LV51FER
New Member
it was a 4.6 supercharged...
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.
it was a 4.6 supercharged...
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.
Yeah, but I've seen lots of stock 2003-2008 Mustangs totally beat the pants off of 2003-2008 Camaros...
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:
: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:
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.
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:
Cams aren't exactly cheap you know...
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.
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.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?