It was actually with my school's car club. We weren't affiliated with SCCA, and it was free. But now that I'm graduated, I'll be hitting up some local SCCA autocrosses.

What's great about the seats in my '65, is once people are back there and want to get out:

One is a 1965 289. Rebuilt suspension with springs, shocks, swaybars, and disc brakes.

I, for one, like to see what's immediately to my left without bending forward. Having that extra long door really improves visibility. That is reason enough for me to want a 2-door car.

Ya know, I've only been drag racing twice, once in each Mustang. However, I autocross at every chance I get. Guess I'm not a typical Mustang owner...

I think they chose the wrong 4.6 to use. The '96 4.6 in the Mustang GT put down the same power as the 5.0 it replaced, 215 hp. Later, in '98 I believe, it began putting down respectable numbers after Ford upgraded the heads to the more potent PI heads. But yeah, the first 4.6s weren't all that great.

Chrysler: Quality is an abstract concept that gets in the way of drinking

I think the turbo 4 will appeal mostly to the autocrossing crowd, or those who mostly want fuel economy. I'm guessing it'll be at least 75 lbs lighter than the V6 model, and being an SVO, or equivalent, will have an upgraded suspension, making for a great autocross car.

Interestingly enough, mine was my first car. Around the age of 13, I began thinking about what I wanted for a car. I know I wanted something cool, at least. I was vaguely familiar with Mustangs at that point, and began studying them. Then, just before I turned 15, my mom mentioned that her friend's dad had one he…

My grandparents lived on a road that had a slight turn to it right at their property. It's also on a hill in the boonies, so you get drunk rednecks and people on meth and other such drugs flying down the hill and not negotiating the turn. Now, the house is out of the way, but the fence for the cows and horses wasn't.…

I want to say a black '70 Chevelle SS

Think you got that backwards, dude. Usually they strengthen components when they increase power. For example, the driveshaft that disintegrates at 140 in the V6 model is putting up with 300 hp. This is putting up with more than double that power, so they would naturally increase the strength by that amount, if not…

I don't know of many convertible tops that can survive high speeds like that.

As for the rear traction issue for launching, on the newer chassis that's been fixed by the aftermarket with a simple control arm drop bracket. Maybe $50 or so, and you have much more traction. Who knows, maybe Ford implemented that geometry change on the GT500.

I've taken my Mustang up to 110. With some traffic. It was dumb, it was stupid, and I got pulled over later that day for street racing. I cut that shit out immediately. If you think it's ok to run that high over the speed limit on an open, public road with almost no safety considerations, then you're an idiot.…

Nope. It's #2 on my list of 3 cars that I want next. #1 is a 2005-2010 Mustang V6, and #3 is some sort of AWD Fusion, preferably with a manual.

I'll trust you on that then. I'll stick to my roll centers and camber curves, lol.

I see what you're saying, but the side pod would also absorb much of the impact. I was mostly suggesting aluminum because it could be engineered to deform downwards in an impact, rather than exploding on impact. I will admit, however, that crash safety was not something that I studied. All my energy has been put…

True, but it's also possible to engineer the crash structure to deflect downwards, or at least crumple in such a way as to avoid those splinters. If I were designing the nosecone of an F1 car for safety, I'd probably use a fair amount of aluminum honeycomb with aluminum sheet in place of carbon fiber bodywork. No…

I'd think they could just say that the bottom tip of the nose must be no higher than such and such to avoid that, rather than regulating the top of the nose right by the suspension.