Mustangs................

[vega$]

Originally Posted by garagelogic

I'll give you some reasons why some people might not have a problem buying a GT500KR.

1. They only made 1571 of them and will never make any more. That means they will always be a rare car. Rare cars tend to increase in value over time versus their not-so-rare counterparts.

2. The are Shelby cars. Whether you agree or not, Carroll Shelby is an American automotive icon. Anything bearing his name will have a value now and in the future.

3. They feature parts on them that are not available to buy unless you actually have a KR. Sure, you can buy a Mustang GT or GT500 and make it look almost like a KR, but it will never be a KR.

4. And this is the most important thing to remember. Back in 1968, a GT500KR would cost you about $4,500. That was about 60% more than you would pay for a 1968 Mustang GT Fastback and you know what people then said about it? You would have to be rich or stupid to buy one at that price for when there were better performance cars available for that amount of money or less.


All that being said, I would not pay MSRP for one.

Agreed.

[DeathChill]

Originally Posted by Georgie

yeah there is about a 2K difference between base GT and 1SS. the base GT is called "deluxe"

So basically us Canadian's are getting shafted by Ford? DAMN YOU FORD!

[fdjizm]

Originally Posted by DeathChill

So basically us Canadian's are getting shafted by Ford? DAMN YOU FORD!

You're canadian?

[DeathChill]

Originally Posted by fdjizm

You're canadian?

Yes, don't shun me. I need love.

[fdjizm]

Originally Posted by DeathChill

Yes, don't shun me. I need love.

oh, well then, we can no longer be friends :(

[DeathChill]

Originally Posted by fdjizm

oh, well then, we can no longer be friends :(

BUT WHY?!?! I MADE YOU A FRIENDSHIP BRACELET. :(

Anyways, back on topic. Both cars are frickin' awesome and I'd buy either one in a heartbeat.

[GM-REX]

Originally Posted by fdjizm

Of course you like R&T tests that is the slowest number you could find lmao gotta love dumpster diving for numbers.

No, diving for numbers is pulling them from 50 different sources just to compare the fastest to the slowest. Comparing what one magazine/source ran for a vehicle to another is stupid IMO. I went with R&T because they gave full detailed tests for the SS and GT instead of just posting a number.

[fdjizm]

Originally Posted by GM-REX

No, diving for numbers is pulling them from 50 different sources just to compare the fastest to the slowest. I went with R&T because they gave full detailed tests for the SS and GT instead of just posting a number.

K cool i will go with hennessy and the camaro ss runs 13.6 with 426hp

but question, do you honestly think a 400hp mustang only runs 13.4?

because it sure sounds like it

Originally Posted by GM-REX

And your FRPP Mustang GT with 400HP and 400lb-ft torque (so now we're closer when it comes to power) ran a 13.4 1/4mi at 108mph per R&T

if so could you explain how a bolt on gt with about 315 hp to the ground runs 12.6@108mph?

[GM-REX]

Originally Posted by fdjizm

but question, do you honestly think a 400hp mustang only runs 13.4?

Don't know. I've seen many stock GT's struggle to break 14sec. Depends on who's driving and other factors. Should it be capable of better numbers? Yes, I would think so. But for consistency's sake I stuck with the same magazine. If you want to use Hennessey for your Camaro numbers go ahead. But stick with all his tests then. Don't go showing me 60ft times from so and so, 1/8mi times from another source, and 1/4mi times from yet another.

[levi1922]

Originally Posted by fdjizm

K cool i will go with hennessy and the camaro ss runs 13.6 with 426hp

but question, do you honestly think a 400hp mustang only runs 13.4?

you missed the point of what he said reffering to his time diving. what he ment by not quoting 45142 magazines is that he picked r&d because of how they test ALL cars, not just how they tested the camaro. they have a standard test, and it was applied in both of the links he provided. had he quoted motor trend for one, and r&d for the other then i would have been flawed, but he stayed consistant. im with him. i like r&ds test result layout

[levi1922]

Originally Posted by GM-REX

Don't know. I've seen many stock GT's struggle to break 14sec. Depends on who's driving and other factors. Should it be capable of better numbers? Yes, I would think so. But for consistency's sake I stuck with the same magazine. If you want to use Hennessey for your Camaro numbers go ahead. But stick with all his tests then. Don't go showing me 60ft times from so and so, 1/8mi times from another source, and 1/4mi times from yet another.

consistency (:

[levi1922]

and, to add one more thing the two test he provided...the stang had better track conditions with lower humidity and a higher temp by close to 20 degrees. and also it was at lower elavation, yet another advantage for the mustang in this test. and im sure both surfaces were good.

and if you look at the camaros test page, the mustang was also tested for the 1/4 with the camaro, and its on the graph of acceleration.

[GM-REX]

Originally Posted by levi1922

consistency (:

If R&T is slow so be it. I'm sorry. But their data pages are very nice for comparisons sake. You can see all the options on the vehicle, price, test conditions, acceleration graph, etc. That is why I went with this test. I did not "dive" for numbers.

[levi1922]

Originally Posted by GM-REX

If R&T is slow so be it. I'm sorry. But their data pages are very nice for comparisons sake. You can see all the options on the vehicle, price, test conditions, acceleration graph, etc. That is why I went with this test. I did not "dive" for numbers.

yeahhh, that is what i was saying