14th Apr 2010, 20:43
This seems to be an active thread; so I want to ask a quick question...
Does anyone know if Edmunds.com happens to be biased? I seem to have noticed with domestic cars they are more nit-picky with small things than they are to imports, and they offer more pictures for the imports (for instance; Tundra and the F-150).
Any help would be greatly appreciated; and if you have any recommendations for automobile research sites who are UNBIASED, please post them here! Thank you!
15th Apr 2010, 09:01
Finding unbiased reviews is a tough thing. Sites like this one tend to give you real world reviews (other than the ranting after the actual review :) ) Unfortunately most of the major names are foreign biased and have been for decades. What I have observed in owning many brands of import and domestic cars is that they all have their strengths and weaknesses, and no line is without problems. I think domestic cars have come a long way back to being competitive, and at the same time the foreign brands have slacked off on their impeccable quality level. All in all, they have equaled out really, and most cars are global now anyway, so the whole foreign/ domestic argument is pretty moot.
As far as a professional service. I think JD Power is pretty fair. Consumer Reports is definitely in favor of foreign brands. Even Car and Driver is all BMW and Honda. Too bad it is more about sponsorship than fact in many cases!
15th Apr 2010, 16:49
Some of the worst cars in history have achieved cult status. You wouldn't believe the size of the first generation Dodge/Plymouth Neon following.
I've never driven a Foxbody Mustang, but then again I really wouldn't want to. In my personal opinion, the Foxbody style 'stang is the ugliest car ever produced. It may handle, it may be fast (which in stock form it really wasn't. Even a DOHC Neon could probably beat a stock Fox) but it's so darn ugly...
15th Apr 2010, 22:48
I couldn't agree more. I dropped my subscription to Car and Driver after they actually rated the silly Honda Ridgeline tops in a TRUCK TEST. The Ridgeline isn't even a TRUCK!! Most car reviewers are suspect because Japan spends 10 dollars in advertising for every one dollar domestic makers spend. I strongly suspect that most of that money goes to promote the myth that Japanese cars are somehow better.
16th Apr 2010, 08:34
Well, you've admittedly never driven one so any comments on performance can be disregarded. As far as The Fox body being ugly... coming from someone who is obviously enamored with the Neon, I can't really take that opinion seriously either... sorry.
All I can say is you probably weren't old enough to have been driving when the Fox body Mustang was the king of the streets, but it was truly a fast car in its day. Only the Corvette outperformed it as far as American cars were concerned, but of course it was over twice the price. Believe it or not, 6.2 to 60 used to be fast. Consider that even the GTO Judge of 1970 did the same 0-60 times and it has 366 hp. Most of the 70's muscle cars were in the 6-8 second range, and most of them were slower than the Fox Mustang.
Yes, today they seem slow by comparison since a Nissan Altima pulls a 5.9 second 0-60 with the V-6 under the hood, and the current Mustang GT does it in 4.9. They sure were fast enough in the day though, and a lot of fun. You could also bolt on a supercharger today and be right back into the top percentage of quick cars out there. Too bad you never had the chance to drive a brand new one off the lot. You'd have a different opinion of them for sure.
You gotta let go of that infatuation with the Neon, and realize that the only Neon that had any chance against any Mustang was the ridiculous SRT-4. Of course after the engine blew at 20K miles you'd have nothing wouldn't you? Funny how I STILL see Fox body Mustangs around but never see an SRT-4 these days and hardly a Neon anymore. The Mustang was last built in 1993. The Neon was built up to what 2007??? That makes a huge statement about quality... or in Neon's case... lack thereof.
17th Apr 2010, 11:28
To comment 8:34.
If you took another look at my comment, you would see that I was actually making fun of both cars. I do think the Foxbody is one ugly car, and I don't care if it can hit Mach 3. I used the Neon as an example of another crap car that has achieved cult status.
17th Apr 2010, 11:38
Also to comment 8:34.
I'd like to add that whether or not you think I'm wrong about Foxbody being ugly doesn't really matter. It's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it.
Another reason I brought up the Neon was that I actually owned one. Used to own a '95 Sport model, it was absolute junk.
18th Apr 2010, 08:42
To comment 8:34.
I was just using the Neon as another example of a crappy car that has achieved cult status. I'm no Neon enthusiast. I actually do like Mustangs, just not the Foxbody. I'd BUY any other Mustang out there, but you couldn't even GIVE me a Foxbody. I think they're ugly. I've never driven one, so maybe I'm wrong about them being slow and sloppy handling, but I really don't care. That still doesn't make me want one. However, may I suggest that you read a comment more thoroughly instead of skimming it over and making an assumption about someone? It would save you a lot of time writing long unnecessary comments.
18th Apr 2010, 18:06
Like you said, you're entitled to your comments and opinions. I probably skimmed it after I read you didn't even drive one so I guess I really didn't take your comments very seriously after that. At least I have never owned a Neon though... ha ha ha...
It's okay to be in the minority on your opinions. I really don't care what people think about the Fox body Mustang as it has more than proven itself as an amazing bang for the buck even now, 17 long years after it stopped being produced. It also looks WAYYYY better than the '94-'98 crap that came after it.
18th Apr 2010, 18:11
"These cars took a little more skill to drive"
"Understatement of the century!!"
Yeah, they were really fun and great handling cars if you knew how to drive for sure. I had a blast with both of mine.
13th May 2010, 22:51
Having owned three Foxes, I can attest to the fact that they are total death traps regarding handling, especially on wet roads. I've done stunt driving and rallying, and if I had an emergency and had to get somewhere in a real hurry, I'd rather be driving a Chevy Aveo (incidentally, none of the cars I drove in rallys were Mustangs. I have too high a regard for my life for that!!). Fox Mustangs in the hands of young, inexperienced drivers are absolutely a hazard to everyone on the road. And, I'm not alone in this assessment. Many leading automotive magazines STILL refer to the Fox as one of the most dangerous vehicles ever made with regard to spinning out. The British car show "Top Gear" recently said similar things about the NEW Mustang (and as the owner of a newer Mustang, I'm afraid I have to agree with them).