I will apologize to you for coming off rather harsh. I was simply nonplussed when you stated that you had considerable seat time in Porsches/Ferraris and still deigned to ask the question “what is a proper race car?”. That put me out.

With my experience with the Z06 it seemed to me to require rather hard throttling to push (force) it through the corners which per force prematurely wears the tires. If that technique is not used record lap times will probably not be met (from my perspective). I know several Z06 owners that admit to this handicap. Do you have any insight into proper throttle positioning in agressive cornering for the Z06- is there a different way to corner that does not involve modifications to the rear suspension? Since you own a Z06 you obviously have experience with the car and as I have yet to meet anyone that could offer up a different method maybe you know someting the rest of us don’t. As far as your comments on the GT500, how then do you compare the two in aggressive maneuvering? I have driven a stock Shelby GT500 and was completely unimpressed. No doubt, the engine is huge and straight line power is not an issue. My primary concern is that of curb weight. Extra body welds and suspension tuning will only go so far – I think that you will agree that the Roush modifications are fairly radical compared to what other cars need to race. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the few Mustangs I have met at the track were owned and modified by blockheads. Always a great deal of talk on suspension work/chassis mods followed by lackluster performance. A GT500 in the high tens is a breeze (comparatively speaking) to achieve. So I would like some informed insight into the maneuvering dynamics of the GT500 (modified to your specs) and why you feel it is superior to the Z06.

My 11.4 time is an average – as I don’t spend much time at the trap I can’t give you a true number. What I can say is that the 11.4 comes from a soft launch as I do not feel the need to hard launch unless under special circumstances (transmission/transaxle preservation). Twice at the trap I ran a 4500rpm drop and achieved a 10.94/11.05 respectively. To get an Evo to start racing consistantly in the high tens and lower will require considerably more money. There is a limit to the madness. I know this is long winded so bear with me. Straight line power is achievable in almost any car, it’s getting the machine to harness the power and channel the physical loads against the chassis in a way so as to maintain stability while at high speed.

Let me give this example:
There is a beautifully serpentine, poorly paved/buckling back country road not too far from me. About two weeks ago – around 7:50am Saturday morning I was tooling about in my daily driver Evo going to pick up a friend. The next thing I realize there is a Roush GT500 (flaming white with blue racing stripes right? or is that a different model?) riding up my trunk. I waited until we were entering a hard right ascending elliptical turn and went full on the throttle – once you emerge from the turn you can see the road for quite a distance and there are many right to left short swings, almost like a 3/4 mile long chicane. Comming out of the turn and into this “chicane” I could see that the Roush GT500 driver was taken aback by the speed with which I could negotiate the first turn and my lead continued to rapidly increase. Was this a case of not enough mettle on his part or sheer physical limitation of the car?

I live in the Mid-Atlantic area and also have a regional licence. I specialize in gravel and tarmac rallying.

Regarding the not “outgunnung” the Shelby comment, if you are referencing brute force I totally agree (though I have seen some 1000hp Evos – whether they worked or not I don’t know). Surely you realize though that speed through the corners and proper braking skills wins the race. I am simply having a difficult time envisaging a Mustang that handles as well as an Evo.

Nothing handles better – it looks great – its cheap – and, it is practically daily-driver friendly.

I’m not in the camp that is willing to compare the Elise to the Boxster. The Porsche is a much more comfortable, more expensive, less engaging drive. And, to my eyes looks a little funny. The mid-engine layout is right on but the chassis can handle a lot more power. Its also common – seems like every other car I pass on the way out of Manhattan is an leased, automatic Boxster on its way back to New Jersey.

No. That is NOT a fact. Not even in the same galaxy as a fact. Per my closing statement, you must be driving with neophytes. A Shelby GT500 pace a Z06???!!!! I’m laughing heartily. The guy in the Z06 must of had his throttle foot fall asleep. Maybe he didn’t know they were racing? I have never seen a Mustang do anything but blunder and stumble about on a track (and that is with professional Ford drivers).

I am glad that you buy into the advertising paid for heavily by General Motors. I own both a Z06 and a Shelby. (I have owned high performance BMWs that I didn’t care for and a WRX that handled well.) I prefer my Shelby to the Z06. It is capable of keeping pace around a track with it. Laugh as you may, I have a regional racing license. What part of the country are you from? I would be happy to engage you in a friendly race if we are near each other. 

Please sir do your reasearch. If you did you would already know that Evos and STIs are considerably de-tuned for their sale in the US and it requires remarkably little to elimate the resrictions.

This is something I can appreciate and I have been making the same argument all along for the GT500. I would make this argument for just about any muscle/performance car that lists for under $50k. (Finding a GT500 at the moment that isn’t outrageously marked up is admittedly difficult, though not impossible.)

For $4,200 my track Evo is doing 0-60 in 3.1 with a standing quarter of 11.4. Unlike the Mustang my Evo can handle the power in and out of the corners. I don’t need my track Evo, though, to race a GT500.

$5,900 has my GT500 into the mid to high 10s. Your track Evo could probably get close on a good day assuming the 11.4 number given is an average. Your track Evo is a blisteringly quick car, a credible racing machine, and more than makes its case in terms of dollar for dollar performance. But it won’t outgun a Shelby that has comparable money invested. A drivers race, if you will.

Whatever that means.

Sorry!! It’s late and I’m sleepy. Post Script : exactly what I said. You blithely ignored the spectacular maneuvering attributes(multifaceted dynamicism) of the said machines, thus “reducing” their performance to straight line dynamics in order to compare the Mustang to them.
Good Night
(I apologize for the word “dynamicism” – a former professor of mine petitioned to have it officially incorporated into the English language. I believe it failed but I do like the word. Unfortunately it has been chosen to represent a specific field of physical science).

No. That is NOT a fact. Not even in the same galaxy as a fact. Per my closing statement, you must be driving with neophytes. A Shelby GT500 pace a Z06???!!!! I’m laughing heartily. The guy in the Z06 must of had his throttle foot fall asleep. Maybe he didn’t know they were racing? I have never seen a Mustang do anything but blunder and stumble about on a track (and that is with professional Ford drivers). As for the Roush kit, I have raced several, and no, they still can’t keep up with my stock Evo. What is difficult though is trying to find guys with national/regional racing licences that actually drive those…….cars that Maxb49 is fond of.

I noticed your attempt to slip Ferrari, Porsche, and Evo into the same breath. Whatever money spent on the Mustang to outmaneuver a Ferrari or Porsche would be peanuts compared to the price difference between the Mustang and the Ferrari/Porsche.

Please sir do your reasearch. If you did you would already know that Evos and STIs are considerably de-tuned for their sale in the US and it requires remarkably little to elimate the resrictions. For $4,200 my track Evo is doing 0-60 in 3.1 with a standing quarter of 11.4. Unlike the Mustang my Evo can handle the power in and out of the corners. I don’t need my track Evo, though, to race a GT500. Anyway, for about $35,000 total (cost of car – reflash as mentioned above, KW suspension, trunk & chassis ladder stabilizer and roll cage) my track Evo goes toe to toe with your Z06 (which is a very fun car by the way). Not to mention it trounces the 997 Twin Turbo and the F430 on a regular basis.

Truly proper racing machines? What is a truly proper racing machine?ect..ect..

I believe that is self evident. A machine that does not require a substantial lift on the throttle when maneuvering agressively-or when accelerating hard on a poorly paved road. A Mustang/Viper driver will lose several tenths in every turn because of the greater throttle lift follwed by rapid decceleration that is required to maintain stability in the corner. Their virtue lies in their straight line power. Both would be better cars if the power was reduced and a little more consideration was made to the machines ability to harness what it has.

I want to know exactly what you mean by trash. If by trash you mean not everyone’s cup of tea as a daily driver, fine, but you Evo is trash by that definition with its uncomfortable seats, ugly design, and despicable ride – to scratch the surface. And that puts it on par with the Viper.

I completely agree. The Evo is one extraordinarily foolish looking car. You say its ugly, I would rather it was ugly than foolish. My idea of comfort is a 5-point harness and a turbo charger so I really can’t comment on its ride. I can only say that compared to what I’m accustomed to the stock Evo is a plush ride to me and I love the seats.
As far as the trash statement – there is no greater waste to me than unusable power in a car; which is what the Viper is, unusable power. It is an $80,000 quarter mile car. I know several people that own them and even they will concede that it’s not a race car. I believe that you deliberately contorted my statement about “proper race cars” into it’s ideological extreme to present my argument as irrational. Let’s please keep this civil.

Your point would be moot even if the Mustang platform were 3,000 years old. A platform is a design idea. An idea’s effectiveness is not a function of the time elapsed since it was conceived in some person’s mind, and if you think it is, I’m sorry, you’re WRONG. It’s a non sequitur
Holy smokes!! I’m in debate over whether this is Transcendental Aesteticism or Deconstructionism. Give me a minute…..I’m going to go with Deconstructionism. It seems that my colloquialism escaped you’re attention. When the design is antiquarian in reality, the date of it’s conception in reality and release to reality is quite irrelevant. I used the term archaic to accentuate the technologically wanting nature of the chassis. I was not concatenating the temporal relationship between the “idea” and the object – but linguistically connecting the object, for effect, to a word denoting age.
Very Respectfully,
KP

Suspension tweaks will only improve a cars ability to maneuver to a degree. It is the chassis that dictates the machines overall performance, the suspension only complements the chassis.

This is true, but the tone of your argument suggests that the GT500’s chassis is about as stiff as overcooked macaroni, which isn’t true.

With a chassis as archaic and unsophisticated as a Mustangs there is really no amount of suspension work that could get it to race properly.

Your point about the Mustang platform being archaic is dead wrong. The platform code is D2C and it was introduced for the 2005 model year.

Your point would be moot even if the Mustang platform were 3,000 years old. A platform is a design idea. An idea’s effectiveness is not a function of the time elapsed since it was conceived in some person’s mind, and if you think it is, I’m sorry, you’re WRONG. It’s a non sequitur

The chassis must be modified. If you have ever driven a proper car at 9/10ths-10/10ths you would understand that comparing a Mustang to a Ferrari/997 Twim Turbo is rediculous.

Don’t make assumptions about people you don’t know, and don’t be condescending. I many, many years of automotive engineering under my belt and I am well versed in performance driving and has owned an extensive array of automobiles. Some I liked (the Porsche 911) and some I didn’t like (the M5). A car is as balanced as you build it to be.

Why don’t we compare your Mitsubishi to a Saleen S7? I will be lucky enough to own that car (the S7) but I have driven it and it is more balanced than anything from Ferrari, Ford, Chevy, Mercedes, the list goes on. The S7 is a car engineered for downforce, something that most Ferraris aren’t built for. Obviously, the FXX is omitted from that Venn diagram.

A Shelby GT500 Cobra with a Roush kit will not lap faster than my stock Evo.

The GT500 doesn’t need a Roush kit to lap your Mitsubishi. A Corvette Z06 will slaughter that little Japanese wonder at Laguna Seca. GT500s, stock, are comparable (if slightly slower) than Z06s. Minor suspension tweaks have them on par with or better than their Chevrolet counterparts. That is a fact.

Vipers are trash. . .

I want to know exactly what you mean by trash. If by trash you mean not everyone’s cup of tea as a daily driver, fine, but you Evo is trash by that definition with its uncomfortable seats, ugly design, and despicable ride – to scratch the surface. And that puts it on par with the Viper.

. . .and reducing the multifaceted dynamicism

Whatever that means.

of truly proper racing machines to their quarter mile trap in order that the Mustang be comparable to them is an insult.

Truly proper racing machines? What is a truly proper racing machine? A truly proper racing machine is an automobile that was designed, built, and bred to run races and only run races day in and day out. There is not a single car on this list that is a “truly proper racing machine.” Not one. The Saleen S7 Twin Turbo track edition isn’t on there, nor is the Ferrari FXX, a Honda F1 car, or Junior’s Monte Carlo. The Ten Best Automobiles Going is about daily drivers sold to the every day consumer and the consumer enthusiast. A race bred Corvette wouldn’t be seen on the street and neither would an Evo purpose built for the track..

If you have ever seen a Mustang outmaneuver a Ferrari, Porsche or Evo there must have been a fantastic amount of money invested in that car or his opponents were as fantastically inept.

I noticed your attempt to slip Ferrari, Porsche, and Evo into the same breath. Whatever money spent on the Mustang to outmaneuver a Ferrari or Porsche would be peanuts compared to the price difference between the Mustang and the Ferrari/Porsche.

The BMW 3-Series is also brilliant in almost every way, but its price and interior drags it down.

The G35 has already collected a bunch of awards, and TBAG would surely be icing on the cake.

1. Car and Driver 10 Best – 2007 Infiniti G35
2. Automobile Magazine All-Star – 2007 Infiniti G35
3. IGN Best Japanese Car – 2007 Infiniti G35 Sport 6MT
4. CNET Top Luxury Technology Cars – 2007 Infiniti G35
5. MSN Best Winter Car (Near Luxury) – 2007 Infiniti G35x
6. Consumer Reports (Best Upscale Sedan) – 2007 Infiniti G35
7. MotorWeek Drivers Choice Award (Best Sports Sedan) – 2007 Infiniti G35
8. Intellichoice Best Overall Value (Sports Sedans Under $38k) – 2007 Infiniti G35

But I can understand… there has to be some subjectivity to this… after all, this is an enthusiast site, and almost all of the cars in the final twenty should appeal to enthusiasts one way or the other.

—–

Comments on the Mazdaspeed3: re: marketing engineered. I am similarly saddened by the fact that it isn’t AWD, but still, offering that kind of performance at that price has to count as some sort of coup. Besides, most of us old Mazda owners, used to FF performance from the “zoom zoom” brand are complaining that much. Unlike some other makers, who shall remain anonymous, Mazda makes FF cars that can actually turn.

The first is about some comments that this is not democratic because we don’t have preferential balloting, or weighted voting, or because “my suggestion isn’t in the final 20.” Yes. Democracies are about many people getting what they are sort of mostly okay with.

Secondly, and I hate to pick on someone’s comment, but a person in this thread argued about the lack of the Prius by saying “3. Prius: I haven’t driven one, but by all accounts, for its size, drivability, mileage and reliabiility, it’s top of the heap.” TBAG is exactly the opposite of this list of criteria. Plenty of people are well informed about cars. But TBAG is about cars for car lovers. I know an awful lot about insurance law, but let’s get real, it’s not my life’s passion. This is not just an objective contest, which would be impossible anyway, but a subjective evaluation. A car could get 100 mpg, do 0-60 in 4 seconds, seat 8, be safe enough to withstand mortars, and be recyclable into generic medications. We could still hate it.

Let C&D and R&T pick their faves based on advertising money. Let Consumer Reports name cars on the basis of what makes the most “objective” sense. This is about the cars that, for some reason or another, hold our fascination and attention. They have character and charm all their own.

Good point. Unfortunately, everything is going up in price. When I was touring the various auto shows at the beginning of this year, I saw the price tags on these cars. $50k for a crew cab pickup with leather. $38-$45k for a minivan. $23k for a moderately equipped small car.

People are getting fed up with the auto industry in general. They aren’t voting on blogs, they are voting with they wallets. People are not buying new cars. Who can blame them?

Much of the problem can be attributed to a sluggish economy, high fuel prices, etc. The party days of the 1990s are over, and the only thing that’s going to get the ball rolling again is new technology. By new technology, I’m not referring to redesigned bucket seats in your Camcord/Lexucura equivalent. I’m talking about the hydrogen powered car. It’s coming. It will be here next year. The hydrogen car will turn the economy right side up and the auto industry on its head. The hydrogen car is technology.

Whether you like the Acura badge-engineered Accord over the Crown Vic is really a matter of personal taste. Cosmetics and safety equipment aside, the automobile in its present state remains unchanged since its inception. The V8 has been around for a century since its inception in France. The V6 since the 1960s. That’s why I don’t buy the argument that the Crown Victoria is n undesirable due to it being a modernized Ford Galaxie. If that’s the case, so be it, but your Honda Accord is a modern iteration of an old Buick.

As for the Mustang? It won’t appeal to automotive snobs, but it runs like hell. If that’s not fast enough, plenty of equipment is available at your fingertips to make the car run faster. Pony up the bucks, and the pony car will walk away from any Viper, Z06, Porsche 911 Turbo, or Ferrari in the quarter mile. Want to go around a corner you say? Do some minor suspension tweaks. Dollar for dollar, the Mustang offers great performance and the possibility of supercar performance (with money invested that will total less than a Z06 sold under sticker). THAT is why the Mustang is one of the Ten Best Automobiles Going.

Next year we can enjoy our hydrogen, 68 mpg combined, cars. Today, lets enjoy motoring for what it is. :)

This is b.s. and you know it. Car fires in the police interceptor editions were caused by an improper installation of police trunk equipment, at speeds in excess of 80 miles per hour!

The Crown Victoria is safer than many other vehicles on the market. When is this incorrect myth going to die the horrible death it deserves?

Mustang living in the past glory, sure the 60’s Stang was classic but the current version in not worthy of any 10 best list. No IRS in a sports car in 2007??

If you want a big engine rear drive American sports car besides the Corvette why not the Dodge Charger?

Because the Dodge car is a big, bulky, four door sedan that lumbers along the highway…

C’mon now! Compare segment to segment. This is like saying, if you want a powerful, rear drive German car, why not get a BMW 7-series instead of a AMG Mercedes. *rolls eyes*

Why are both Ford’s on the list?
Crwn Vic is a dangerous car with fuel tank behind the rear axle and many people have been seriously injured by this poor design.

Mustang living in the past glory, sure the 60’s Stang was classic but the current version in not worthy of any 10 best list. No IRS in a sports car in 2007?? If you want a big engine rear drive American sports car besides the Corvette why not the Dodge Charger?

Audi RS-4 – (New) M3 Power with AWD surefootedness, amazing good looks. The sports car for the man w/ family to haul. RS4 Avant would be icing on the cake.

Chevy Corvette – The affordable near-supercar and supercar (base and Z06, respectively). American muscle, good looks, good cargo room, great mileage, affordable, daily driver, outruns most anything, I could go on…

Honda Accord – Everyman’s best car. Best blend of comfort, sportiness, reliability, value, resell, perfect for the man who had to give up his 3 series dream for that new bun in the oven.

Honda Fit – The best all-around car for 20-something city slickers on a budget. Great passenger and cargo room, good looks (w/ sport trim dress-up), Honda reliability, inexpensive (not to be confused with cheap).

Infiniti G35 – Coupe is perfect for those not inflicted with poseuritis (aka mustbedeutschinosis). As well, the best sports car for those who need two extra seats and can’t afford the RS4. Upcoming G37 will be even better.

Jeep Wrangler – Trail-rated goodness for those who get their kicks that way (not me, though). Purpose-built for where no other dare tread; although most in my area are spotted spotless on the commute. They must know why the caged bird sings.

Mazda Mazda3 – Driving one now (5-door), granted, it’s my fiance’s (autobox). I steered her toward it, but, I admit, for selfish reasons. Best all-around small car, great cargo room, decent space, best handler this side of MINI, sweet looks, great for the starter family.

Mazda MX-5 – What’s to say? Still the leader in affordable, no-frills RWD sunny-day fun. Excellent car for Everyman to supplement that Accord (see above). Killer contrarian value at 1 to 2 yrs old.

Porsche Cayman – Best sports car on the list (Cayman S). Goes fast, stops fast, turns sharp, looks sharp. It has the cache if you have the cash. When’s the next spec-race? Big brother feels fat by comparison.

VW GTI – My all-around favorite car for the enthusiast who’s got other stuff to make payments on as well. Great passenger and cargo room, interior rocks, accelerates well, handles well in spite of its heft. Really equal to its overpriced A3 cousin. Not a step down, but sideways. Will be mine when I’m done paying for some other stuff.

Why the old-tech Jeep, but not the equally old-tech Crown Vic, you ask? Wrangler has dominated its niche forever. Vic was just another big American sedan when it first came out, now it’s the geezer amidst other, better American (and foreign) sedans. No competitor to the Wrangler has yet to knock the king off the hill.

Confused:

What is your definition of all round sedan??? I’d wager that if you showed the above quote to just about anyone here, the Crown Vic would be the last or close to last vehicle they would think of (assuming they would think of it at all).

You are right, the Maserati is an exotic, not a supercar. Even less reason to spend the money to own it.

1. Reliability: as someone who owns a 2003 Passat that has been in the shop 6 times, I simly can NOT vote for a car that can’t bring itself to work properly and often (this means you GTI, and probably you Mercedes)

2. Porsche’s: I think they are hot cars, sure, but did you have to eat up 15% of your spaces on the list with 3 near identical models?

3. Prius: I haven’t driven one, but by all accounts, for its size, drivability, mileage and reliabiility, it’s top of the heap.

Gulty pleasure that I like on the list. The Maserati. No rational part of my mind wants to like that unreliable overpriced car. Yet, everytime I see one, I want one… BADLY.

I included the Honda Fit because is it the only car in that class. I deleted the Accord because the car is competent but soul-less. The GTI does most of what the Accord does and is far more fun. Finally, I substituted the MX-5 for the S2000. Yeah the S2000 looks better in my eyes, but both cars have their flaws. When cars have warts, I choose the cheaper of the two and that’s the MX-5.

1) Audi RS-4: The closest thing to it on the list is the WRX. Think a more civilized version of the WRX.

2) WRX: The is nothing like this car for anywhere near the price on the list. This should really be a tie between the STI and the EVO.

3) Wrangler: only off road vehicle on the list

4) G35: This car may not be better than the 335, but it IS better than the other ten 3 Series models. The 335 would be on my top 10 list, but I can only vote for the 3 Series and it, by and large, is over-priced for what it offers.

5) MB E320 Bluetec: The only alternative on the list for full size sedans is the Crown Vic. Need I say more???

6) Accord: This is the only sub $30K mid-size sedan. The TSX is mostly a more expensive Accord.

7) GTI: The MS 3 might be faster, but the GTI is the better balanced car and the better daily driver

8) S2000: This is a close call IMHO, the MX-5 would be an equally good choice. I just like the Honda.

9) Vette: Mostly a sentimental favorite, one of the few bright lights in the entire GM line (At least I’m honest about my biases).

10) 911: Delivers supercar performance for less than super car prices (ie Maserati)

You obviously have a lot of passion / devotion to the Panther platform. Out of curiosity how many of the other vehicles on the list have you driven?
Could you explain what is that special X factor in the Panther platform because seeeing them everyday , having driven them as well I don’t see / feel it. Is the argument that its big, cheap and durable? Does that qualify as X-factor?