Could a decade have been any better for us? The ’90s simply gave us some of the best performance cars ever.
Performance was up. Drivability issues were down. You could easily work on things in your own garage. No giant infotainment screens. The market catered to those who preferred shifting their own gears. The average enthusiast could, in short, buy …
Huh, conspicuous lack of Suzuki X-90 on that list. Maybe it's No. 9?
I would disagree on calling the camaro more advanced than the mustang, or at least say the discussion is much more nuanced.
Sure, the Fbodies got a torque arm and 6 speed manual trans, but in 1996 the mustangs got overhead cams, with the cobra having 4v DOHC. Additionally, the chassis for the 4th gen was more of an update to the 3rd gen chassis, which dates back to 1982 (vs the 78 fairmont for the fox platform) Though I will grant you that the torque arm helped the camaro.
Both had their share of success, but the mustang was lighter!
How did the FD RX7 not make the list? Talk about quintessential 90's car.
maschinenbau said:Huh, conspicuous lack of Suzuki X-90 on that list. Maybe it's No. 9?
The X-90 is getting its own feature. :)
theruleslawyer said:How did the FD RX7 not make the list? Talk about quintessential 90's car.
Perhaps they wanted to limit it to one per manufacturer, and leaving out the Miata would be hard to justify?
That said, IMHO the FD is more in keeping with the kinds of cars this magazine and forum are into than the Supra. The Supra is iconic and has been made very fast indeed, but it's not a driver's car in the same way as the RX-7.
Oh, one other comment about the Camaros -- perhaps it's just me, but I found the A-pillar is really in the way. I test drove a couple F-bodies in the 90s and every time I got in or out of the car I would hit my head on that A-pillar. Same thing with the GTO 10 years later...
I understand passing over the FD for the Miata.
But I don't like it.
I kinda wish the project to put a Duratec into an FD actually turned into a Lincoln.
Worst car of the decade to me as the BMW M3 with the auto shifting manual. Only car I got motion sickness just driving it. What a horrible implementation of a technology.
Seriously you need to replace the 4th Gen Camaro/Firebird on this list and replace it with the C5 Corvette.
deaconblue said:Seriously you need to replace the 4th Gen Camaro/Firebird on this list and replace it with the C5 Corvette.
I would argue C5 is really more of a "2000s car" than 90s, even if it came out in '97.
I guess I'm doing OK: I owned a Laguna Blue 94 Miata, a Jazz Blue 97 GTI VR6, and still own a 98 M3/4/5 in Alpine White. It's an amazingly 'connected' feeling car for being such a practical sedan. I autocrossed it and had 2 kids seats in the back!
I have to hang on to this one!
-Paul
No one has an ugly baby:)
I have yet to drive a Miata of any generation. I am not proud of this, I don't know how it happened, I lose sleep over it. I almost bought a 91, showed up with the cash and everything, but the deal fell through. Its embarassing.
So as an owner of a 1990 Mustang I should protest but I have now driven it enough to realize it's an 80s car.
David S. Wallens said:maschinenbau said:Huh, conspicuous lack of Suzuki X-90 on that list. Maybe it's No. 9?
The X-90 is getting its own feature. :)
Are you going to draw straws on who has to drive it? It might be possibly the worst-handling Miata-shaped thing ever made. Hoping to make it even worse this weekend with a lift kit and tires.
Tom1200 said:So as an owner of a 1990 Mustang I should protest but I have now driven it enough to realize it's an 80s car.
...if not a late '70s car :)
In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :
It does drive a lot like my Datsun.......
Apexcarver said:I would disagree on calling the camaro more advanced than the mustang, or at least say the discussion is much more nuanced.
Sure, the Fbodies got a torque arm and 6 speed manual trans, but in 1996 the mustangs got overhead cams, with the cobra having 4v DOHC. Additionally, the chassis for the 4th gen was more of an update to the 3rd gen chassis, which dates back to 1982 (vs the 78 fairmont for the fox platform) Though I will grant you that the torque arm helped the camaro.
Both had their share of success, but the mustang was lighter!
this is the mustang boy I know.
In reply to Patrick :
Much love
I had a fourth gen Camero for a while. It was a terrible thing to drive, but ask it to go quickly in a straight line and it understood. That was all it could do.
I shed no tears when I tore it apart to put the good stuff into another chassis.
I agree that the FD would have been a much better choice, as would one of the AWD rally weapons - although those didn't really make it to the US until the 90s were done. But the Impreza Turbo, the Evo and the Skyline were legends long before they got here.
Am I the only one wondering what numbers 6-8 are?
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Yes :)
pinchvalve (Forum Supporter) said:I have yet to drive a Miata of any generation. I am not proud of this, I don't know how it happened, I lose sleep over it. I almost bought a 91, showed up with the cash and everything, but the deal fell through. Its embarassing.
Well, if you're ever around CT, I've got a NA and a ND you're welcome to take for a spin.
In reply to Apexcarver :
To be fair, the Camaro STILL doesn't have an ohc engine.
ShawnG said:In reply to Apexcarver :
To be fair, the Camaro STILL doesn't have an ohc engine.
Well, there wasn't a Camaro from 2003-2008 and they aren't going to make a 2025, well aside from a new SUV version... At least mustang is still moving forward.
You'll need to log in to post.
