Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not a bad looking vehicle, but gunning for the M5? They're about two doors short of accomplishing that. It's an entirely different class, the M3 Coupe would be a more suitable target.
But yes, it looks god, even though I still find it too bulky/chunky looking.
And after I posted I thought of a Jetta wagon TDI. $25,000 or so, 30mpg in town,40+ mpg on the highway, and plenty of room and versatility for my needs. And I'd still have plenty of money left over for my other interests/hobbies.
I am not expecting to win you over, given your "motto" just below your user name.
Anyway, something I need to get off my chest: Woud you really prefer for that Mustang not to have catalytic converters for example? Would you want to live in a muti-millon people city were non of the cars have them, were surounding factories and power plants have no air fiters and dump their toxic waste in rivers and lakes? That's why there needs to be an EPA etc.!
I am no tree hugger either and would prefer the Mustang myself but what's wrong with protecting our natural resources and the environment for generations to come? I obviously support your right to express your opinion etc but yours strikes me as, well, a bit ignorant maybe?
My issue with the UnConstitutional agency called the e.p.a. is very simple; they have entirely too much power that is not allowed under the Constitution. Heres the thing, you are not supposed to be fined, imprisioned, or taken to court for regulation violations of an agency.
See, you can not be charged or fined for such if the "regulation" was not made law on it's own merit by passing both houses of Congress and signed by the President. But they "claim" the clean water and air act gave them that right to go after companies and people. It didn't, and it's a lie by the power hungry epa. My cousin worked for them for 13 years, and some of the things the epa does, is just a pr thing to try to justify their existence.
Thats why he quit. Their goals had nothing to do with the air or water quality, but everything to do with more power over people.
Too much to get into on this topic thread, maybe a new one all about the epa. Thru enviromentalism, this country and every other will be tore down by the un. Unless people get the real information and stand up to the un. Remember the A/C Feon deal hurting the ozone? So duponts a/c/ crap was all that was allowed to be used? Then a few years ago it came out that the entire thing was bogus!!! But the epa didn't care as several now retired epa officals went to work for dupont with huge salaries! And no one went to jail. Oh, how much energy will it take to power the volt vs the mustang? Truth be known, the Mustang is more enviromentaly friendly than the volt!
quote; I obviously support your right to express your opinion etc but yours strikes me as, well, a bit ignorant maybe?[/quote
My opinion is because of very serious research into the epa, the Constitution, and the future goals of the epa. The epa is not the protector of what you breathe or drink like you clearly have been lead to believe
Thanks for your reply. I will admit that I am not intimately familiar with the EPA. I live in Europe. I am not surprised that the EPA (like most/all) political agencies is run by power hungry people. That's politics, unfortunately. I would therefore agree with "reform the EPA" but I don't think "ban the EPA" is the answer. I am not sure I can follow your DuPont example. They were one of many manufacturers of R12 (Freon) and are now one of many manufacturers of R134A.
I think we all agree that it is desirable to protect natural resources and keep the air we breath and the water we drink free from dangerous contamination. Do you think companies would invest money in clean technology if they had a choice not to and increase profits instead?
Anyway, to come back to the Volt vs Mustang discussion. I agree it depends largely on how the electricity for the Volt is generated. Let's assume one lives in a very sunny state (like AZ for example) and uses his own PV panels to charge the Volt. Then this would clearly be better than burning fossil fuel which will run out at some stage and contributes to increased CO2 emmisions. Same if the electricity supplied by the power company is generated using renewable energy such as solar, wind, water, tidal etc.
I think if we look at the use of fossil fuels in the US versus the rest of the world and consider how much more fuel will be used when developing countries like China and India start using oil like the US I think it is clear that we need alterantive sources of energy.
...Do you think companies would invest money in clean technology if they had a choice not to and increase profits instead?
...I think if we look at the use of fossil fuels in the US versus the rest of the world and consider how much more fuel will be used when developing countries like China and India start using oil like the US I think it is clear that we need alterantive sources of energy.
Yes, companies will invest money in clean technology if that is what the customers demand. That demand is increasing and it's not due solely or even because of government regulation.
We do need alternative energy sources but it's not a view of "the US versus the rest of the world"...we need alternative energy sources for everyone, all countries. In the past, it seems much of the rest of the world wants the US to be the ones to make the sacrifices, the cuts, the higher standards while giving some of the worst polluters in the world a pass. Just IMO.
Two completely different cars and let's not forget our "tax subsidy" that brings the cost of the Volt down to just north of $30k. However, if it was about which car I would personally take, Mustang hands down. If I was in the position to buy one and actually wanted to drive it versus garage and show it, I would probably just buy a base GT with the Brembo package and mod that to equal the performance for less. Though, this Boss seems like a serious bargain for all they have done to it, it's not a sticker job by any means.
However, I would probably still swing towards picking up a Z06 for a true performance car. I imagine that for the ~$45k the Boss will cost I could pick up one of the 505hp C6 Z06's. The Z06 is faster, lighter and has a lot more potential.
I'm not so sure the Z06 engine has more potential than the 5.0 in the Mustang. The Z06 engine is very mature and in many ways limited by the 2 valve pushrod design.
The 5.0 is very impressive right out of the gate - already Ford added 30 Hp to the Mustang GT package.
The z06 has a superior chassis - but Ford has done one hell of a job with the basic suspension of the Mustang.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
