 2 out of 2.
3rd May 2005, 22:07
You V8 guys don't even know what you're talking about. I guess you never heard of a Supra or a Skyline or even a Subaru STI. I have 93 Honda Civic hatchback with a 2.2 DOHC Prelude engine in it, it has a HKS t4 turbo kit along side other carefully selected mods. I can spank almost anything on the street, and all that power is going through the front wheels. It's all about power to weight ratio. All you old people stuck in the 60s and 70s need to wake up to the future, bigger is not faster, usually heavier and slower. And my car cost me about 1/3 of what a new GT costs. If I had the money to buy a new Mustang, I would spend it and buy a Supra, and build a twin turbo V6 that would destroy anything that would came near it, no matter what.
5th May 2005, 23:27
Dude to the guy above what are you talking about. Saying that your car cost a third of what the new GT's cost. It probably did at first, but after that 3 grand prelude motor and twin turbos that must have, but you another 4 to 5 thousand dollars so know your stuff and don't BS people to try and sound cool.
22nd Aug 2005, 23:27
I have enjoyed all of your comments, especially the ones with poor grammar. Let me advise, take some of your hard earned money that you would normally use for “mods” and buy an education.
We all know the ingredients for speed are:
None of which mean jack unless you know how to handle your car.
To all the “street racers”, take up off road rally. You kill less innocent people out in the desert.
16th Nov 2005, 11:36
Well, there seem to be a lot of angry people out there. For the guy who started making fun of "there's no replacement for displacement," the old farts are right. The engine is a giant air pump. Superchargers, turbo chargers, just about every engine mod that makes any difference has to do with volumetric efficiency. You can make a smaller engine faster than a large one, but everything goes back to displacement. I am a die hard mustang girl, I have a 64 1/2 coup with a 289 at home. I know that quite a few imports out there would roast it alive, but I still love my car. As for the people who think that their cars are the end all be all of performance, think again. I'm friends with an amazing mechanic who happens to have a 9 second mustang. It is in no way street legal, but if you line up next to him at the track, good luck. There is always something more you can do, I don't think anyone even mentioned gear ratios, and there is no end all be all best car in the world. The sooner you guys figure that out and learn to respect each other's differences, the better.