SLPowerZ

nah, its deep as hell. the flowmaster catback on his stang sounds much better than the flowmaster did on my car. my car sounds meaner now w/ the lm but has less tone

red9450

Now I know that this is a camaro site, and I'm the black sheep of the group, but ya'll talk like the mustang has nothing goin for it. I mean, there's a reason that the mustang is still in production. Greater appeal across the board. Amazing aftermarket, and as far as slow, the 99-up GTs are as fast as an LT1, and the cobras and mach 1s are pretty close to your average SS speed. The only period that the mustangs lacked was 94-98 with the SN-95 body, but as you see that problem has been solved . And that was really only the GTs. The cobras were rated at 305hp, and performed along the lines of the Zs for those years. The only reason that the Camaro aftermarket's as big as it is: because they still use the 350. Great engine, as the LS1 has proven. Sorry for the rant, I know that no one wants to hear this, but I felt I must put up a small fight.

archemedes

it sells because it's a v8 for under 30 grand the camaro was priced too high, and as for performance ford has been a generation behind since the small block chevy was introduced, the cobra and mach 1 perform sure but look at the price you just doubled the cost of teh car and they can't perform with the cars in the class that puts them in. I had an opertunity to drive a mustang with an experimental engine (friend of mines dad is an engineer at the engine facility) it performed decent,but reliability was poor (they blew up a dozen in city traffic) and cost was outrageous they said a mustang would sell around $65,000 with it and it couldn't hang with the c5 vette

red9450

OK?

meissen

Just for the record, I'm just debating, not arguing or trying to flame you. The one thing I would like to point out tho, is that you say the 99 and up GTs are as fast as an LT1, which is a good generation behind like Archemedes said. The Cobras are a lot more expensive and performaned along the lines of a "basic" v8 model Camaro. I'm not knowledgeable when it comes to Mustangs at all, were the Mach 1's and Cobras from Ford or was it a different company like those Rousche (sp?) mustangs? Just tryin to understand the different levels of Mustangs.

NCamaro94

cobra was aftermarket from SVT. just like the new gt 500 is aftermarket from shelby

meissen

So let's compare Cobra to Berger...

SOMBirdV6

I dislike stangs but they are muscle cars so they get my likin when they do what all muscle cars do and whoop up on the imports! But to me its almost as if Ford has to put a Turbo/SC on there V8 Stangs just to make them fast...aka cobra r, new gt500 i belive? and some others i dunno to me a REAL TRU muscle car is all motor not some turbo/sc u do that later after its urs not factory just doesnt make it a tru muscle car. Like at Chevy they ZL1s came 600hp all motor...why cant ford do that without a turbo/sc? But again its still american muscle and thats the only reason why i care.

69z-28

mustangs and camaros arent really "muscle cars" in my eyes. but muscle cars were only a few years and only a few cars could really be put into that category. i agree tho, Ford is putting forced induction on anything they can grab, and they still arent all that crazy fast. Chevy is STILL doing it conventionally(sp) with 8 cylinders, single cam,16 valves and pushrods, and look what they are getting into with LS2's and whatnot already. when chevy puts their mind to "performance" it truly IS performance, that his been perfected and is still being upgraded every year, like everone said Ford has some good ideas but they are WAY behind. just my own opinion.

RFF

An 04 GT will run with a 93 Z28, now is it just me or does that seem screwed up? Ford has always had appeal because of style, price, and marketing.

meissen

haha yeah. Everyone bought mustangs at my HS because it's "popular." I had a handful of friends that wanted them, and then when I told them about the performance aspects, they bought fbodies instead.

archemedes

svt is part of ford it's like gm performance

camaro94

I'm just not big on mustangs, never have been. The only few that I have ever seen that make an exception to the rule are some older ones. But that's it.

archemedes

I had a 67 for about 3 hours dragged it home and some guy offered twice what I paid for it

red9450

There is too much wrong with all of your statements to go through this, but i'll try, because i have nothing else ot do. lol
First: 87-93 lx and GTs would whoop up on the same year camaro, trans-am, AND vette.
So I wouldn't say that The mustang was always behind.

The problem with comparing a Z-28 and GT, and Then Cobra to SS price tag wise is that The SS is little more than some basic suspension, badges, appearance, and a minor tweak or two. The cobra has a completely different engine, and IRS appearance and so on. Hence price tag. so The "basic" z, is almost the same engine wise as the SS, meissentation. And if you want to compare Aftermarket, compare a Saleen S-351 to berger. Both limited production, where-as the cobra was made by the thousands.

NCamaro94- "cobra was aftermarket from SVT. just like the new gt 500 is aftermarket from shelby." Incorrect. SVT is a division of ford that makes high performance in mass quantities. The new Cobra will be produced by them as well. There is no aftermarket involved.

Slvrv6camaro- No cobra R came with forced induction, it was 385hp N/A. No V-8 stangs came with turbochargers, and a supercharger like ford uses is a positive displacement supercharger which is the same as adding cubic inches. Anyone on this board using forced induction doesn't feel bad when they run into a car that is N/A and they blow their doors off, do they? No. most people, if they don't already have some sort of forced induction, would love to get it, and ford did just that. Gave people what they wanted from the factory; 400hp, all forged internals, a 6spd. and handling to go with it. and for those that complain that it is still unfair the cobra R proved that the power potential was there naturally aspirated, or in mass production form the Mach 1 is available.

69-z28---- Ford is way behind. that statement couldn't be further from the truth. Chevy still uses pushrods(which i love working with, but still very dated technology) Ford has the same technology that the "amazing" s2000 uses. nearly 100hp per liter, by using overhead cams, variable valve timing, and an engine that is nearly a liter smaller than the 350.

Rockford fosgate fan- your statement can be said as this as well- 1987 lx can run with a 1992 z28 or Vette, or a 1993 cobra can run with a 1997 z28, or a 1999 GT can run with a 1997 z28. You just took the furthest of the two extremes, and I'm trying to put it into perspective that they arent that far apart. Granted the LS1 was one hell of an engine, but, before the introduction of the LS1, ford for the most part had no problem keeping up, and when the ls1 did debut, the 5 liter aftermarket was so big that most of the cars out there that people put some money into were up to speed anyway. I agree that ford has always had appeal for those reasons, one of the reasons I bought mine.

As far as some peoples opinion of just plain not liking them, I can respect that, and have no recourse for that. (END OF RANT)