Originally posted by: LsDPulsar
God, how you people spout completely incorrect information.
The mach 1 engine is the Cobra (SVT) engine from the previous year (2002). It is an aluminum block dual overhead cam 4 valve that turns out a rated 305 horsepower but is actually closer to 315. Because it is not blown (no supercharger) that torque is not delivered as evenly as a blown engine would be, but it's a damn fun car to drive.
The SVT Cobra is a cast iron block engine rather than an aluminum block. it is heavier, but puts out a rated 390 horsepower, while being alot closer to 420 at the flywell, for somewhere in the neighborhood of 365 at the rear wheels. IF you swap the pulley on the supercharger to a smaller pulley, add a performance chip to change the A/F ratio, remove the exhaust, add a free flowing cold airfilter or a ram induction setup, and add nitrous on top of that, ONE car has managed to reach 720 rear wheel horsepower, though how long the engine will last is anyones guess.
A quick pulley + chip + exhaust modification will net you approximately 550 flyweel or about 500 rear wheel horsepower.
Well, so you're saying that I'm "totally wrong" because I didn't say that the Mach 1's engine was cast aluminum instead of iron? All I know is that the SVT and Mach 1 shared the new engine tech(DOHC 4.8 V8), and my "300HP" was an ESTIMATE. I was too lazy to go look up the specific "305" number, but I had been at Ford's website looking at the Stang's and remembered 3 zero something. Far as I can tell, this does not qualify me as "totally wrong"
Furthermore, I am *not* incorrect when talking about the whp achieved by someone on the mustang. Someone achieved over 700rwhp with only modifications to the supercharging unit itself and belts, without doing anything to the fuel system. I will provide a link or something later.
Also, now that I think about it, I probably did know that the engine in the SVT was iron, and I guess I did later find out the Mach 1 has an aluminum V8. Nonetheless, they are essentially the same engine still. I didn't recall these facts when making my post, so I guess yes, I am technically wrong about the engines.
Unless of course they like the styling, the fact that the stang isn't an econobox, or perhaps they just like supporting American jobs....
Well, I don't think it is too rational to buy the V6 stang just for styling...it's almost as bad as a ricer car imho since it puts looks over...uhh actual performance.
Most other cars in the Stang's price range shouldn't be econoboxes either though-plus the base Mustang isn't exactly loaded if you consider the fact that it doesn't even have ABS as an option-whereas many cars in that price range have ABS included, along with other amenities the base Stang lacks...and if you want to support American jobs there are *still* better cars to be had, particularly since the Camry is assembled largely in North America, along with a large portion of Toyota and Honda's other cars...Many domestic brands assemble in Mexico and Canada too, so just buying Domestic doesn't neccessarily support American jobs(although to be fair, I believe the Stang is assembled stateside-but I'm not sure). The Civic LX actually has almost all it's parts built stateside, including the engine itself. So I wouldn't feel like I'm hurting American jobs somehow if I bought it, because it's assembled here, and has it's parts built here, and they hire people here.
Anyway, if you want a bargain car that's usable in that range, a Chevy Malibu makes a decent family car. So does of course, the Honda Accord, and aforementioned Toyota Camry, and the Accord Coupe has what I feel to be much cooler styling =P
Anyway, at least you agree on not buying the V6...*shudder* I have no problem with people buying Mustangs...I don't really know why you choose to attack my post. I do however, have a problem with people buying cars for the wrong reason...like the assumption that "V6" and "Mustang" mean "Sports Car" when the car itself is slower than slow and can't brake, nor does it outhandle all other cars in the price range to make these shortcomings somehow worth it(not that 150ft braking distance is ever really going to be compensated for by handling). All I was saying is that the V6 is *not* a bargain, even at this cheap price...I'd get something, faster, more comfortable, better handling, with more room, better braking, and even more loaded, that simply devalues a hell of a lot less and just finance the thing, then sell it after 5 years...would probably be able the same amount of $$ if you do it right.
I'd much rather drive the v6 mustang over my car any day. My car is a 93 VW fox, which recently had quite a bit of money spent on it just to pass inspection (a good amount was the labor, but still). I just might have to look into this. This would allow myself to afford a new car, and I wouldn't have to put up with the expensive repair bills every month or so when my car breaks down.
I don't care how fast the base model 'stang is ... its a lot faster than my present car. Its not like I need something that's really fast anyway, just something that reliably (I'm not saying this car is) gets me to my destination.
I know what you mean, but there are other deals out there on cars that will make your Fox look even worse =P And at least you're right when you say that it'd be faster than your VW Fox... =P
Seriously though, if you're short on cash and need a car, leasing a new V6 Mustang is probably not really the logical answer. A used car worth the value of the lease is pretty solid, a $9000 used car. Plus you save on insurance since you don't have to get comprehensive/collision(although it's probably a good idea anyway), and at the end you own a friggin car. This doesn't mean you should go and buy a random used car, but for $9000 you can probably get a car that'll be more reliable than the Stang probably will be in 3 years(well at least if you believe Consumer Report's reliability ratings), more loaded, and faster and probably more fun to drive since you can actually brake.
A quick example off the top of my head(this does *not* mean this is the only car you can get in that price range, nor that I specifically recommend this car-just one that happens to fit the price range) would be the 1999 Toyota Solara SE V6. Yes it's 4 years older, but the reliability ratings of the Camry/Solara show that a 3 year old Camry is about as reliable as the average new Domestic, so I wouldn't feel too worried unless you choose a lemon of a used car.
But keep in mind that since you'd be taking out a loan to buy it, you'd have a car after another 5 years, and although it'd be a 9 year old Solara, it'd still be worth something-take a look at 1994 Camry's and see how much they're worth.
So basically the only people that should get this Mustang are those who:
1) Love the mustang's styling
2) Don't really care about the car's performance at all
3) Don't care that other manufacturers, both Domestic and Import, are also offering good deals(the economy sucks for everybody you know)
4) *must* drive a new car for some reason
5) Are fanatically dedicated to Ford, and want to celebrate their centennial by at least giving them money, but can't afford a better Stang
6) Don't mind all those V6 Camrys, V6 Accords, Neons, PT Cruisers, Sunfires, Cavaliers, Hyundai Excels(souped up haha) blowing right by, with people wondering how a car that looks so aggressive and has 4 wheel disc brakes has a 16 second quarter and 150+ft stopping distance.
Facebook
Twitter