Not on news stands yet at least not supposed to be some dealers don't follow the rules lucky us. Try a book store.

 

I've tried Borders Book and Barnes And Noble yesterday and today and nothing yet.

 

Jeez, they're taking their time getting here. Come on, MT, I've been a subscriber for a years, whats the hold up??

 

I find that my local grocery stores beats barns and nobel and borders by a few days. Meant to go down to HEB (Texas grocery) today but didn't get around to it.

 

i think it goes without saying that the Z is about more than just the power. Not that i like it better than the mustang at all, but i don't think you can call that car weak. They just put the focus on different things in that car.

Just like everybody else on this forum, however, I like where they put the focus on the mustang. vroom!

 

Yeah, the 350Z does have some nice features, but after sitting in one, I am willing to bet that the Mustang has a nicer, roomier interior.

The 350Z still probably has it beat in the handling department, though. As far as looks are concerned, the Mustang has it beat hands down, IMO.

And we all now know that in a drag race, the 'stang will own the 350Z.

 

Sat in and drove a Z (yes, a test drive...that's what I do) and sat in an 05. The 05 is by far more roomy. I prefer the 05's interior over the Z anyday. The Z is very sporty but its like a tight pair of jeans that you want to get out of when you get home.

The Z was okay in the power department....as fast as a current GT. Handling was very good but you pay for it in terms of ride which is harsh.

And looks is quite subjective but I'm not a huge fan.

I know I'm biased, but when you add it up, the 05 comes ahead by a fair margin IMO.

 

For some reason they were in a real rush to get this car to market. At least for 05 they are adding some styling touches that make it more muscular and the LS2 motor.

I wasn't that sold on the styling until I drove one. Then I really didn't care about the styling anymore because it gets up and moves and the interior is very comfortable. I did look at the Mach I, but the interior was a little too cramped for me. I'm 6'2" and about 280 and it wasn't comfortable. Thats why I'm excited about the 05 Mustang. Good looks, better interior, more room. I did drive a Z as well and it was very small on interior room.

 

Got the German car zine today btw, but didn't get the chance to scan it yet as I don't have a scanner myself. Will post it w/ scans and translation this weekend. They liked the car, though they didn't post any performance data - I believe they weren't allowed to measure performance because MT has the exclusive rights.

 

I haven't seen anyone else mention it, so I'm going to unveil my "green enviro geekiness" by mentioning that these performance numbers are coming from an engine, according to the latest order guide, has an MPG rating into the 20+ MPG range. That to me is very good news. I'm not an encyclopedia on the classics, but I used to drive an old '70's muscle car that was slightly "slower" per second in the 60 and the 1/4 than these numbers, and I was lucky to get 13 mpg out of it! Now this is what I call environmental responsibility - all the power of the old musclecars with respectable mpg. Way to go Ford!

 

I had nothing much to do this morning so I though I would figure this out. Assuming a 6,000 shift point with a 1.54:1 third gear ratio, the auto shifts out of third at about 93 mph and it losses 2100 rpm going to fourth. I think that is definately the reason for the low trap speed. For comparison, the manual (also shifting at 6,000 but with a 1.32:1 third gear ratio) goes from third to fourth at just over 101 and can carry 104 if you let it rev to 6,200.

The Boss Hog

 

A.

 

Scans are on page 7...

 

[QUOTE=wantan05,September 30, 2004, 2:38 PM] wHOOPs!

Sorry!

 

so bosshog-

You are saying that the manual will be a lot faster quarter mile, not just because it is a manual, but it doesn't need that extra shift the auto's do?

 

Well . . . . not exactly. I was attempting to explain why the auto had a little lower mph than expected compared to its ET. The 1st three gears in the auto are very close together which along with the torque converter, should give it a heck of a hole shot, but it has a large split between 3rd and 4th, which drops the engine out of its sweet spot. End result is a car that has a lower than expected ET but also a lower than expected mph. It also results in a car that will be great at the Saturday night stoplight Grand Prixs.
The manual gear ratios, on the other hand, seam to have been selected to maximize the high speed performance. The splits actually get smaller as you go up in the gears (just the opposite of what the auto does).

For the record I predict that with stock street tires the manual will beat the auto in the 1/4 but it will do so by catching it from behind.

The Boss Hog
(Sorry for the long winded post and as always, just my opinion . . . )

 

Update from VA...MT has hit the stands at Barnes & Noble...been cruising by daily checking for new mags...got my copy for the archives today. B)

 

Anybody else here old enough to remember when "Made in Japan" generally meant junk (the exception being cameras of course)?

"Our sense is..." Our SENSE is...? Yeah, that's good, let's just start GUESSING. :scratch:

That's a nasty remark, given that they haven't driven it yet. Show's just how far the Big Three let things slide over the past 30 years. [/b][/quote]
Yes. I am. I went to first grade in Japan in 1953-1954 and high school there in 62-65. My dad was in the navy. Japan was still rebuilding the economy after the war the first time I was there, and everything we bought (toys for me back then) broke very quickly.

What a dramatic change the second time around!

Isn't it ironic that while the Big 3 was sitting on its collective rears congratulating themselves on their market share, the Japanese listened to an American named Charles Deming (you guys have heard of the Deming Award, right) who taought them how to improve overall quality and look at what happened.

They raised the bar for automakers the world over, and that's been a good thing for all of us.

 

Got this in the mail today.

13.6 for the quarter ... IN AN AUTOMATIC! at 99.9 mph.

This may be a well broken in mule, but the numbers are good.

They're guessing 4.8-4.9 0-60 for the manual. Which might bring the quarter to 13.4 or lower.

 

lol that braniac thinks the 3.8 is still the engine