By the time ford could come up with a mustang that could compete it was a year after the F-body was discontinued.
Well, the competing car from GM that year would have been the GTO. I would also like to add that I am incredibly board right now.
Kurt
By the time ford could come up with a mustang that could compete it was a year after the F-body was discontinued.
I think when comparing our cars to vettes and terminators we have to keep it in perspective. Our GT's could have been had new for around 20k, maybe a little less. 03/04 Cobras were well over 30k new, and the vette was another 10k beyond that. Ours are great cars, sporty, reasonably quick when stock, and easy to work on. But a 94/95 is no 03/04 cobra, and certainly no c5 vette. I've had the privilege of driving a c5 on several occasions, and they are head and shoulders above any mustang ive ridden in or driven.
Slow compared to your car in particular perhaps, but the 4th GEN LS1's were quick enough to outun any stock Mustang built before 1999 and the later LS2's will walk away from any Mustang GT built after that. All while possesing a more plush and roomy interior, more creature comforts, as well as a smoother ride.I really like the look of the GTO. Unfortunately the depreciate like crazy, they are slow, and they don't sell very well. Just saying, it's the closest platform to the Mustang GM has had in the last few years.
Kurt
I don't know dude. Most of the GTOs I've seen at the track were running high 14s in the quarter. Something about that car just makes it slow. It's certainly on par with a late model Mustang. I think the GTO is a sleak looking car, and the interior is sweet too. I honestly don't know why that car sells so poorly.
Kurt
...maybe it is just me, but i am getting to the point where the time and effort is more valuable than the dollars.
I skimmed through the thread, so I just thought I would make a few comments.
My stock '93 notch weighed 3,184 lbs (AOD, full tank). My '93 hatch weighs 3,170 lbs with aluminum heads.
My buddies stock Sn-95 with a T5 weighed 3,380 lbs with a full tank. A friends loaded 00 GT weighed 3,337 lbs with half of a tank.
Yes this is a difference, but it is not near the issue that many make it out to be. The new cars do not weigh as much as they make them out to be.
The SBF and the LsX engine has many things in common, actually. A few aftermarket parts can even the playing field real quick. Per liter, the 3V 4.6L are making more HP per cubic inch, than the ls1 engine. That is with a more emissions friendly small bore engine/large stroke 4.6L.
Kevin (04Sleeper) dynoed 400 RWHP with a K&N with his 04 Cobra. He is now at 600 RWHP with a little help from a Whipple.
No the difference in weight is not a lot but 200lbs is 200lbs. The only thing a SBF and an LSX engine have in common is the fact that they are both pushrod engines, short of that they have nothing in common. The LSX is a far superior design and way more efficient then the SBF, comparing the two is ridiculous. As far as a few bolt on parts evening the playing field, perhaps. As long as the LSX is bone stock and your talking about a 93 and older fox mustang they I agree with you. If your talking about a 94-95 then a few bolt ons is misleading. Those few bolt ons better include a really good HCI combo and you need to address your new computer issues immediately with some sort of tune. This goes just a little out of the realm of a few bolt on parts IMO.
The 3V 4.6 is a totally different animal and by far makes more hp than an LSX engine per cubic inch. Doesn't mean it will put the LSX away NA but it is more effiecient.
The LSX is a far superior design and way more efficient then the SBF, comparing the two is ridiculous.
That is a great technicle article. I have had that saved on my favorites for a long long time.