Correlation – Nice car, nice house

[joec]

[quote=Ricechex][quote=barnaby33]NTSD, why does it matter. There is an E-5 who lives below me, but he drives a 7 series. Its so he can look fly when he drives his girl to Denny’s to order off the dollar menu. Differing priorities.

Either that or you’ve stumbled upon a lair of real estate agents and loan brokers. Ah faded glory.
Josh[/quote]
LOL! So true! I worked on a base for 12 years, and it was a daily occurrence with low ranking, young enlisted guys, driving in brand new NICE cars asking for directions to Navy Relief. (I was tempted to sell them my 1995 Mazda Protege sitting in the parking lot….may have worked better for them…)[/quote]

I think some guys also need/want cars because they are out trying to meet someone/pick someone up. Sorta hard if you either don’t even have a car and the girl has to drive you around (or you ride a motorcycle)…OR…your car doesn’t even have aircon or can barely move/start. Not a fun date if you’re sweating profusely to wherever you want to go. We can all say the girls you want to meet shouldn’t care, but let’s not kid ourselves. I think for everyone, there are at least some minimum standards.

For a lot of the married folks here, of course, your priorities are different and it doesn’t make sense, but maybe think back 5, 10, 20 years when you were single. It’s tough enough now to meet folks as seen by how busy folks are and the proliferation of all the dating sites out there.

As they also say, the type of car you drive says a lot about you. When I was driving my beat up car, I had multiple people tell me that the car told others that I was cheap…I don’t think it helped. 🙂

Congrats on your 90k car! Enjoy it since if (when/never) you are married w/ kids, you simply won’t want to put your resources there (for most of us, our resources are limited). Not to mention, with kids, a lot of folks here probably want to save for their kid’s college, our own retirement, earlier retirement, stay at home spouse, etc…

Sorta nice to enjoy it when you’re young since your expenses are low, you don’t “need” a house (or space and no nesting instinct)…

Just look at all the Porsche 911 owners on the street, unless they are making bank, most are in the 50s+. I rarely see a young Porsche owner.

[ucodegen]

[quote Werewolf]
I don’t think the Expedition example works b/c Expeditions aren’t driven the same way as the Mustangs are (I hope). Also aren’t Expeditions built on F150 frames? I think the F150 is built ‘Ford tough’ while a Ford car may not be
[/quote]

I would have to disagree here. I allowed for ‘abuse’ in driving behavior on Mustangs(clutch drops -etc) by referencing where Ford has placed independent rear suspension on a heavier vehicle. Heavier vehicles generate more stress on a driveline. Between street-hot-rodders and off-roaders, offroaders break more driveline components.. and Expeditions come in 4×4 variants.
The Expedition is a frame based, but it is not the F150.. That would be the Excursion which is F150. The Expedition derives from the F150 frame.

Also remember that the Thunderbirds from late 1980s to mid 1990s were also independent rear suspension. It can be done on a monocoque chassis – which the Mustang is, but the Expedition is not.

[quote Werewolf]
The Camaro is not a fair example b/c it’s a redeveloped product that was previously uncompetitive.
[/quote]
The Mustang was also redeveloped in 2005 – at which point they had a chance to add it. It is really not that hard to add it to the existing platform as well. There is enough room to take from under the back seats for most of the components.

[quote Werewolf]
Ford money guys focused on other things (Volvo, Jag, other brands) and other markets.
[/quote]
Jag is no longer owned by Ford (sold 2008). While owned by Ford, Ford could have blended some aspects of the Jag S body and the Mustang. They are about the same size. It turns out that originally the Mustang was to use the S type platform (known as DEW98) when the redesign occurred for 2005, but the plan was dropped. The DEW98 platform is 4 wheel independent double wishbone vs the D2C(which the Mustang currently uses) is a MacPherson front, 3 link live axle rear. Even though the DEW98 platform was dropped, significant portions were brought over to the D2C platform (which begs the question why not the independent rear suspension)
Volvo is no longer owned by Ford either (sold 2010)
Auston Martin is no longer owned by Ford (sold 2007)

[quote Werewolf]
Regarding the driveline stress, are you considering the aspect of sudden change / stress? I.E. is a stoplight clutchdrop start the same as pushing 2-3 tons of SUV or towing a boat?
[/quote]
Yes.. Pulling the boat can actually be worse, particularly if the vehicle has 4 wheel drive. Most 4 wheel drive systems have a ‘low’ gear in the transfer case that more than doubles the torque while halving the speed. The Expeditions crawl ratio is about 41:1. With an engine producing 365lb-ft of torque, the axle torque comes in at 14,965ft-lbs, which if applied to a mustang with perfect traction and weighing about 4,000lbs – would accelerate the Mustang at almost 4Gs – until you redline. The reality of it is that very few tires can support 1G before losing traction.

[quote Werewolf]
I would love the Stang to have IRS but a combination of tradition and pennypinching will block it
[/quote]
I think it is mostly the latter. Too many people still buy on style only.

[ucodegen]

[quote Werewolf]
I don’t think the Expedition example works b/c Expeditions aren’t driven the same way as the Mustangs are (I hope). Also aren’t Expeditions built on F150 frames? I think the F150 is built ‘Ford tough’ while a Ford car may not be
[/quote]

I would have to disagree here. I allowed for ‘abuse’ in driving behavior on Mustangs(clutch drops -etc) by referencing where Ford has placed independent rear suspension on a heavier vehicle. Heavier vehicles generate more stress on a driveline. Between street-hot-rodders and off-roaders, offroaders break more driveline components.. and Expeditions come in 4×4 variants.
The Expedition is a frame based, but it is not the F150.. That would be the Excursion which is F150. The Expedition derives from the F150 frame.

Also remember that the Thunderbirds from late 1980s to mid 1990s were also independent rear suspension. It can be done on a monocoque chassis – which the Mustang is, but the Expedition is not.

[quote Werewolf]
The Camaro is not a fair example b/c it’s a redeveloped product that was previously uncompetitive.
[/quote]
The Mustang was also redeveloped in 2005 – at which point they had a chance to add it. It is really not that hard to add it to the existing platform as well. There is enough room to take from under the back seats for most of the components.

[quote Werewolf]
Ford money guys focused on other things (Volvo, Jag, other brands) and other markets.
[/quote]
Jag is no longer owned by Ford (sold 2008). While owned by Ford, Ford could have blended some aspects of the Jag S body and the Mustang. They are about the same size. It turns out that originally the Mustang was to use the S type platform (known as DEW98) when the redesign occurred for 2005, but the plan was dropped. The DEW98 platform is 4 wheel independent double wishbone vs the D2C(which the Mustang currently uses) is a MacPherson front, 3 link live axle rear. Even though the DEW98 platform was dropped, significant portions were brought over to the D2C platform (which begs the question why not the independent rear suspension)
Volvo is no longer owned by Ford either (sold 2010)
Auston Martin is no longer owned by Ford (sold 2007)

[quote Werewolf]
Regarding the driveline stress, are you considering the aspect of sudden change / stress? I.E. is a stoplight clutchdrop start the same as pushing 2-3 tons of SUV or towing a boat?
[/quote]
Yes.. Pulling the boat can actually be worse, particularly if the vehicle has 4 wheel drive. Most 4 wheel drive systems have a ‘low’ gear in the transfer case that more than doubles the torque while halving the speed. The Expeditions crawl ratio is about 41:1. With an engine producing 365lb-ft of torque, the axle torque comes in at 14,965ft-lbs, which if applied to a mustang with perfect traction and weighing about 4,000lbs – would accelerate the Mustang at almost 4Gs – until you redline. The reality of it is that very few tires can support 1G before losing traction.

[quote Werewolf]
I would love the Stang to have IRS but a combination of tradition and pennypinching will block it
[/quote]
I think it is mostly the latter. Too many people still buy on style only.

[ucodegen]

[quote Werewolf]
I don’t think the Expedition example works b/c Expeditions aren’t driven the same way as the Mustangs are (I hope). Also aren’t Expeditions built on F150 frames? I think the F150 is built ‘Ford tough’ while a Ford car may not be
[/quote]

I would have to disagree here. I allowed for ‘abuse’ in driving behavior on Mustangs(clutch drops -etc) by referencing where Ford has placed independent rear suspension on a heavier vehicle. Heavier vehicles generate more stress on a driveline. Between street-hot-rodders and off-roaders, offroaders break more driveline components.. and Expeditions come in 4×4 variants.
The Expedition is a frame based, but it is not the F150.. That would be the Excursion which is F150. The Expedition derives from the F150 frame.

Also remember that the Thunderbirds from late 1980s to mid 1990s were also independent rear suspension. It can be done on a monocoque chassis – which the Mustang is, but the Expedition is not.

[quote Werewolf]
The Camaro is not a fair example b/c it’s a redeveloped product that was previously uncompetitive.
[/quote]
The Mustang was also redeveloped in 2005 – at which point they had a chance to add it. It is really not that hard to add it to the existing platform as well. There is enough room to take from under the back seats for most of the components.

[quote Werewolf]
Ford money guys focused on other things (Volvo, Jag, other brands) and other markets.
[/quote]
Jag is no longer owned by Ford (sold 2008). While owned by Ford, Ford could have blended some aspects of the Jag S body and the Mustang. They are about the same size. It turns out that originally the Mustang was to use the S type platform (known as DEW98) when the redesign occurred for 2005, but the plan was dropped. The DEW98 platform is 4 wheel independent double wishbone vs the D2C(which the Mustang currently uses) is a MacPherson front, 3 link live axle rear. Even though the DEW98 platform was dropped, significant portions were brought over to the D2C platform (which begs the question why not the independent rear suspension)
Volvo is no longer owned by Ford either (sold 2010)
Auston Martin is no longer owned by Ford (sold 2007)

[quote Werewolf]
Regarding the driveline stress, are you considering the aspect of sudden change / stress? I.E. is a stoplight clutchdrop start the same as pushing 2-3 tons of SUV or towing a boat?
[/quote]
Yes.. Pulling the boat can actually be worse, particularly if the vehicle has 4 wheel drive. Most 4 wheel drive systems have a ‘low’ gear in the transfer case that more than doubles the torque while halving the speed. The Expeditions crawl ratio is about 41:1. With an engine producing 365lb-ft of torque, the axle torque comes in at 14,965ft-lbs, which if applied to a mustang with perfect traction and weighing about 4,000lbs – would accelerate the Mustang at almost 4Gs – until you redline. The reality of it is that very few tires can support 1G before losing traction.

[quote Werewolf]
I would love the Stang to have IRS but a combination of tradition and pennypinching will block it
[/quote]
I think it is mostly the latter. Too many people still buy on style only.

[ucodegen]

[quote Werewolf]
I don’t think the Expedition example works b/c Expeditions aren’t driven the same way as the Mustangs are (I hope). Also aren’t Expeditions built on F150 frames? I think the F150 is built ‘Ford tough’ while a Ford car may not be
[/quote]

I would have to disagree here. I allowed for ‘abuse’ in driving behavior on Mustangs(clutch drops -etc) by referencing where Ford has placed independent rear suspension on a heavier vehicle. Heavier vehicles generate more stress on a driveline. Between street-hot-rodders and off-roaders, offroaders break more driveline components.. and Expeditions come in 4×4 variants.
The Expedition is a frame based, but it is not the F150.. That would be the Excursion which is F150. The Expedition derives from the F150 frame.

Also remember that the Thunderbirds from late 1980s to mid 1990s were also independent rear suspension. It can be done on a monocoque chassis – which the Mustang is, but the Expedition is not.

[quote Werewolf]
The Camaro is not a fair example b/c it’s a redeveloped product that was previously uncompetitive.
[/quote]
The Mustang was also redeveloped in 2005 – at which point they had a chance to add it. It is really not that hard to add it to the existing platform as well. There is enough room to take from under the back seats for most of the components.

[quote Werewolf]
Ford money guys focused on other things (Volvo, Jag, other brands) and other markets.
[/quote]
Jag is no longer owned by Ford (sold 2008). While owned by Ford, Ford could have blended some aspects of the Jag S body and the Mustang. They are about the same size. It turns out that originally the Mustang was to use the S type platform (known as DEW98) when the redesign occurred for 2005, but the plan was dropped. The DEW98 platform is 4 wheel independent double wishbone vs the D2C(which the Mustang currently uses) is a MacPherson front, 3 link live axle rear. Even though the DEW98 platform was dropped, significant portions were brought over to the D2C platform (which begs the question why not the independent rear suspension)
Volvo is no longer owned by Ford either (sold 2010)
Auston Martin is no longer owned by Ford (sold 2007)

[quote Werewolf]
Regarding the driveline stress, are you considering the aspect of sudden change / stress? I.E. is a stoplight clutchdrop start the same as pushing 2-3 tons of SUV or towing a boat?
[/quote]
Yes.. Pulling the boat can actually be worse, particularly if the vehicle has 4 wheel drive. Most 4 wheel drive systems have a ‘low’ gear in the transfer case that more than doubles the torque while halving the speed. The Expeditions crawl ratio is about 41:1. With an engine producing 365lb-ft of torque, the axle torque comes in at 14,965ft-lbs, which if applied to a mustang with perfect traction and weighing about 4,000lbs – would accelerate the Mustang at almost 4Gs – until you redline. The reality of it is that very few tires can support 1G before losing traction.

[quote Werewolf]
I would love the Stang to have IRS but a combination of tradition and pennypinching will block it
[/quote]
I think it is mostly the latter. Too many people still buy on style only.

[ucodegen]

[quote Werewolf]
I don’t think the Expedition example works b/c Expeditions aren’t driven the same way as the Mustangs are (I hope). Also aren’t Expeditions built on F150 frames? I think the F150 is built ‘Ford tough’ while a Ford car may not be
[/quote]

I would have to disagree here. I allowed for ‘abuse’ in driving behavior on Mustangs(clutch drops -etc) by referencing where Ford has placed independent rear suspension on a heavier vehicle. Heavier vehicles generate more stress on a driveline. Between street-hot-rodders and off-roaders, offroaders break more driveline components.. and Expeditions come in 4×4 variants.
The Expedition is a frame based, but it is not the F150.. That would be the Excursion which is F150. The Expedition derives from the F150 frame.

Also remember that the Thunderbirds from late 1980s to mid 1990s were also independent rear suspension. It can be done on a monocoque chassis – which the Mustang is, but the Expedition is not.

[quote Werewolf]
The Camaro is not a fair example b/c it’s a redeveloped product that was previously uncompetitive.
[/quote]
The Mustang was also redeveloped in 2005 – at which point they had a chance to add it. It is really not that hard to add it to the existing platform as well. There is enough room to take from under the back seats for most of the components.

[quote Werewolf]
Ford money guys focused on other things (Volvo, Jag, other brands) and other markets.
[/quote]
Jag is no longer owned by Ford (sold 2008). While owned by Ford, Ford could have blended some aspects of the Jag S body and the Mustang. They are about the same size. It turns out that originally the Mustang was to use the S type platform (known as DEW98) when the redesign occurred for 2005, but the plan was dropped. The DEW98 platform is 4 wheel independent double wishbone vs the D2C(which the Mustang currently uses) is a MacPherson front, 3 link live axle rear. Even though the DEW98 platform was dropped, significant portions were brought over to the D2C platform (which begs the question why not the independent rear suspension)
Volvo is no longer owned by Ford either (sold 2010)
Auston Martin is no longer owned by Ford (sold 2007)

[quote Werewolf]
Regarding the driveline stress, are you considering the aspect of sudden change / stress? I.E. is a stoplight clutchdrop start the same as pushing 2-3 tons of SUV or towing a boat?
[/quote]
Yes.. Pulling the boat can actually be worse, particularly if the vehicle has 4 wheel drive. Most 4 wheel drive systems have a ‘low’ gear in the transfer case that more than doubles the torque while halving the speed. The Expeditions crawl ratio is about 41:1. With an engine producing 365lb-ft of torque, the axle torque comes in at 14,965ft-lbs, which if applied to a mustang with perfect traction and weighing about 4,000lbs – would accelerate the Mustang at almost 4Gs – until you redline. The reality of it is that very few tires can support 1G before losing traction.

[quote Werewolf]
I would love the Stang to have IRS but a combination of tradition and pennypinching will block it
[/quote]
I think it is mostly the latter. Too many people still buy on style only.

[davelj]

[quote=Aecetia]For many people appearance is more important than substance or financial stability.[/quote]

Yes, and for many customers of various services – real estate, financial, etc. – that service provider’s appearance is more important than the substance of what s/he is saying (or doing). That’s a simple fact. Unfortunately.

There’s a reason that many folks (professionals and non-professionals alike) drive nicer cars that their compensation affords them: the people they’re trying to impress (or persuade) buy into the superficiality often enough to make it worth the extra cost.

In too many cases “faking it until making it” works because too many people can’t see through the guise.

To quote PT Barnum, “A sucker’s born every minute.”

[davelj]

[quote=Aecetia]For many people appearance is more important than substance or financial stability.[/quote]

Yes, and for many customers of various services – real estate, financial, etc. – that service provider’s appearance is more important than the substance of what s/he is saying (or doing). That’s a simple fact. Unfortunately.

There’s a reason that many folks (professionals and non-professionals alike) drive nicer cars that their compensation affords them: the people they’re trying to impress (or persuade) buy into the superficiality often enough to make it worth the extra cost.

In too many cases “faking it until making it” works because too many people can’t see through the guise.

To quote PT Barnum, “A sucker’s born every minute.”

[davelj]

[quote=Aecetia]For many people appearance is more important than substance or financial stability.[/quote]

Yes, and for many customers of various services – real estate, financial, etc. – that service provider’s appearance is more important than the substance of what s/he is saying (or doing). That’s a simple fact. Unfortunately.

There’s a reason that many folks (professionals and non-professionals alike) drive nicer cars that their compensation affords them: the people they’re trying to impress (or persuade) buy into the superficiality often enough to make it worth the extra cost.

In too many cases “faking it until making it” works because too many people can’t see through the guise.

To quote PT Barnum, “A sucker’s born every minute.”

[davelj]

[quote=Aecetia]For many people appearance is more important than substance or financial stability.[/quote]

Yes, and for many customers of various services – real estate, financial, etc. – that service provider’s appearance is more important than the substance of what s/he is saying (or doing). That’s a simple fact. Unfortunately.

There’s a reason that many folks (professionals and non-professionals alike) drive nicer cars that their compensation affords them: the people they’re trying to impress (or persuade) buy into the superficiality often enough to make it worth the extra cost.

In too many cases “faking it until making it” works because too many people can’t see through the guise.

To quote PT Barnum, “A sucker’s born every minute.”

[davelj]

[quote=Aecetia]For many people appearance is more important than substance or financial stability.[/quote]

Yes, and for many customers of various services – real estate, financial, etc. – that service provider’s appearance is more important than the substance of what s/he is saying (or doing). That’s a simple fact. Unfortunately.

There’s a reason that many folks (professionals and non-professionals alike) drive nicer cars that their compensation affords them: the people they’re trying to impress (or persuade) buy into the superficiality often enough to make it worth the extra cost.

In too many cases “faking it until making it” works because too many people can’t see through the guise.

To quote PT Barnum, “A sucker’s born every minute.”

[Author]

Posts