mustang vs falcon

[blackers10]

hey all
I am following the Terminator build.. and seeing mustang threads popping up from our american brothers..

I was wondering which platform is better overall
(Beside the visual difference and the 2 door vs 4 door and the convertible options available to the stang)

which is a better overall car (in terms of performance.. handling.. and price(Would have to be compared US cost vs our price without the exchange rate etc.. because mustangs over here are overpriced anyway)

thanks guys
hope some people might know

[Ives]

IMO, with the looks department, the Mustang wins.... but performance? Falcon.

[Powdered Toast Man]

Not knowing what the current Mustang underpinnings are like I believe the Falcon has a much nicer handling chassis and suspension setup. The V8s come from the same family anyway but I imagine the Boss 5.4 has more torque than the 4.6. But then the Falcon is a few hundred kilos heavier than the Stang too so it needs it. I think the new Mustang does 0-60mph in under 6 seconds so it's pretty quick.

I have read an American review of the BA and they compare it to a BMW so I think they think the Falcon is a nicer bit of kit too.

But you will never top the Mustangs looks and heritage plus they are 2 totally different markets. One is a 4 door family sedan and the other a 2 door 'merican muscle car.

[Dezza]

The Mustang is a nicer looking car, but the Falcon's handling kills it. From what I've heard, the Mustang still uses a live rear axle. The Falcon uses IRS, and quite a sophisticated version of it at that. On Top Gear, when they took the new Shelby GT500 around the track, it handled like a dog. It was quick in a straight line but really struggled in the bends.

[Fev]

the new stangs are just way too heavy, and what looks to be unbalanced for serious track work in street trim though, mind you the ba's are no lightweight.

[blackers10]

thanks for the thoughts so far guys
this is exactly what i was interested to figure out

[sleekism]

Well considering the V8 Supercars use Watts-Linkage I didn't think a live axle mattered too much.

In the engine department the Falcon has always had the better sixes while seeming to get the V8's after the Mustang has used up the tooling. I think they have had the Modular since 1995 and the supercharged and 5.4L quad cam since 1998 I think??

We kill them in the sixes department though and I reckon the Cleveland V8 was a better kit than the Wheezer but I think the Fox body Mustang was VERY light so did well with the Wheezer.

The Mustang plant is at 100% capacity if that tells you anything but then again it doesn't really have any competitors with the Camaro on and off again for years.

[T3man]

Whoever thinks the Falcon is a quicker car in either a straight line or otherwise simply can't drive. The Mustang has a shorter wheelbase and lighter chassis and has the potential to out-manouvre a Falcon any day of the week - given a reasonably good driver and an A class tyre (not the standard US offerings). The straight line performance goes without saying. As for looks, well that's another no-brainer. But sadly the Mustangs are let down in the interior department, being no better than any BA taxi.

[AusM]

Might not be a choice soon, if the 'Orion' platform is adopted for the Mustang...

[Powdered Toast Man]

Originally Posted by sleekism

We kill them in the sixes department though and I reckon the Cleveland V8 was a better kit than the Wheezer but I think the Fox body Mustang was VERY light so did well with the Wheezer.

A shade over 1300kg in base LX trim. LX 5.0L manual did 0-60mph in 6.1 secs back in 1987 using the 165kw injected Windsor. Power to weight similar to say the AUII XR8 (200kw) but 13 years it's senior.
Earlier Fox Mustangs suffered from the same sort of pollution controls as the XD/XE so were relatively gutless. I think at their worst they only made something like 140hp with the 5L carby Windsor back in the early 80s.

Thats why I am still thinking of buying one. Sure they're nothing much to look at, cant stop worth a crap (still have rear drums : ) but they must be a fun drive!

[smciner1]

Originally Posted by Powdered Toast Man

A shade over 1300kg in base LX trim. LX 5.0L manual did 0-60mph in 6.1 secs back in 1987 using the 165kw injected Windsor. Power to weight similar to say the AUII XR8 (200kw) but 13 years it's senior.
Earlier Fox Mustangs suffered from the same sort of pollution controls as the XD/XE so were relatively gutless. I think at their worst they only made something like 140hp with the 5L carby Windsor back in the early 80s.

Thats why I am still thinking of buying one. Sure they're nothing much to look at, cant stop worth a crap (still have rear drums : ) but they must be a fun drive!

From memory the 5 Litre Windsor in the 1975 Mustang II was rated at 139 HP @ 3600 RPM. This was the year the V8 was reintroduced back in to the Mustang.

[Bent8]

Some specs on the Aussie Falcon's and US Mustang's...

Mustang GT - 224kW/434Nm, 1588kg, 0-100 5.8sec

Mustang GT500 - 373kW/651Nm, 1781kg, 0-100 4.9sec

Falcon XR8 - 260kW/500Nm, 1795kg, 0-100 5.9sec

FPV GT - 302kW/540Nm, 1855kg, 0-100 5.6sec

The Mustang's are let down by a live axle rear and poor interior finish. The GT500 is a beast, it'll hit 160kph in under 10sec thanks to that blower and then there's the look of the thing :

If Ford started selling the Mustang's here, I'd be at my dealer tomorrow putting my money down on a 4.6L GT...assuming they sell them for around $40k

[CAT600]

Originally Posted by Bent8

The Mustang's are let down by a live axle rear and poor interior finish. The GT500 is a beast, it'll hit 160kph in under 10sec thanks to that blower and then there's the look of the thing :

If Ford started selling the Mustang's here, I'd be at my dealer tomorrow putting my money down on a 4.6L GT...assuming they sell them for around $40k

GT500 = Bang for Buck:

50hp increase from a C.A.I. kit
125 hp increase from a pulley swap and tune

= 675hp for under $55,000 AUD

As far as quality goes, the SN197 (2005+) is much better (apparently) than the SN95 (1996-2004) and is much roomier inside, something that turned me away from importing a 2003 Cobra Terminator (so I am getting the powertrain the hard way!)

The live axle is only a let down for ride quality and NVH. It would not bother me at all, and would make me more inclined to feed the car some track time.

If the Shelby GT500 were to lob here in the next couple of years, I'd be in.

Daniel