10-22-2013, 02:19 PM | #225 |
Drives: 92 Luminadead/01 Dakota/97 F150 4x4 Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Eastern, Ky
Posts: 3,789
|
|
10-22-2013, 04:07 PM | #226 | |
Drives: racecars Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: BMN
Posts: 1,776
|
Quote:
An LS1 is also much more reliable then any modular motor. The t5 trans in the mustang and the 4r70w are a complete laughing stock compared to the T56 in the f body. |
|
10-22-2013, 04:34 PM | #227 | |
Drives: 92 Luminadead/01 Dakota/97 F150 4x4 Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Eastern, Ky
Posts: 3,789
|
Quote:
|
|
10-22-2013, 05:02 PM | #228 | |
Drives: 2010 SS, 2000 Pontiac Formula Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Missouri
Posts: 509
|
Quote:
It actually prevailed at its designed purpose...To sell. That is the only reason it was made was to sell. Ford cares about making money and out selling the competitor. The 2v did that with flying colors! I buy a Muscle car because that's what I like! I like the looks the sound and the performance. 98% of the people that buy them though, don't care about the performance. They just see a sporty good looking car that's fun to drive. You say that the LS1 is much more reliable than any mod motor. That fact that you think that shows how unknowledgeable and closed minded you are. I don't think either transmissions used in the Mustangs are a laughing stock. They drive and shift just fine. They defiantly take some abuse. Can they take the power the T56 can, no. would I rather have a T56, yes. does that make the other two in the mustang a laughing stock, no. I'm just wondering what the transmission has to do with how reliable each engine is though? Just to clear things up. I don't think the LS1 is an unreliable engine. It is a very reliable engine. Is it more reliable than a mod motor, no. Is the mod motor more reliable than the LS1, no. They are both reliable, both have horror stories, and both have stories of lasting 400K miles without an issue. You keep talking about performance of the 4th gen. No one has disagreed that the performance was much better then the 2v. However the mustang was the better all around vehicle. That's not just my opinion, it is back up by the hard numbers of the sales of the two. |
|
10-22-2013, 05:03 PM | #229 |
Drives: 2010 SS, 2000 Pontiac Formula Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Missouri
Posts: 509
|
|
10-22-2013, 05:06 PM | #230 |
Drives: 92 Luminadead/01 Dakota/97 F150 4x4 Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Eastern, Ky
Posts: 3,789
|
|
10-23-2013, 08:23 AM | #231 |
Drives: racecars Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: BMN
Posts: 1,776
|
There are reasons good condition SS and WS6's are $10-12k while the 98-02 2v's are right at $5k
|
10-23-2013, 09:12 AM | #232 | |
Drives: 2010 SS, 2000 Pontiac Formula Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Missouri
Posts: 509
|
Quote:
I just did a quick Autotrader search for 98-02 V8 mustangs and Camaros. The average price for a Mustang GT with 1086 listings is $9,868. The average price for a Camaro SS is 13,005 with 403 listings. You were spot on for a good condition Camaro price wise. Pretty far off on the mustang though. 5K is what a beat up, highmilage, or not taken care of Mustang will go for. Seem like you are giving numbers for a good condition Camaro vs a poor condition mustang. I agree a good condition SS will bring little high price tag, few reason as to why. 1) Finding a good condition one that hasent been ragged out is pretty uncommon. Of corse there are some out there, but they are becoming more and more rare everyday. 2) The numbers that were made is a lot smaller compaired to the Mustang. Lower sales equates to lower volumes of cars. 3)Wasnt the price of a new camaro quite a bit steeper than the Mustang GT? My 03 GT i had stickered just under 24K fully optioned. wasnt the Camaro in the 27-30K area? I dont know for sure on this one as im going off memory, and its been a few years since they were new lol You seem to be grasping for anything to help you stay a float lol |
|
10-23-2013, 09:43 AM | #233 | |
Drives: 92 Luminadead/01 Dakota/97 F150 4x4 Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Eastern, Ky
Posts: 3,789
|
Quote:
|
|
10-23-2013, 12:45 PM | #234 |
Drives: 14 Silverado LTZ Z71, 16 Camaro SS Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Posts: 4,407
|
I used to have a 98 z28 with full bolt ons and heads/cam. Loved the car. It was comparable to my current car in a straight line with the edge to my current car. Handling wise the 5th gen blows it out.
Speaking of prices. I got the car for 8k in 2004 and it had 70k miles on it. Car was a base z28 6 speed. The guy was a stock broker who just bought a new viper and basically just wanted to get rid of it quick. I am biased...but in my opinion the 4th gen was a lot better than the 99-04 mustang. It was a chicks car that had no balls that I still see 10 of every day. |
10-23-2013, 04:24 PM | #235 |
Drives: racecars Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: BMN
Posts: 1,776
|
There are more z28's then SS Camaro's.... The SS was a normal Z with a body kit and 10 extra hp
|
10-23-2013, 05:37 PM | #236 |
Drives: 2010 SS, 2000 Pontiac Formula Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Missouri
Posts: 509
|
|
10-23-2013, 08:57 PM | #237 | |
Drives: 14 Silverado LTZ Z71, 16 Camaro SS Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Posts: 4,407
|
Quote:
Most of the best times were reported on no option z28's/formulas with 16 inch wheels. My 98 weighed only 3297 lbs 1/3 tank of gas. No option car with crank windows. No weight reduction other than spare and jack removed and I removed the junk stock monsoon amp which might have weighed 2-3 lbs. |
|
10-24-2013, 10:12 AM | #238 |
Drives: 92 Luminadead/01 Dakota/97 F150 4x4 Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Eastern, Ky
Posts: 3,789
|
|
|
|
|
|