And one more thing on Ford... Where is our 6-speed? Seriously guys, it was standard on the f-body in 1993!

Don't get me wrong I LOVE the new mustang, I'll still be getting a new GT for my daily driver. The T/A and Mach 1 stay in storage for shows & nice days. My current daily driver, a 76 continental, is costing me about as much in gas as my payment will be on the 05 so it's a no-brainer.

 

Lol, I know I'll always miss my big, long, blue-green ls1 firebird formula. She never left me wanting more power. But times change (and trannys break) and more power or not the mustang evolved and the firebird/camaro died off....so unless you want a fugly gto or someone else's beat on ls1 (beware of the blue-green firebird with the slipping tranny) don't worry about the ls1 engine and enjoy the mustang!

 

Ive got a 99 Z28 6sp now. I bought it new and have put more than 100K miles on her. Im want to buy a new Mustang in the next year or two, but they are going to have to offer some SE with a six speed and lots more power.

 

I've purchased both (2002 Z28 and a 2005 GT) and am currently driving the latter. Both are remarkable vehicles, though the Z sacrifices everything for performance, and comes up painfully short as a balanced, well rounded car. As such, I prefer the Stang (by a landslide) in day to day driving, and God knows she's plenty quick. But the Z would run me over in anything but a stoplight to stoplight scoot. I only pulled 1.5 car lengths on a heavier, slower GTO last week (we ran to 80mph).

As much as it pains me to say it, a stock LS1 f-body will pull on the new GTs, and absolutely run away at the top end. That said, at the end of the day, the f-body's are still just a wonderful Corvette motor with a CAMARO wrapped around it. Not exactly a total package. I'll sacrifice a few ticks in the quarter for the styling, ride, comfort, and refinement of my 05 any day. And let's not forget the most important fact of all....we can walk into a dealer and buy a Mustang tomorrow. You'd have to cross the street to the used lot to find an F-body....

 

yeah i have an 1985 pontiac firebird im still keeping it but im getting the 05

i cant wait should have the 05 in the next few day at least i hope so


"All junk is junk just some junk is better than other junk" - Keith Wills

quote from a good freind of mine that runs a shop talking about different makes of cars....

 

I have a 91 LX I bought at the end of the summer and I also bought a 2005 GT. I figure I can use the LX on days when its raining a little for now and eventually I will take it off the road to due a more complete restomod. First time I have ever owned two of any type of car at the same time.

 

When I went shopping for my first new car as a under 25 yr old male, I compared both cars at the time. The Camaro looked meaner, V6 had more power, more cargo room, shift wasn't a goofy goose-neck, and on top of that, the dealer worked me a better deal. 'Nuff said.

Now, though. I'm totally diggin' the '05 Mustang's looks over it competitors. I've got a spread sheet set up for it and its competitors and hands down the 'Stang has the better value (power, price, cargo, etc).

This Mustang just owns!

 

the ls1 is so enefficient. lets say it takes 5.7 liters to make 350hp from the factory. Fords new 4.6 3 valve makes 300hp.
soo we divide 350 by 5.7 and get 61.40 hp per liter

next we divide 300 by 4.6 and get 65.21 hp per liter

just imagine if we had an additional 1.1 liters.

i have driven an Z28 and was surprised by the power, but it could be beat.

wheres the mullets

 

I wouldn't mind owning 1998-2002 Trans Am, but I would never buy Camaro (although 1977-1981 model looks nice).

I'm not than big fan of 2005 Mustang, concept was great, but production model is not that great. But I'm still planning to get one simply because there is nothing else on the market that I like. My first choice would be 1998-2002 Lincoln Navigator, but high insurance rates and high gas prices made me change my mind. I also had hope for 2006 Dodge Charger and I was ready to wait for it, but Chrysler 300 copy made me change my mind.

 

Youre forgetting the LS1 makes more power than the 4.6 and gets better gas mileage.

 

Youre forgetting the LS1 makes more power than the 4.6 and gets better gas mileage. [/b][/quote]
And you're forgetting that Camaro and Trans Am doesn't even exist anymore. So, why are we even talking about them?

It doesn't matter how good/bad Mustang is. Is still better than Camaro and Trans Am.

 

That's the same color as my T/A, nice!

 

I respect the LS1's, but I never really cared for the body style of the late model F bodies....I don't know....looks like some kind of wedge to me...

Now....that said....they are monsters...I always see build-ups for those things with 450 hp to the wheels with just a cam, heads, and the other small bolt ons...try that with a 4.6...it's gonna be hard unless you ditch the NA setup...

At the dragstrip, I know after about 90mph the LS1 is going to own....it's simply the 350 vs the 281 and cubic inches do matter over a distance...now....if a hurricane motor ever finds it's way into a stang.....

 

Oh noes!!!!!!! You went to Uncle Ben's school of HP/Liter Math!

:bang:

Seriously man thats rice logic. I mean if you want to reverse it then you could say that Chevy may make less HP per liter but then again it's a bigger displacement so there's more room for serious mods.

But don't get blinded by brand loyalty. I drive a "hated" LS1 powered F-body. It's a 2000 Z28. As far as "inefficient" it dynoed stock at 343 crank HP, and I have on many many occassions averaged 29-30 MPG on the highway (on long road trips), but I do plan on trading it in on a 2005 Mustang GT which I will have to mod if I want it to run as fast up top as my old "ineficient" LS1 does (which has hit 165 MPH B) ) I just like to be honest and realistic. Besides if we really wanted the fastest pony car available right now we'd find a left over 2004 Cobra and toss a pulley/exhaust/and chip at it and break our necks when we hit the go pedal.

They are both great cars and I wish they

 

Don't get me started with the old 5.0's, they had like 225hp and divide that by 5.0 and lets see what kinda hp you get per liter So they needed 5 liters to achieve 225hp, um yeah enough said.

 

Of the Camaro/Firebird cars I will simply say this. Yes, the 350 engined F body cars were able to beat the much smaller 5.0L and 4.6L cars from Ford. DUH! What do you expect? GM put the Corvette engine into the F bodies in hopes they would drive some sales. Let's face it, before the 350 was put into those cars (and even WITH the early 350/auto combos) the Mustangs were EATING THEIR LUNCHES for years. What was it, 1992 or 1993 when they finally went to the newer style and the 350? From '82 through that time, the Camaros were flat out slow. I used to eat up the 305 powered cars all the time in my '86 GT. The early 350 cars with autos at the end of the older body style would just barely keep up with me. All this with 2.86s in the rear.

Let's face some facts:

A) Camaros/Firebirds prior to Corvette engine were slow

B) GM put the 350 in because they couldn't get their 305 to compete

C) Ford's response with the 281 DOHC engines were just barely if at all able to keep up, but with some slight mods, the field was about even

There's no replacement for displacement.

 

Don't get me started with the old 5.0's, they had like 225hp and divide that by 5.0 and lets see what kinda hp you get per liter So they needed 5 liters to achieve 225hp, um yeah enough said. [/b][/quote]
Before you get too carried away with yourself, remember, the GM 5.0s had LESS HP than the Fords and ate dust constantly cause of it. 5.0 to get 225 yes, but GM 5.0 to get about 195.