Duane: what makes a 40 year-old racecar the proper counterpoint for an entry-level soft-top penis-mobile? *arch*

Carl, you should read my most recent column. I think we see eye-to-eye on a few things.

is Jack really saying the Mustang is absolutely superior? i really don’t think he does! read closerer.

my “target” is clear: people who get their panties bunched by someone NOT picking the ferrari as the winner. the things you say above about the Ferrari are true - race bred, technology, track competence, etc. i assure you, it’s not about the author’s lack of “getting it.”

i think it’s about the reader not “getting it.”

of course this grouping of cars makes no sense. but how often do people actually DO this? how often do we get to see the relative gaps between drastically differing classes of cars?

now i really WISH we’d put the Tahoe Hybrid on the track along with the other 4. that would underscore the point that much more.

Likewise…..no one argued about the fun factor either.

The argument seems to be schmuck journalist not ‘getting it’ when it comes to comparing
a car with tons of race breeding and technology with a mass produced Detroit muscle car.
The Ferrari is infinitely more competent as a sports car, though the Ford is doubtless lot’s of
fun when you mash the gas. But to claim the Ford superior……that’s just plain stupid, and the
only way he could even say that was to just blatantly admit that his decision was entirely subjective. Besides…..there are plenty of ‘not so imaginary’ millionaires who appreciate both.

That’s not to take anything away from the Ford, it’s a fun, modern, muscle car that is a great
bargain. It is NOT a sophisticated race-bred exotic sports car that reflects a direct
application of Formula 1 racing technology, and it never will be. The GT40 comes closer
to that, which is why it would be a better comparison to the F430, or better still, the Enzo.

Oh….and since when are Lamborghini’s friendlier or cheaper than Ferraris???

There are also people who are not millionaires that own and maintain Ferraris. It’s a stereotype
to think that only millionaires have Ferraris.

Likewise…..no one argued about the fun factor either.

The argument seems to be schmuck journalist not ‘getting it’ when it comes to comparing
a car with tons of race breeding and technology with a mass produced Detroit muscle car.
The Ferrari is infinitely more competent as a sports car, though the Ford is doubtless lot’s of
fun when you mash the gas. But to claim the Ford superior……that’s just plain stupid, and the
only way he could even say that was to just blatantly admit that his decision was entirely subjective. Besides…..there are plenty of ‘not so imaginary’ millionaires who appreciate both.

That’s not to take anything away from the Ford, it’s a fun, modern, muscle car that is a great
bargain. It is NOT a sophisticated race-bred exotic sports car that reflects a direct
application of Formula 1 racing technology, and it never will be. The GT40 comes closer
to that, which is why it would be a better comparison to the F430, or better still, the Enzo.

There are also people who are not millionaires that own and maintain Ferraris. It’s a stereotype
to think that only millionaires have Ferraris.

if the ferrari community is so comfortable and secure in their purchases, then why should one journalist’s words incite such ire? insecure much?

the whole point is that you can have arguably as much fun for (hundreds of) thousands less.

this is most likely payback for what happened to mclaren it is a deliebarte arbitrariness as you said.

this guy should definately be marked and when i say marked i mean “MARKED FOR DEATH”

You disqualify the legitimacy of your conclusion by tacitly admitting you’re subjectivity…..that and a nickel won’t even get you a cup of coffee. Consider this journalist “marked” by the Ferrari community.

i don’t know if that’s a compliment or a shot in the junk.

nevertheless, i think it’s clear why the “Rustang” wins here. of course, you EXPECT the Ferrari to win. and in a manner of speaking, of course it does. but at the same time, it doe$n’t. that help?

We *welcome* dissection of the article. I’m not perfect and nobody else here at SSL is perfect, except for Carl, I think.

This goes for everyone else. It doesn’t make us angry or agitated to read your comments - it only helps us understand what you want to see in future articles. Criticize the testing, the writing, the choice of car, the choice of track. It’s all useful.

Something we’ve learned by reading the criticism, here and elsewhere, is that we need to be more concise and forthright about our “ranking reasoning” in future articles. If you read it carefully enough, I think it’s reasonably plain why the Mustang won - but we’re trying to produce amusing content, not a sequel to the DaVinci Code, so in the future, we’ll be more explicit.

The only thing which is not open for criticism is my choice in shoes. That’ll get you a stern talking to from me, unless you’re bigger than I am, in which case I’ll say something about you after you leave. For the record, I actually do my racing in Nomex Fila Schumacher reps, but life’s too short to wear rubber shoes every day!

If you were blind to the track times, it would still be obvious how much more entertaining the Ferrari is, everything just comes together so perfectly. The pedal feel and placement along with the seating position are perfect, the steering is full of feeling and feedback, giving great confidence, and the engine is forceful yet quick-revving and simply a blast to drive and listen to. I’m no Ferrari Fanboy, but its the obvious choice and probably would be for most. Its also beautiful inside and out, and is even plenty comfortable for daily driving, more so than the ungainly mustang for sure. I also don’t quite get why you keep comparing it to the Audi R8 and the Viper even though neither are in this comparison. You seem to think that because the Viper can beat it around this track it deserves less of a place in this comparison.

Even so, you seem as if your placing high merit to the mustang by being able to hang, so to speak, with the Ferrari on the track (although 4 seconds on a 90 second track barely qualifies as the same league), in spite of having a live-axle and “prehistoric chassis.” You also state at the end of the article that the engine “feels a little flat” and that the brakes and steering are merely “adequate.” You even state on the last line of the second-to-last paragraph that it understeers and requires the boot to get it going in the right direction. That doesn’t sound like a very fun track-car to me. Personally it sounds like it has no soul.

Sorry for dissecting your otherwise very well-written article, but I just can’t for the life of me see why you would choose the Mustang.

Driving with Wingtips????? Those went out of style years ago. It might help to getter feel of the pedals using some driving shoes!

Keep up the great work…

I’m sure you’ve heard the expression, “Grinning like an idiot.” It doesn’t have to make sense to be entertaining. Hell, there’s nothing sensible about any of the cars in this comparison, except maybe the SRT-4’s cargo room.

That’s just a gold mine of potential responses. First I’ll address your comments about the spider with a few figures:

Ferrari F430 Spider - 490 hp, 343 lb. ft., 3351 lbs.
Ford Shelby Mustang GT500 - 500 hp, 490 lb. ft., 3920 lbs.

The Mustang has 4 seats and a huge trunk, unlike the F430. This is a car that should, by any stretch of the imagination, wipe the track with the GT500. The idea that it’s a spider and the lack of stability this causes would unfairly disadvantage a FERRARI against a FORD MUSTANG is ridiculous, and I’m not going to even touch the idea of a normal F430 and Scuderia versus what is still a mass-production 2+2 sports car with a live rear-axle. Moreover, I’m not sure where you got the $75k figure since the price difference between an F430 coupe and a spider is a little less than $25k. So I guess what you’re telling us, Scott, is that a Ferrari roadster that’s 569 lbs. lighter than the GT500, which more than offsets its 10 hp disadvantage, and carries the badge of a little prancing horsey is actually a better car despite being ranked third behind two actually great cars. And about your dot to dot comment, ask any real racer and they’ll tell you races are won on the straights, apexing is just making the corners as straight as possible. Just because its got a high-end badge doesn’t mean it’s a great car.

Jack is the greatest literary hero of our age.

any chance you guys will be getting your hands on a GT500KR? the KR is the real track version of the GT500, and i would love to see its times on this track against the elise and the F430! maybe even an exige!

As fate would have it, some of Texas’ finest journalists destroyed both the S2000 and 350Z the previous weekend at a track day held in Dallas. To salvage the track time we had already booked, we made a few phone calls and asked if anyone had any ‘performance’ vehicles left in the fleet that survived the track day carnage. Most of the cars we normally have access to were in for repairs due to the destruction the prior weekend. Chrysler was able to provide us with the Caliber, and Ford provided the Shelby on a day’s notice. Beggars can’t be choosers, so we did what we could with the cars we had, and actually really enjoyed ourselves while we were doing it.

The bottom line is we decided to have some fun with the situation we were put into, and the result is what you see. We expected everyone to think we were crazy, but at the end of the day we’re enthusiasts and we like anything performance oriented. That includes the Shelby and the Caliber. Just be glad we didn’t put the Tahoe Hybrid on the track

Carry on