View Single Post
Old 12-29-2009, 10:10 AM   #9
pauldun170
Serious Business
 
pauldun170's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New York
Moto: 1993 ZX-11 2008 CBR1000rr
Posts: 9,723
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave View Post
dodge daytona shelby z. stock for stock they were right next to each other in the quarter (15.3/15.4). dodge had better brakes (1.00 g of force in 1987!), could likely best the stang on the skidpad and would be far cheaper to up the power on in the short run. commence crying about how its wrong wheel drive
I could have sworn that the Mustang was into the 14's by the time Dodge slapped a turbo on the Daytona and the Daytona was slower (15 sec car). Sounds like you are referencing the GT automatic.
Daytona was still a decent scoot though especially the last gen with 224HP motor but by then it cost a decent amount more than the Stang.
Stock I don't think the Daytona kept up with the Mustang year for year. However, I think it did have better handling.
Going back to Homeslice's point....was the drivetrain more refined?

Keep in mind that the Mustang to get during the late 80's was the LX 5.0...not the GT. So careful with the comparisons.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave View Post
feed your dogs root beer it will make them grow large and then you can ride them and pet the motorcycle while drinking root beer

Last edited by pauldun170; 12-29-2009 at 10:13 AM..
pauldun170 is offline   Reply With Quote