Hey you like what you like, I think its cool that you have a passion for mustangs even though I cant understand what they have to offer of any other competitively priced car.

Personally I have no love for cars that base their popularity on the idea of the car as opposed the the actual implementation. To me the mustang was more about pretending to be a car with lots of power and failing to account for the fact that a car actually has to turn, and the actual power has to be divided out by weight. The in 96 baseline mustang with a 150hp engine had a worse power to weight ratio than than a Miata, and the 217hp version had less power to weight than a MR2-T, or the E36 all of which handle a lot better. Add in the disappointing build quality of mid 90s American cars and you get a real lackluster package.

I dont really think its fair that kleinbl00 keeps comparing mustangs to cars in completely separate price points. I like to look at the car as more of a complete package: (Power, weight, reliability )/ (Weight and price). But like I said about I dont think the mustang was a good contender using those metrics. But feel free to argue otherwise If you have a good reason why you think it was Id like to hear it.