Not looking good for 2010

LV51FER · Jan 10, 2008

bigcat said:
it was a 4.6 supercharged...

I can't believe I didn't know that. Always assumed it was a Lightning engine. That'll teach me to read the specs.

Wasn't one of the reasons the Z28 was more expensive than the Mustang the fact that most of them came with T-tops. You don't often see the hardtop, at least I don't in the UK.

blacksheep06 · Jan 10, 2008

anticubicle said:
Agreed. The 3V is a great engine, responds really well to Forced induction or even just straight up bolt-ons but let's face it, a stock 5th Gen Camaro will likely give a bolt-on GT an ass-whooping.

Yip, we need bolt ons in 2008 just to get to where a stock LS1 was in 2002. Let them add a couple bolt ons and it's not a race.

I've surfed some LS1 forums and seen guys with nothing but bolt ons, cam, and tune pushing 400 rwhp.

GusinCA · Jan 10, 2008

Yeah, but I've seen lots of stock 2003-2008 Mustangs totally beat the pants off of 2003-2008 Camaros...

gashog · Jan 10, 2008

GusinCA said:
Yeah, but I've seen lots of stock 2003-2008 Mustangs totally beat the pants off of 2003-2008 Camaros...

GM will bring out the camaro again and it will die off in a few years. It will be faster. It will cost more. It won't be a huge hit, and you won't see them all over the road. Ford really detuned this motor we have now, I don't know what most of you are bitching about. With minor bolt ons several of you guys are getting into the 12s without forced induction.

I love my mustang. :SNSign:

The Fang · Jan 10, 2008

You know what I would like to see is a 3 valve 4.0.

GusinCA · Jan 10, 2008

The only performance difference i ouwld like to see is an option on the facotry option list that says "supercharger" and costs about $3,000.
This way I can choose. Do I want a "mild" V8 with 300 horsepower and used regular unleaded gasoline, or do I want something more?
Now I would be able to order my Mustang GT with a huge power increase which is both reliable, under warranty, and doesn't cost as much as a GT500.

red05bullitgt · Jan 10, 2008

05MGT said:
I hate to do this to you but shut up and put down your BS flag:

For 2002, The base coupe lists for $18,080, the convertible for $26,075. Z28 models retail for $22,495 for the coupe, and $29,590 for the Z28 convertible.
- Autotrader.com
http://www.autotrader.com/research/...e=CHEV&model=&refpage=&restype=used&year=2002

For 2002, Mustang buyers can now choose among the base V6 coupe ($17,305) or V6 convertible ($22,745), the V8 GT coupe ($22,965) or GT convertible ($27,220), the SVT Cobra coupe ($34,995) or SVT Cobra convertible ($36,995).
-autobuyguide.com
http://www.autobuyguide.com/2002/12-aut/ford/mustang/reviews/index.html

So, in fact, the Z28 is actually CHEAPER than the Mustang GT of the same year.
:Zip2:

So, the Z-28 is actually CHEAPER than the 2002 Mustang GT ehh !

Well according to: www.autobytel.com/content/research/archive/index.cfm/make_vch/Chevrolet/model_vch/Camaro/year_si/2002/action/SelectTrim

The base coupe lists for $18, 415, the base convertible for $26, 410. While the base Z-28 model lists for $22, 830.. followed by the Z-28 convertible for $29, 925

However, according to www.internetautoguide.com/reviews/09-int/2002/ford/mustang/index.html

The base coupe lists for $ 17, 305, the base convertible for $ 22, 745. While the base GT coupe lists for $22, 965, the GT convertible for $27, 220. Meanwhile the SVT. Cobra coupe lists for $34, 995 followed by the SVT. convertible for $36, 995

Although the base Z-28.. is just a mere $135.00 cheaper than the base Mustang GT.

The Z-28 convertible is.. $2, 705.00 more than the GT convertible.

In addition. the base V-6 Camaro is.. $1,110.00 more than the base Mustang coupe. While the base V-6 convertible is..$3, 665.00 more than the V-6 Mustang convertible.

That being said, the Mustang is by far.. your best overall, bang for the buck value. Hands down.

In which I don't need to post a BS flag to prove my point !

So here's your zip it..Right back at you :Zip2:

anticubicle · Jan 10, 2008

gashog said:
:I don't know what most of you are bitching about. With minor bolt ons several of you guys are getting into the 12s without forced induction.

I love my mustang. :SNSign:

Preach it brother!!! A few mods later and 12's!

anticubicle · Jan 10, 2008

blacksheep06 said:
Yip, we need bolt ons in 2008 just to get to where a stock LS1 was in 2002. Let them add a couple bolt ons and it's not a race.

I've surfed some LS1 forums and seen guys with nothing but bolt ons, cam, and tune pushing 400 rwhp.

Cams aren't exactly cheap you know...

GusinCA · Jan 10, 2008

But superchargers and fuel injectors are.

Just so I know, what does a stock 08 Automatic convertible with 18" rims do 0-60 and quarter mile? No guesses please, soes anyone have hard data?

stangdude2000 · Jan 10, 2008

I have no real numbers to contribute, but chances are that unless you are looking for a range, if you ask 10 people, you'll get 10 answers. As I'm sure you know, elevation, track conditions, weather, and driver skill can easily result in a second difference or more when you take two different people driving the same exact car at different times. Then there are always the factory freak cars.

GusinCA · Jan 11, 2008

Yeah, I guess sea level and 60-70 degrees or close to it and several cars equipped the same way will be the only definite answer.

mustang50v8 · Jan 11, 2008

i was just looking at that picture for a 3rd time and i noticed what looks to be pillar mounted gauges. i wonder what that could mean for future?

05MGT · Jan 11, 2008

red05bullitgt said:
So, the Z-28 is actually CHEAPER than the 2002 Mustang GT ehh !

Well according to: www.autobytel.com/content/research/archive/index.cfm/make_vch/Chevrolet/model_vch/Camaro/year_si/2002/action/SelectTrim

The base coupe lists for $18, 415, the base convertible for $26, 410. While the base Z-28 model lists for $22, 830.. followed by the Z-28 convertible for $29, 925

However, according to www.internetautoguide.com/reviews/09-int/2002/ford/mustang/index.html

The base coupe lists for $ 17, 305, the base convertible for $ 22, 745. While the base GT coupe lists for $22, 965, the GT convertible for $27, 220. Meanwhile the SVT. Cobra coupe lists for $34, 995 followed by the SVT. convertible for $36, 995

Although the base Z-28.. is just a mere $135.00 cheaper than the base Mustang GT.

The Z-28 convertible is.. $2, 705.00 more than the GT convertible.

In addition. the base V-6 Camaro is.. $1,110.00 more than the base Mustang coupe. While the base V-6 convertible is..$3, 665.00 more than the V-6 Mustang convertible.

That being said, the Mustang is by far.. your best overall, bang for the buck value. Hands down.

In which I don't need to post a BS flag to prove my point !

So here's your zip it..Right back at you :Zip2:

Ok fine. But anyway you hack it, my first statement that you challenged still stands true, that the Camaro was priced with the Mustang.
As far as bang for the buck, if you use hp per dollar the Z28 convertible (the most expensive one) is $96.50 per 1hp, the Mustang GT vert is $104.69 per 1hp....the difference would still be greater in the coupe variants seeing as though the Z28 is cheaper than the GT, again to coincide with my previouse 2 posts. You can twist and distort the facts however you want but as far as bang for the buck....the Z28 unfortunately did win. BUT, the Mustang won the war due to the fact that its more of a jack of all trades, user friendly, and just more popular. So, like I said....remove the BS flag please. It is not BS that the Mustang and Camaro were priced competitively.

blacksheep06 · Jan 11, 2008

anticubicle said:
Cams aren't exactly cheap you know...

I would consider them cheap compared to what it takes to get a 4.6 to 400 WHP.

In my neck of the woods cammed LS1's are a dime a dozen.

red05bullitgt · Jan 11, 2008

05MGT said:
Ok fine. But anyway you hack it, my first statement that you challenged still stands true, that the Camaro was priced with the Mustang.
As far as bang for the buck, if you use hp per dollar the Z28 convertible (the most expensive one) is $96.50 per 1hp, the Mustang GT vert is $104.69 per 1hp....the difference would still be greater in the coupe variants seeing as though the Z28 is cheaper than the GT, again to coincide with my previouse 2 posts. You can twist and distort the facts however you want but as far as bang for the buck....the Z28 unfortunately did win. BUT, the Mustang won the war due to the fact that its more of a jack of all trades, user friendly, and just more popular. So, like I said....remove the BS flag please. It is not BS that the Mustang and Camaro were priced competitively.

First of all, I haven't distorted anything. I clearly stated the facts just as autobytel.com and internetautoguide.com did. And even though the base Z-28 is just a mere $135.00 less than the 2002 Mustang GT. The Mustang GT. still remained the better overall value. As it was better equipped, including more standard features over the 2002 Z-28.

The fact also remains. the base V-6 and base convertible models, along with the Z-28 convertible. were extremely higher than the base Mustang, base convertible, and GT convertible.

stangdude2000 said:
One of the big things those numbers miss are the cost of the vehicles with options. as I recall, the Mustang was much better equipped than the Camaro, and the Camaro required around $1000 in options to be on the same playing field (not counting horsepower - which isn't an appeal to the masses.

Either way, the big price difference is the base price of the V6, especially the convertible. Even that $700 is a lot when you are talking about $18,000 cars - thats nearly 5%. When you have an extra $3300 for the Convert, thats an extra 15%. Thats the main reason why the Camaro died out. Remember back then, V6's made up approximated 70% of Mustangs sold. I believe from 2005 til very recently, 50%+ were GTs.

As for what I said, about the Mustang being your best overall, bang for the buck value.. I wasn't referring to just horsepower. I was also referring to overall quality/standard equipment options, and practicality.

The bottom line is..If my only concern were horsepower. I'd own a Z-28 instead of a Mustang. But the point is.. I've remained a loyal Ford and Mustang owner, due to the fact I want and expect more than just raw horsepower. I also want practical quality as well.

That being said.. if you choose to justify to yourself, that the Z-28 is the better bang for the buck value. Then good for you.

However the facts, speak for themselves. So please put down your zip it flag.

For I've once again proven my point, and have nothing to debate further !

anticubicle · Jan 12, 2008

GusinCA said:
But superchargers and fuel injectors are.

Just so I know, what does a stock 08 Automatic convertible with 18" rims do 0-60 and quarter mile? No guesses please, soes anyone have hard data?

Hard data isn't easy to come by when there are so many variables to take into consideration. Weather, Track Prep, Elevation, Driver and the actual car itself. Believe it or not, not every Mustang GT that rolls off of Ford's assembly line is going to perform exactly like the one before or after it.

ranger04 · Jan 12, 2008

I would,'t put a lot of stock in that article. First off, the 4.0 is going to be replaced with the 3.5. With the death of the ranger, they won't leave the stang as the odd man out with the 4.0 and it's cheaper if all fords cars run the same V-6, Also blue oval news reported that the 3.5 will be in the stang a round 2010. Also read yesterday that a dual turbo 3.5 will be comming out with 340 hp. Second of all, ford is building a 351 or 5.8 for you metric guy's for the stang. Blue oval news didn't say if the 351 will be the base gt engine, or an option, or special edtion stang engine.With the new CAFE

ranger04 · Jan 12, 2008

The thing posted before I was done. Anyway, with the new CAFE laws, I would say the 351 would be a special edtion motor instead of the base engine. However, if it was put into the stang, that means we could pick one up as a create motor if we wanted. Things aren't as beak as they may seem. Also the new CAFE laws may have GM and chrysler rethinking there muscle cars.

stangdude2000 · Jan 12, 2008

As interesting as it would be, I don't think a twin turbo 3.5 would make its way into a Mustang. Obviously they can't put it in a GT because you can't make a Mustang without the option of a V8, and they can't put 340 hp into the base model unless the GT is making 400+. Maybe a special edition SVO-style mustang? What does the N/A version of the 3.6 make? They should give the base Mustang an engine that puts out 250hp or so.

Not looking good for 2010

LV51FER

New Member

blacksheep06

New Member

GusinCA

gashog

Member

The Fang

Member

GusinCA

red05bullitgt

Member

anticubicle

New Member

anticubicle

New Member

GusinCA

stangdude2000

GusinCA

mustang50v8

Member

05MGT

New Member

blacksheep06

New Member

red05bullitgt

Member

anticubicle

New Member

ranger04

New Member

ranger04

New Member

stangdude2000

Similar threads

Not looking good for 2010

New Member

New Member

Member

Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency