yea it looks nothing like that...

If you dont paint the front bumper on the mustang and leave it black it will identical to the charger.

there is a lot of truth to this and the GT/CS is the best looking 13-14 GT. It would be the only one i would purchase.

Yeah.. I meant side skirts, the bandit 2 posts above mine wrote rockers, and it was early morning and oh well.. and yeah I don't think the paint holds up well on a daily driver... as for the charger a mustang... I see what you are saying how they appear similar in the front end.. but not enough for me, I'd never compare them in real life

Not everyone does the Saleen/boss mods. I purposely haven't done those because they are so popular and because I like the throwback to 68-70 fastback look.

As for the lights, I don't think they belong on a muscle car. That's just a difference between our generations is all. I think the HIDS/LEDS belong on Hondas/Euro cars and don't look right on a muscle car. To me, it makes as much sense as putting Yenko stripes on a Civic.

I also think the 13+ front ends make the Mustang look even bigger than it already is then people add these ridiculously big front end splitters that are completely nonfunctional to make the car look even bigger. It's just more fluff to appeal to the new generation is all that is all about "more". Muscle cars aren't about fluff, they are about performance.

I agree

I agree and disagree. I don't think there is anything wrong with HID on the cars but to me, the design of them just looks like "trying too hard." At least on the Mustang. On the Camaro and Challenger they look well done and "natural" on the car. A different design may make me like them more on the Mustangs.

-Alex

I can agree with that. I realize that everything evolves in time and styles change. I'm not so old that I'm stuck in my ways, but some things like super bright LED's on a muscle car just don't fit. The HIDS that actually fit/blend with the car I could wrap my head around but the strips look silly like they are trying too hard to be an Audi. It's a muscle car, not a Honda or a BMW/Audi.

Agreed.

-Alex

Well in this regard, most of the wheels and tires we install are fluff as well, since 18's and 19's will generally out handle 20's. The fluff continues with the lowering springs, since you really only need better dampers for the street driving. It's continues more with axle back exhaust kits, all for noise, not power, or the GT500 spoilers, no spoilers, cowl hoods, Boss grilles, bar style grilles, tinted lights, quarter window louvers, etc...

What I'm trying to point out is that each piece has a unique meaning to each person, whether questionably functional or purely to be aesthetically pleasing, there is no clear way to define what should or should not belong.

If we truly only cared about muscle, we would have all adopted the basic Ford Fairmont body years ago and tossed in more powerful motors, full exhaust, and gears for an all in the name of... Whatever you call it...

If American Muscle ever releases a '13-14 style tail light for the '10-12 cars, I'll be on them like a duck on a june bug. That is really the only place the earlier cars are lacking compared to the later ones. I think AM had plans to make them, but Ford may have made them stop for copyright infringement. At least that's what I read through the lines. And I'm not putting a bunch of silly window tint, or vinyl, or 'nightshades' spray paint all over my tail lights. I don't hate them that much!

The REAL problem with the rear of these cars is the gigantic dinner-plate sized 'faux gas cap' they tacked to the back of each and every one of them, and they scaled-up the tail lights to match. Bleh.

Some of us DO do that. :headbang:

I pulled up at a light next to a Ruby Red '14 GT last week. It was STUNNING. I was trying to give the guy a thumbs-up but he was either in his own world or ignoring me, lol.

But you put vinyl tint on your lights Steve? Lol

It's coming off as soon as I get the chance to do it.

As far as wheels go, I'll put up my 20's against anyone's 18/19 inch wheels on this board in regards to performance.

I don't considering lowering springs fluff at all. Yes, it's visually appealing, but lowering a car's center of gravity greatly improves handling. Our Mustangs handle like a boat at stock height.

Again, I disagree with your exhaust comment. Aftermarket exhaust greatly improves airflow and reduces back pressure therfor releasing more power. The added bonus is the muscle car tone can be modified to be more pleasing to the ear to sound like a muscle car, rather than quiet as a Camry in stock form.

I do agree with your statement in regards to visual mods though. All of that stuff is subjective to individual tastes.

Form follows function.

Rivets ftw!

Damn sheetmetal wheels!!

Agrre with suspension. Lot of brake dive in these cars. Disagree with wheels comment. Stock to stock your big ass wheels vs my stock 18's will make a difference.

Do explain. If you explaination contains "I heard" I will ban you for the day. lol

I think each style has their own likes and dislikes for me. I like the front end of both the 11/12 and 13 cars. I think Ford could've done a few things differently/better on th 13 front end, but oh well. I would've rather then tried to freshen up the 11/12 front end and massage it a little more than stick a combo GT500/V6 front end on it. The rear is hands down 13 all day.

No, just no.

His wheels weight as much as your stock 18s do. The only thing Steve would be lacking in would be cornering ability as his sidewall is much shorter than yours, but it would be made up by the fact his tires have a full 2-3 inches more surface contact to the pavement than your 18s have.

rotating mass > static/unsprung (dead) mass all day long.

I know. Had my civic on stock 15's then decided to go to 17's. I didnt notice it when i went up to the 17's but when I went back to 15's HOLY SHIT! The difference was huge. Granted with the lower power output of the civic the difference would be greater but the same should hold true on a more powerful car no matter.

Why make skinny wheels if there is not a need and they do not make a differnce? Plus the contact patch of the wider tires creates more friction on the surface of the road. This also soaks up some power. Take a wheel barrow put a skinny tire on say a 235 and push it. Then put a 275 or 295 on there and see if there is a difference in effort to push it.

What about my 18's?

your a gd example of my theory. Theory.:batman2:

Exactly.

Just...stop. :snoopfacepalm:

If Im wrong prove it.:nutkick:

Explain how Blck2012gt picked up power?

Ford puts tiny tires on the car to get the gas mileage CAFE standards up. 235s on a 3600lb car with 400rwhp? Please. That shit is damned near negligent homicide. Tire grip should be the first thing you think about when building up your performance car, not gas mileage or 'soaking up' power. My wheels may be heavy-ish, but they're not as heavy as my stock Brembo wheels and Pirellis were. And when I need grip, I got it.

Yes I picked up power but with the same wheels if I take them to the track I would run slower times with them cause of no traction then I would with my old 20's. Now my new 18's is a different story. lol

dyno reading ≠ grip

I agree with your statement and the negligent homicide part had me rolling. lol From a roll stock to stock the stock rim car will be faster then same car with 20's and wider tires. No?

I doubt it cause I broke those 235's loose going hwy speeds when I slammed it in 3rd.

A wider contact patch doesn't "soak up" power. It just creates a higher friction force of which the car has to overcome. The power output is the same. As long as the wheels being compared are close to the same overall diameter, the effective gear ratio will be unchanged, thus negligible tq "loss."

Your wheel barrow example doesn't apply here. They are designed to work with a skinny tire to provide the ability to lean as they turn/pivot.

A wagon would be a better example to compare with a car.

A larger tire gives you a larger area in which to spread the load. This means the object will handle better because the weight ir more distributed on the tire surface, making it handle more precisely. The only difference having a 235 on a wheel barrow would make would be the rolling resistance, but once it is rolling, you wouldn't be able to tell the 235 and 295 apart.

How the fuck did we get to how stock rims are better then 20" rims from whats the difference in year models? :STFU:

If the entire wheel+tire setup for the 20s is heavier than the stock setup, then yes, stock wheels will be faster. If the 20s are lighter, the car with those wheels will likely be faster.

Rotating mass if a big deal. The less weight you have to rotate means the motor will rev faster since the work being supplied to turn it is less, giving the motor more power to push itself forward and accelerate.

Same reason as every other thread derailment.

ADD.

No, you can't say that with any certainty.

QFT. 70 roll. LOL

Lot more can go into that but yea pretty much.
Because 5.0 racecar.
You dont say?:manos:

I cant but its an educated guess. Theory.

Look, I don't want to be rude to you, but sometimes we can't decide if you're trolling or seriously misinformed and some of your comments are so way off base at times it's crazy.

I asked you to explain how you came to determine your thoughts on the subject matter, and here you flip on me to prove you wrong? Seems a bit backwards to me.

But to simply answer your question, Jeff picked up power by simply decreasing the amount of rotating mass on his wheels allowing them to turn much easier. Reducing weight is just as good as making more power.

My forged 20's are lighter than your cast 18 inch wheels. The only argument you could possibly make is that a 20 inch wheel could change gearing if the same tire height was used, but it's not. By using a lower profile tire with my 20, the gearing is very near the same as it was with the stock 19 inch wheels/tires. So really, you are just incorrect and your argument is null and void.

Ok, now you're just trolling.