05 GTs walked by Used Non-Modded Z28s

Im only buying one because I had a 2001 V6 and my dad wouldn't let me do anything to it so I sold it and now I orderd my 2006 GT. I dont plan on racing or anything like that, I just want some power and a nice looking car.

Thunder Road said:

YOu say GM made the GTO for next to nothing, yet it is stickered 5000+ more than a GT.

Click to expand...

Sorry was meaning in terms of development costs. This will have no bearing on MSRP as the GTO is a higher class of car than a GT, hence the price difference.


The same theory goes with the Ferrari Enzo and the Maserati MC12.

Essentially the Maserati is very similar to the Enzo underneath, this has allowed the MC 12 to be developed at a much lower cost as opposed to devleoping it from scratch. But it doesn't mean that the indivdual cost per unit (minus devleopment costs, just raw materials and man hours) is less than the Ferrari.



In the case of the GTO, GM didn't even have to develop it as it was already in production in Australia. Recent fuel tank relocation changes for the US market have added a greater cost factor but its still a very cheap development to the likes of the s197 GT which we are talking millions, and lots of them. I think there was a claim that buy sticking with a live rear saved $40 million on its own so just imagine how much the rest of the car cost.

Can anyone tell me why this matters?

Camaros and Firebirds were fast.
Some people like them, most don't.
Most people like the Mustang, some don't.
These are all factual proven by times and sales #'s.

What does it mean.

If you like your Camaro, god bless, take care and enjoy it.

If you expect any Mustang made to be the fastest car on the planet, IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. Doesn't mean you can't enjoy it and take pride in it.

Where is that blonde woman with the buzz to scream, STOP THE INSANITY.

that a 3rd gen camaro (yes the one your mullet haired neighbor has) with the right package (B4C, police edition) handles BETTER than a 4th gen! look at road racing or autocross results from the past few years and more often than not, it's a camaro that wins (with the exception of the Mach 1 and the Bullitt, no mustangs can compete in FS, the stock pony car class in autocrossing).

Click to expand...

YEP! 3rd gens rock! lol and no i dont have a mullet

My biggest problem with F-Bodies is the demographic of their buyers.

Far too many punk kids, white trash, and urban youth use it to fulfill their horribly undeveloped self-esteems. As such, people mod them to be loud and obnoxious, which often precedes or leads to dangerous highway racing. There is a reason why insurance rates on F-bodies for the 16-28 age group has historically been higher (last 10 years) than mustangs -- the buyer demographic drives them recklessly, which leads to accidents. Most industry insurance figures will provide this picture (at least any national company, like GEICO). The previous comment about the mullet wearing f-body driver is scarily close to the actual reality.

Every time I see 2 more f-bodies racing down the highway at 110 mph, I am reminded of 2 people CLOSE to me where one has a. been injured in a similar situation, in a T/A, and b. the other is now quite honestly a human vegetable (a la Terri Schavo) from driving his SS Camaro on a highway curve at a high speed. The car of course flipped over.

Both drivers were immature youths who, the moment they came into some money, bought the fastest car on the market for the money, and then drove it exactly as the car encourages you to drive it. Dropping that powerful engine into the seriously disadvantaged body/frame/chassis of the modern f-bodies was a mistake by GM; not everyone knows how to handle solid axle ****boxes, RWD, at 110 mph. Especially the youth market that GM specifically targeted.

I am of course generalizing, but that is the point of this post. Insurance rates alone on that age group are enough to support the generalization. Mustangs have, for the last 15 years at least, had a far more diverse ownership demographic, and a lower accident rate.

Did I mention that the build quality on those f-body cars sucks? While Mustangs are no strangers to squeaks and rattles, the years 1997-2004 as reported by Auto MSN, Consumer Reports, and similar publicaations have marked the V6 and GT Mustang an above average car in reliability. I have an older v6 myself (and an 05), and it is going strong at near 100K miles - no unscheduled maintanence has ever been done. In fact, the 2004 Mustang was THE most reliable domestic car last year, virtually tying the Honda Accord v6.

A quick look at CR for 1997-2002 f-body models will verify what every one who doesn't want to own an f-body already knows - reliability is "signfiicantly below average." (I have the CR almanac - used car guide) Piston slap, fuel injection problems, and transmission failures (especially on 97-99 models) are among the most common reported problems, well before 100,000 miles.

CR is not the end all be all, and does suffer from some adverse selection problems in its data pool, but the Mustang is on the same ground, making the comparison on equal footing.

If it seems like I am being hard on the f-body SS or T/A versions, I am. There are far too many problems with that car for it to be a daily driver, or anything but a drag strip racer (perhaps its horrible visibility or overly long front). I will always respect the engineering of the engines (no pun intended), but the cars dissapoint my sense of responsibility.

Just my 2 cents.

crazy_tejano said:

Far too many punk kids, white trash, and urban youth use it to fulfill their horribly undeveloped self-esteems.

Click to expand...

Right. Like the Fbodies have a monopoly on this kind of driver.

Everything you described as being inherent to F-Body drivers I've seen just as often in Mustangs and ricers. It comes with the territory of low-cost, high-performance vehicles.

If it seems like I am being hard on the f-body SS or T/A versions, I am. There are far too many problems with that car for it to be a daily driver, or anything but a drag strip racer (perhaps its horrible visibility or overly long front).

Click to expand...

Whatever. Don't tell that to my 2002 Z28 - I drive it daily except in bad weather. So do lots of other people. While you're certainly entitled to your opinion about F-Bodies, I'm also entitled to completely disagree with it.

jfischer, I agree with your right to disagree about agreeing to what he agreed to and agreeing that he agreed to disagree with his own agreement.

That being said, I happen to like the 2002 Z28 and the 2002 TA's. Didn't care for the Camaro's of late.

Regarding this quote from crazy_tejano -
"Far too many punk kids, white trash, and urban youth use it to fulfill their horribly undeveloped self-esteems" I completely agree with your statement "I've seen just as often in Mustangs and ricers. It comes with the territory of low-cost, high-performance vehicles."

Did I mention that the build quality on those f-body cars sucks? While Mustangs are no strangers to squeaks and rattles, the years 1997-2004 as reported by Auto MSN, Consumer Reports, and similar publicaations have marked the V6 and GT Mustang an above average car in reliability. I have an older v6 myself (and an 05), and it is going strong at near 100K miles - no unscheduled maintanence has ever been done. In fact, the 2004 Mustang was THE most reliable domestic car last year, virtually tying the Honda Accord v6.


A quick look at CR for 1997-2002 f-body models will verify what every one who doesn't want to own an f-body already knows - reliability is "signfiicantly below average." (I have the CR almanac - used car guide) Piston slap, fuel injection problems, and transmission failures (especially on 97-99 models) are among the most common reported problems, well before 100,000 miles.

Click to expand...

reliabilty has been fine for alot of people, just like in every kinda of car you might run into a few lemons, but for the most part, i havent heard of any reliabilty problems...

my 89 is now 16 years old and running just as good as it came from the factory, except for a small oil leak from the back of the manifold but thats expected after 140K miles. a little gasket work and its fine. the tranny held great till 135K miles
and you cant always go by those magazine articles either.. alot of the "consumers" are idiots who complain about stupid stuff like rattles and squeaks but thats what you get from subframes unibody design.

and the comment on the demographic buyers is a bunch of bull****.... i dont know, maybe its where you live, but around me i see respectable people driving these newer cars. the nicer versions of the Fbody are not usually driven by younger punks. the cheap 2-3grand junkers are usually picked up and beat on by young punks.

and i have seen tons of "redneks" in mustangs too so its not like its just a Fbody thing. everycar type will have its share of owners like this

LS1 cars are faster. That's a fact. Both cars have their ups & downs.

Mustang interior > F-body interior
F-body drivestrain > Mustang drivetrain

I owned an F-body for 3 years & just drove a 2005 GT yesterday & own my 93 GT.

End of story lets all move on now.

i kinda like the f body interior myself......but to me no stock interior is fine enough.

Yeah, The Trans Am is about pure POWER without mercy or grace.

If you want a low (very low) quartermile time right out of the box, then just get a Trans Am.