Please help..."04 Mach 1 Vs "05 GT

SVT....I dont need to validate my purchase...the '05 just rubs me the wrong way, i cant explain it.
I've been there done that when it comes to Ford and NEW models...look at 1994...the GT had 215 HP!....then in 1998 had 225...then in 1999 up to 260

IMO the car NEEDS time to evolve...Look at that hood!...its ridiculous

Why doesn't the car have a 6-SPD?
Why no DOHC?
What happened to 18 IN wheels?
I know there are reasonable explanations for these questions but the simple fact of the matter is that the car SHOULD have some of these adjustments...

I Truly think that the current body trim just takes the cake...dont get me wrong i can asure you that i WILL buy one of these cars, but not until '07

I just want to thank you agin SVT for your input....


-Yellowbull271-

Silverbull271 (aka Yellowbull271),

a) the hood appearance is in keeping with the clean design (no tacked-on stuff) of the car...however, LeMans stripes would make it look less "plain"
b) probably not considered because of cost vs. benefit
c) 300 hp from a SOHC engine that is expected to breathe almost as well as a DOHC, have a flatter torque curve, and do it on 87 octane gas, as well as weigh less and be less complex to manufacture, all seem like good reasons to not have one
d) expected to be available later in the 2005 calendar year; most likely not initially available because of engineering or manufacturing concerns that need additional time to be worked out

As much as I love the Mach 1, I see the benefits of the new car as well. I think we are fortunate to have a choice.

Ok I think that if you take a little time to look through the forums the answers are readily available. There are a lot of things that could be stopping the use of 18's. But for a through read on possible reasons.
http://forums.stangnet.net/showthread.php?t=465267

As for the 6 speed. Some people find it a big deal some don't. I find myself to be one of the ones that doesn't find any real benefit. Since in most cases the difference is is .01 in the final drive ratio between the 5 and 6 speed (5 speed has a .63 final gear. The 6 speed has a .62 final gear). So the only gain you get. Is a gear between 1.00 and .62. I can't refer you to the thread where this was discussed. But I know it is on this forum somewhere.

As for DOHC. I'm not sure why that is an issue for you. The 3 valve SOHC will make nearly the power as your DOHC. The gt will make only 5 hp less and will do it on regular rather than premium gas. Which will save you money. Maybe you aren't concerned about the rising gas prices. But I know that it is a major factor in why I will be buying a 05 gt.

As for the hood. Sure maybe a hood scoop would be nice (I am assuming this is your complaint). But there are a good amount of people on this forum and others. That don't particularly want or need a hood scoop. This is why there is such a large aftermarket. It exists to allow everyone to make their mustang what they want it to be. That and if you take in to account that this is a retro design. Look for pictures of 65-66 mustangs. Unless it is a shelby, none of them came stock with a hood scoop. This is an evolution of the original designs. Bringing some of the best of all generations together in a single car. Other than that I think that a jump from 260 to 300hp is an evolution. The last time it jumped people only got a 35hp bump. This time it's 40hp. I don't think there will be another increase at least for a few years (3-4 probably).

We're all happy that you're happy with your car Silverbull271. But just because you bought an '04 Mach, doesn't mean you need to cram it down everybody's throat until we all convert, and sing in chorus, "what were we thinking??? Let's ALL rush down to the Ford dealership and buy a Mach while we can!!! Get out of my way!!!", so that you'll feel more justified with the your purchase, ummm.. I mean.. rental. The same logic that you're tossing regarding throwing away money on a "1st year" Mustang, can be just as easily applied to your throwing away money at a "last year" Mustang. Buying a brand-new flippin car that you'll get about 5 months of looking new and hot out on the road before the new '05's hit the streets, and you're stuck cruising in yesterday's old defunct model, riding on a flexy platform who's roots go back to the 70's, even if you can click off a 1/4 mile a couple tenths quicker. Myself, I can't imagine diving into the expense of a new car the last year it's being produced. I would never have bought a '93 when the '94's were close, I would never buy a C5 Vette when the C6 is close, it goes against my grain. I TOTALLY understand waiting until the car has evolved into a model that pushes all the right buttons for you, BUT, you had a perfectly good GT that you could have stuck with and saved up your pennies so that you could have afforded a new Cobra for all you know. When you buy early in the game, you get years of driving a "new" car. You can take care of it, keep it detailed, and everybody on the road thinks it's brand-spankin new, even if it's really several years old. When you buy the last year, you've just bought a "brand-new-old-car", and within a matter of months your new-car investment is only young on the odometer. I understand that there's things about the '05 that you're not comfortable with. Well, I don't particularly like the hum-drum wheels on your Mach, or the skinny stripe on the hood (looks better to me all-black like '69, like the CDC Mach that was featured here on the home page, also with cooler wheels), or the rocker stripes. Too cluttered for my tastes. HOWEVER, I didn't come on here and whack you in the head with my opinions when you started celebrating your purchase, I was happy that you were stoked about your new car. But you don't have to convince us how it's somehow "better" than the upcoming model. Take that to the SN95 forum, where everybody will be singing the praises of their Mustangs right up until they can swing the downpayment on a new one

I don't mean to get nasty here, but the 04 Mach 1 is still a 1978 Fairmont at heart. And as someone else here on StangNet reported, the 04's are being built on tooling that is so worn out they had to literally bend, hammer and cut the unibody parts to get them to fit together.

As they say, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but at the end of the night, it's still a pig"

The 05 is all new and has 25 years of engineering improvements built into it. It's 2" wider track, 6" longer wheel base, all new and greatly improved suspension geometry and vastly stiffer unibody will simply blow away any previous Stang.

Go back in history (it always repeats). Think of yourself as a new mustang buyer in LATE 1993. The "NEW" mustang was coming out. You had to choose between the 1993 Cobra or the 1994 GT. Hindsight being 20/20, your choice would/should have been....................

I watched the 05 GT run the infield road course in Nashville and it ran circles around Machs and Cobras. The car was bone stock with production tires while some of the Machs and Cobras had aftermarket tires on them. There's no doubt in my mind that the 05 will out handle a Mach. Better body stiffness, better weight distribution, better front and rear suspension geometry = better handling.

OK, I'll play your decision game.

It's May 25, 1973. You have the choice of buying a 1973 Mustang Mach 1 fastback with a 266 HP (SAE NET) 351 Cleveland 4V and a top loader 4 speed trannie OR you can wait until October and get an all new 1974 Mustang II Ghia with a 2.3L I4 putting out 120 HP. Your choice would/should have been...........

351CJ- I think THAT choice is an obvious one. The 93 vs 94 comparo is closer to what we are looking at here (MACH1 vs 05GT).

93 Cobra/04MACHI
HP advantage
Collectability
known commodity
dated design
Lower Cost (due to intitial high cost of the "new" model)

94 gt/05 gt
slight power disadvantage
NEW design
better underpinnings
unkown commodity
NEW factor (kinda like a wow factor)
higher cost


So if you compare the 93 Cobra to the 94 GT, it is a very close resemblance to comparing the 04 MACH with the 05 GT.

By looking at it that way, I would say if you plan on keeping the car long term, go with the MACH, if its a short term ride, go with the 05.

I did the exact same thing, just went with the Cobra instead of the MACH. I had saved up all my little pennies to get into an 05GT. I drove the Cobra, and decided there was no way in hell the 05 GT could compare with that.

It's called supply and demand. The Mach will only be produced 2 years and the total will be around 15,000 cars ever produced. All one needs to do is look at the mid 80's SVT mustang compared to the GT, those weren't Cobra's either, The GT's are a dime a dozen the SVT are pricy due to the limited production. Say what you want the performance cars era will end and probally in the next 5 years. Goverment and Insurance companies will get involved and these cars will stay around where they are now.

At the rate the Mach's are being wrecked and modded , a nice orginial car with matching numbers will be hard to find in 10 years.

As far as interiors, I'll take the current model. That reto interior stunk in the 60's and it stinks now IMO.

Proud owner of

1966 289 4v
1969 351 4v
1982 GT 5.0
1987 GT 5.0
2002 GT 4.6L
2003 Mach 1 4.6L 4V
2004 Mach 1 4.6L 4V

Ok I can do that choice. It's May 25, 1973. Everyday gas lines at most stations are around the block because there is not enough supply. It can take nearly an hour just to get gas. And the prices are going upward. In a way that seems out of control. This car is going to be your daily driver. What did you buy?

1973 Production
Convertible 6,121
Coupe 57,350
Coupe, Grandé 18,045
Fastback 16,622
Fastback, Mach 1 27,675
Total 125,813


1974 Production
Coupe, standard 177,671
Coupe, Ghia, standard 89,477
Hatchback, standard 74,799
Hatchback, Mach 1, standard 44,046
Total 385,993
I'm thinking the 1974 won the argument. By a margin of over 3 to 1.

That's not a very good example. When they introduced the Mustang II models no one wanted one, they had to give them away. Look at the values today a 1973 is worth ton's more than the 1974 in any fake flavor of the Mustang, it was name only. Your comparing 1 year 1973 to a new design that fell flat on its face. Both the larger model mustang of the 70's and the Mustang II were'nt that popular but the Mustang almost ended on your 1974 platform and while the 1973 held it's value the Mustang II's never did.

We almost had a latter model example if Ford would have made the Probe the next Mustang GT. In fact they had to start putting in turbo 4's and 302's to keep the Mustang alive. All of us were buying imports back then since all american 4 bangers were trash.

Ok I think we need to put personal feeling aside. The nearly every year of mustang 2 production outsold the 71-73 models. It wasn't that long ago that a 1973 mustang could be had for a belch. And restoration parts for both models are still pretty rare. I am no big fan of any mustangs between 71 and 78. But the reality is people did buy them. And there are still a group of hardcore fanatics about the II. To say noone wanted them. Just does not jive with the numbers. Ford is not going to be giving away that many cars. It was a time when compact fuel effecient cars ruled the day. Nearly everyone wanted a car that got good mpg. How do you think the imports got their start over here? And this is relative to today. Since the 05gt puts down numbers similar to the mach 1. But does it on regular gas not premium. Which means spending less money at the pump. For the nearly the same amount of hp and tq.

This is starting to get way out of the realm of reality and logic. First off, the Mustang II was a HUGE success for Ford, massive. If they had stayed the course in '74, continuing to offer a larger "muscle" Mustang, and not gone the route they did with an "economy" small-car Mustang, the Mustang nameplate likely would have been extinct for 30 years now. The fact that they are not worth much today is TOTALLY IRRELEVENT!!! Look at the Fairmont and Taurus and Escort for Ford, HUGE sales successes, HUGE money-makers for the company. Look at the K-car for Chrysler, it SAVED THE COMPANY FROM GOING BANKRUPT. None of those cars are worth the price of scrap today, but that doesn't matter ttown, that means nothing. And to say that the Mustang II fell flat on its face is flat-out laughable. How does 300% INCREASE in sales equate "flat on its face"? Ford wasn't "giving" them away, that's just plain untrue. In keeping with inaccuracies, there was no such thing as "SVT" in the 80's. Are you referring to "SVO"?? And, furthermore, those far-more-limited-production-than-Mach SVO's are NOT worth a ton more than a comparable year GT. And the reason Ford discontinued the SVO after 1986 is because they sold like crap, they couldn't move them off the lots, and the release of the much quicker and also cheaper 225 h.p. 1987 GT was spelling even more trouble and doom for SVO sales. Today, a ultra-low-mile (like 15,000 miles or less) example of an 84-86 SVO brings around $13-15K in today's market. An equally low-mile and pristine 84-86 GT 5-speed hatch would fetch $10-12K. I'm sorry, but from a percentage standpoint, that's about the same difference in price that they were when they were brand spankin new, your argument is a non-argument. Furthermore from your previous post, you mentioned "supply and demand". Well, it's the "demand" that is the wild-card here. Just because only 15,000 Machs were built, doesn't mean that there's going to be a scrambling demand for them years from now. Yes, they will always bring more money than a standard GT of the same year, but only fractionally more (i.e., refer to the facts I just typed on the mid-80's SVO's). Years from now the performance of the 03-04 Mach will likely not seem NEARLY as impressive to us as it does now, with new Boss and Shelby models built on a far superior platform coming out that in comparison will probably make the Mach look tame. Yes, they will be collectible, as all Mustangs wind up being on some level, but I think you guys are way way overblowing it. Yes, the '93 Cobras are still very desirable and collectible, but you still can find clean low-mile ones for prices WAY less than what they were new, and that's not taking inflation into account. And compared to the '94 GT, the only thing the '93 Cobra was actually BETTER at was going in a straight line. Other than that, the new-for-'94 was a superior car in every respect, handling, chassis stiffness, interior comfort/style/quality, exterior style/fit/finish, and overall build quality, just like the '05 will likely be as well. I never said that the Mach 1 won't be collectible, but your NOT going to be sitting in your la-z-boy 30 years from now, watching the Barrett Jackson auction on your hi-def plasma t.v., and see an '04 Mach roll across the block with guys in bright sport coats sipping gin & tonics getting into bidding wars, bidding it up to over 8 times what it sold for new. The 03 & 04 Mach will mature in collectibility and value probably along the same lines as SN95 Cobras have and will.

What a thread I started !

Look we are ALL Mustang enthusiasts and we all have different opinoins and likes....that is what makes the world go round....Behave guys...especially you RICKS there is NO need to be nasty or rude in your replies ...

And RICKS, I sign and drive...call it what u want BUT i always have a ner car EVERY 2 or 3 years no money out of pocket!...I sell cars for a living...i know the GAME!


-Yellowbull271-

I'm not trying to be nasty or rude, just having a lively discussion, nothing unlike the b.s. sessions my buddies and I have sitting in somebody's garage over beers. Sorry if I'm over the top sometimes. I know I don't pull any punches, but don't take it too personally. First off, I understand "sign and drive". However, the math is simple, and it matters not a BIT whether you put money down, or none, or pay cash. The deal is in the math, not the semantics. Whether you lease or buy, all you have to do is add up your cash out-of-pocket over the span of your ownership. There is no free lunch. Add up your monthly payments over the term of your lease. Lets say it's $8,000, or $12,000, whatever... If the total amount you pay in total cash out-of-pocket over the term of your lease EXCEEDS the amount your car depreciated in re-sale value over that same term summed with the interest you would have paid had you financed (or lost interest income if you paid cash), then you lost money by leasing, period, no matter how you skin it, "sign & drive" or not. If the amount of your lease cash-out-of-pocket is LESS than the result of the above formula, you came out ahead. It doesn't matter whether you pay a ton down and a little per month, or nothing down and more per month (i.e. sign & drive). "Sign and drive!", or "no payments for a year!", or "We'll pay off your new car trade" are just semantics, and car dealers use them as a smoke screen to lure in customers who are cash-poor. If you sell cars, then you know the game, as you said. Payments are payments, cash out of pocket over a period of time is CASH, no matter whether you leased or bought. You either have a good deal, or you don't. But the fact that you didn't have to pull out your checkbook the day you pick it up means absolutely nothing, you're just postponing the pain.

Depreciation on these cars 38%.....European cars 62% BIG difference

What does that have to do with anything??? All that means (if it were true) is that you would likely have a higher lease payment for a similarly priced European car. And depreciation is a factor of lost value over time, and you listed no time. 38% over what? Every year? Every 2 years? Every 5 years? Please, I'm not trying to be nasty at all, I'm just boggled as to whether you understand the basics of finance. If you do, Lord, give us a sign... Your "no money out-of-pocket" every two or three years is an illusion, it's just salesguy gibberish, it's the bait that most people swallow when they unwittingly walk onto a dealer's lot. People who walk onto a car lot and the first thing out of their mouth is "what do I have to pay up-front, and what's my monthly payment" are mental midgets when it comes to money, which is unfortunately becoming more and more predominant in our society. People who don't have $1,500 to buy a new TV, but are willing/stupid enough to pay $200/month for 24 months for that same exact TV. I don't want/intend to make any assumptions about you Silverbull271, but you've put forward nothing in any of your posts to lead us to believe that you understand how much money you may, or may not, be pissing away by not understanding cost-of-ownership over a period of time, and how to calculate it on a cash purchase basis, or cash-plus financing basis, or lease basis. It's nice to always have a nice new ride. I'm just like you, I don't like driving one car for alot of years either. But if you spend say $12,000 to lease a car for 2 years, and I buy that same car for $26,000, and after two years I sell it for $18,000, who's ahead? You didn't have to pay anything "up front" (whoop-dee-doo), but in the end I've got more money in the bank, and we both drove the same cars for the same amount of time.

UMM ricks there are no gts of that model getting more than 5 grand in pristine maybe 6 if your lucky around here. The svo model your right on though. And if a car is worth that much after that many years i think its quite collectible but it had nowhere near the following or the sales that the mach had. Sorry not the same

My examples were clearly specified as

I don't know what your idea of "pristine" is, but I was giving an example that goes WAY BEYOND simple condition, but specifically "ultra low mileage" which is where the true collector's market really plays, and you won't find those cars in your local trader or thrifty nickel. $5,000-$6,000 clean used cars are not bought by collectors, they're bought by Joe Sixpack enthusiasts, and $6K-$7K for a "pristine" used SVO is totally normal. Here, I'll give you some more examples of cars for sale straight out of my brand new July issue of Hemmings Motor News, the car collector's "bible":

1985 GT Hatchback, 17,000 miles, black/grey, 5-spd, flawless, $12,850

1985 GT Convertible, 79,000 miles, dk red/gray, 5-spd, adult driven, $5,500 obo

1985 SVO, 26,000 miles, has not been on road since 1988, as-is, $3,500

1986 GT Hatchback, 21,000 miles, red/grey, 5-spd, $12,000

1986 SVO, 73,000 miles, original paint, no rust, runs good, $4,500

1984 SVO, 100,000 miles, original, $2,500

I never said that these cars aren't "collectible", it's just that the Mach will never be worth "ALOT" more than a GT. On one post ttown talks about how supply & demand will cause the Mach 1 to be valuable. Now, in your last post, you infer that since the Mach has MORE sales than the SVO did, and since it has a larger following based on those sales figures, that it'll be more desirable and valuable. You guys have me spinning. Bottom line, the Mach will always be worth proportionally more than a GT, just like they cost proportionally more brand-new due to limited production, demand, and performance/style. Besides, don't blame me if the SVO isn't a good parallel with the Mach, it was not I who authored the premise:

And all I was saying was that premise regarding the SVO (that he thought was an "SVT" somehow...) was flat-out false, they aren't worth hardly a bit more in today's market. Low production does not always guarantee high collectible value.