Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech' started by tjm73, Jun 27, 2005.
You can get a stang for cheaper than that. Also 5.0L go for more than that depending on situation. You still have (at the max point) a 26 year old car You won't neccessarily have 7 years of payment. Most is set-up in 5 years. You may sink all that money in on the 5.0L and be faster but you still have to worry about ride comfort (hard to beat that)/trying to handle better than the new one/be faster and yet as reliable (hard to do)/etc...etc.
You have to be practical about it...looks good on paper anyways.
Seems like a onesided (bias) post
On the magazine racers. Not all are pros. Many can't put out the times that your average joe does. They have the car for a day or two and go to the track with it. Actual owners of the car have them for years and practice everyday by knowing the car and can pull off some nice times. Yeah a lot of tricks happened during the muscle car days...not so much now without being noticed.
I didnt say that all of that cash would go under the hood. Even half of that would make one killer engine and sink the rest into brakes, frame, suspension, interior and exterior repairs. Hell I payed maybe $1000 bux for my whole stereo system, and tho its not competition quality, its freaken LOUD and CLEAR remember, $22,000.00 is a lot of freaking money and whether its 5 years or 7 u still pay it one way or another. But if u like the new stuff there is nothing wrong with that. I just think alot of guys here would prefer something they can dig into without the huge overhead. The car may be 20 years old, but after a while of modding there isnt all that much left that isnt new/newish.
You really think MT and C&D hire pros to drive? They arent pros, they dont launch with RPM, and they dont powershift. Granted the average Joe wouldnt either, but any car enthusiest who hits the track and wants to get the most out of his car could most likely out drive them. The other cars they test, family cars and such, they merely floor it. They dont shift the autos, they dont stall them on the converter, they floor it, the same as anyone in the world can do, and get equal times... I dont see them taking out the spare and jack and throwing on drag radials to get a 14 second time out of an Eclipse, but maybe they do? Personally they represent an average time the car could run at sea level. They dont go all out banging gears and launching the cars, and Im sure they dont do any mods to them short of icing the intake which isnt much of a "mod".
Now read an MM&FF, 5.0 or GMHTP and they have pros behind the wheel, guys who are usually racers or at least more "fast car" oriented than other magazine editors. But then again these guys dont drive or test Honda Accords or Eclipses. They also run much faster times them MT or C&D get as well!
Comparing a 15 year old car to a brand new one isnt a comparison at all. The 15 year old car is just that, and the new one is just that. Compare the new price of a Fox 5.0 back in the day, and how fast it went, to the new price of an 05 GT, and how fast it goes, and then subtract for inflation and IM sure you would be amazed at how fast for how little the newer cars go!
25thmustang - C&D drives the cars VERY hard - I've been a subscriber since about 69; they're known in the industry to pretty consistently get the quickest times compared to R&T and MotorTrend. Of those 3, MotorTrend is the worst. As for pro-drivers - MANY of C&D's test editors over the years have done just that - competed VERY successfully in both pro and amateur racing. One examply is Pat Bedard - who actually qulified a car at Indy on more than one occasion. I believe that qualifies as pro.
MM&FF consistently has more technical errors and just plain factual mistatements than any magazine I've ever read. As a technical mag - well, let's just say they're pretty good at running their advertisers ads. Besides that, they have no specific protocol for testing - you can't compare things one to another unless you use the same drivers, same tracks, same equipment and same testing protocol over and over. That's where a magazine like C&D is FAR superior to a brand/car specific mag like MM&FF. They've got nothing to prove. MM&FF has a VERY biased viewpoint. They consistently tweak/alter things and pick only the absolutely best runs to highlight a particular Stang or Ford. That's not unbiased journalism - it's like the editorial page. If you don't take MM&FF's results with a grain of salt, then you're just not paying close enough attention. Just look at the title of the mag - doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what their bent is.
Actually I do not see MM&FF as overly bias (to what they could be). I see them as a pretty reputable magazine despite what others say.
I have a magazine from them a couple years old for when the 03 Cobra came out and it tested against a 02 Camaro SS. The whole article was not bias at all. It gave the pros/cons of both and they both pulled off nice times from them.
On (specifically on their head test) they disclaim everything at the end of the article in another magazine I have from them. It told all the little variables that would differ the results. I was impressed. In fact, I was thinking they went a bit overboard on it. Noone is forced to read a "mustang magazine". I'm glad they make them...
Oh and Motor Trend got 104mph out of a 05 GT by the way...but then again their the worst overall driving magazine, right? No telling what C&D could do
They simply don't use the same drivers.
Edit: Just as well I have seen them put down the "multiple runs" and not just one when they come to testing. Or they will put "the best run of the day was XX.XX." I guess I must be reading another magazine. Is their another MM&FF
Thats why I say MT and C&D arent getting the best times possible. Their job is to be unbiased and test each car equally. Therefore their goal is to not get the best 1/4 mile time. They arent setting a standard, they are trying to set a good average for the cars. They take a car on a test day and race it, they arent out there beating on the cars for a few tenths, whereas a specific car based mag will do just that. This is why we see LS1s running high 13s in these mags, and others (Evan Smith) have gone high 12s. The regular car mag doesnt care about the 1/4 time, whereas the GMHTP or MM&FF does.
Any regular car mags time is attainable at sea level with a decent driver.
Any mag (MM&FF) that routinely has articles counseling people to stay below a certain lift to avoid p to v clearance problems with a particular cam, or performing before and after brake upgrade tests with different wheels and TIRES (and then claiming the improvement is from the brakes), or running header dyno tests where HUGE differences show up at 3000 rpm - but there's no mention of the bottom end differences, let alone any data further down the curve (only peak numbers - which were essentially equal) --- I can go on and on --- doesn't have any technical credibility. How can you pick and choose what you're gonna buy into from a source like that?
25th - you've made the point for me. UNLESS a mag uses a consistent testing protocol, you can't use their times to compare one car to another. It's pretty straightforward if you understand anything about testing protocol. It's not that MM&FF can't get a quicker time - it's that their time simply isn't representative of what the average car on the average track with decent driver is gonna see. I'll stick my previous post - a C&D test is much more representative of that.
And all you have to do is read the threads or hang out at the local strip to know that car mag times are NOT necessarily easily attainable at sea level - especially in traction limited cars like a V8 Stang. The fact is, the people who test for a living - at any magazine - are much more competent drivers (autocross, road race and drag race) than your average Joe out there. "Decent" drivers are a rarer commodity than you might think....your average driver has never even BEEN to a drag strip, let alone tried to nail a decent 60' time.
I haven't ever seen them just say p-v clearance is based on lift , or not disclaiming that they added different wheels/tires in concordance with the brake upgrade, or where they don't show what your average dyno would show. It depends on the application for the headers. What was the test car? A more track car (non-daily driver) - then the 3,000rpm and down range isn't really wanted by the reader or tester. I have yet to see anything that isn't out of the ordinary as in other testing magazines. C&D for example doesn't give test (performance upgrade test). So who else is going to do it? Yep the Mustang Enthuisiast magazines...because it is Mustang specific. They are in the market for a reason.
Thanks Michael for backing me up on this. Horsepower and quickness sell cars, so car companies are going to hire the best to get the best out of their cars to sell it. I go to the track every weekend and you wont believe how many people are disappointed with the times of their new STI or GTO. And yes, I agree with your opinion about MM&FF also.
got smoked on a roll by soccer mom & kid. behind me in no pass lane and she stomped on it. by time i noticed & tried to force her back behind, she blew past me. it was malibu maxx LT.. sucks!
Yeah it happens...
I have never heard of the car you mentioned though
Yeah, I hate it hearing the car commercials boasting the new "265 horsepower V6 whatever" and then you continuously tell yourself. My car probably weighs less, looks cooler and your car has the horsepower beat EASY with rwhp not FLYWHEEL horsepower which is probably also inflated. Ugh, time for sleep...
Hate to drag up an old thread, but couldn't resist. My wife and I were riding with my son on the way home from the mall on Sat. night, when we pulled up behind a real nice looking and sounding 69 or 70 Chevelle SS396. He was obviously out cruising and I commented that most of tose were the 325hp version. Next the lightchanged and my son pulled into the far right lane to go around him (he was REALLY takin' his time, must hae been enjoying the sound of his exhaust!). When the guy saw it, you could hear him gun it and so did my son. After about an eighth of a mile we had to let off because a car was turning from our lane in front of us and it was then the Chevelle finally caught us and and went past. (we were never over 65 by too much) The guy didn't act too happy. My son was driving a year old Caddy SRX 4x4 station wagon with 2 passengers (us) that must weigh 4200 lbs. not including us. That's the old and new of it! And NO, I DON'T condone street racing!!!!
25k after 5-7 yrs.? My brother bought a car for 18k and after 5yrs. when he has it paid off, he'll have about ~23-24k in it. I think thats what he said it would be after interest.
I'd never buy a new car...I'd probably get tired of it after 1.5yrs and still have over 3 yrs. to pay You've also gotta figure in the extra cost of collision insurance and the extra taxes at the end of the year. Taxes on my 5.0 are hardly existent. Oh, and you still have to pay for mods too--unless you like driving a new stocker which is on every block.
I've also yet to see a new 'stang for 25k....I've looked at about 25 and all were close to 30k.