bluray said:vvv Bottom line vvv
2005 Mustang ~$25,000.00 = Payments for 7 years bone stock with good power off the showroom floor.
1979-1993 5.0 Mustang ~$1200.00-$5000.00 = Payed off then and there with ~$22,000.00 that you saved on buying the new stang to put into mods.
Conclusion: With the ~$22,000.00 saved on buying a new stang put into mods, there is no way that much of anything out there will keep up with ur fox, new or old. You also get the satisfaction of saying that your car is fairly unique on the road with all the changes made, and you made it that way (whether you do the work or someone else, it's still your vision). I see millions of new stangs and I very rarely see a fox done up nice.
ramjetlx said:Sure its great, but lets be real, most people cant drive like the pro's who run these tests. For the real world I would add about half a second to what the experts quote. I never believe what they say, sometimes they leave out additional mods that were made to get the times, just like some manufacturers in the 1960's. I have yet to see an STI over here run the supposed low 13's stock, most here are low 14's-high 13's. Im sure it can, but as I said before, a pro was driving it.
Michael Yount said: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?
Michael Yount said: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.
wazazzle said: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!
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.bluray said:vvv Bottom line vvv
2005 Mustang ~$25,000.00 = Payments for 7 years bone stock with good power off the showroom floor.