http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Followup/articleId=123327
What Works:
Great-looking, great-sounding and satisfyingly quick. Fantastic shifter. Comfortable ride, easygoing road manners.
What Needs Work:
Uninspired steering response, determined to understeer, needs manhandling to go truly fast, some cheap interior materials, and thirsty.
"The Bullitt uses those short gears to rip to 60 mph in just 5.2 seconds. That's a stunning 0.7-second better than the 2005 Mustang GT. And the Bullitt's 13.8 seconds to 102.1-mph quarter-mile performance is the best we've yet recorded for a production three-valve Mustang. The Bullitt's powertrain feels even more powerful than it is, and the shifter is among the very best on any car at any price.
If only the chassis had limits to match. The all-season BFG tires just don't offer the grip the car deserves; the 0.84g skid pad performance and 67.2-mph trip through the slalom are both good for a Mustang, but modest for a performance car. The ABS-controlled four-wheel disc brakes, which resist fade rather well, also feel limited by the tires, and stopping from 60 mph took a so-so 122 feet.
In the interest of highway ride and daily usability, the Bullitt is relatively softly sprung (softer than a Shelby GT) with a determined and persistent understeer and somewhat indistinct steering. Yes, that understeer can be overcome with the application of power, but that makes this a high-effort vehicle with which to attack a racetrack or, for that matter, to pursue an aggressively driven Dodge Charger.
It's better than the GT in every way ? but it's still a Mustang, with all the ability and limits that come with that. With the massive advantage of being a bargain."
I personally don't see how this is that much of a bargain if you don't buy into the whole nostalgia of the movie. Overall it's a disappointing package as it really fails to correct the major flaws with the GT.
The Bullitt's 13.8 seconds at 102.1-mph in the quarter mile is a bit disappointing considering Edmunds recently tested a automatic G35 at 13.9 @ 102.6 mph. The Bullitt couldn't match the G35's handling or braking numbers either.
Bullitt
60 - 0 (ft): 122
Braking Rating Very Good
Slalom (mph): 67.2
Skid Pad Lateral acceleration (g): 0.84
Handling Rating Very Good
G35
60 - 0 (ft): 111
Braking Rating: Excellent
Slalom (mph): 69.4
Skid Pad Lateral acceleration (g): 0.89
Handling Rating: Excellent
In terms of substance what does the Bullitt have going for it? A similarly priced luxury sports sedan is better at pretty much everything besides posing.
The car has bad tires in a very narrow size, big deal. Change those and the Bullitt would likely beat the G35 in every single statistic you posted (for less money). Not only that, but the Bullitt (and the Mustang) are also not built to their full potential as far as equipment goes, probably because Ford figures most owners will change the car anyways. The G35, on the other hand, is about as fast and developed as it is going to get.
What does the Bullitt have going for it? For approximately ~$3300 you get a retuned suspension, more power, better brakes, a substantially different interior (trim, seats, gauges, and steering wheel) and exterior (unique wheels, paint, and grill), and a louder exhaust. I would say that is a pretty damn good deal and an excellent starting point for what could be an even faster car and better handling car.
Most of all, the Bullitt has soul, something cars like the G35 lacks greatly in my opinion. I have probably more experience than anyone here with the G35 and I can tell you point blank that it is boring to drive. The Mustang (and Bullitt) are not.
I think the new Mustang GT is a great car. However, there's no two ways about its DNA: it sells mostly on legacy. It's never been about big performance numbers.
The Bullitt package I don't think is worth it - but then again though I like the car, I'm not smitten with the legacy as are some.
At $25-$28k, the Mustang GT is a great car. Once you start optioning it up, or go for the Bullitt or other special editions, there are better performers for the money.
Somehow me or Nethead is going to get blamed for starting yet another Mustang thread.
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 09, 2007, 11:48:05 PM
Somehow me or Nethead is going to get blamed for starting yet another Mustang thread.
IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!!!!
Haha I totally forgot about our single Mustang thread rule, sorry guys, mods feel free to move this.
Quote from: GoCougs on November 09, 2007, 11:19:41 PM
At $25-$28k, the Mustang GT is a great car. Once you start optioning it up, or go for the Bullitt or other special editions, there are better performers for the money.
But those other cars ain't got no soul brotha!
Quote from: LonghornTX on November 09, 2007, 10:28:35 PM
The car has bad tires in a very narrow size, big deal.
BFG KDW's are not bad tires and 235 width is not "very" narrow
The same pros and cons I have with the GT. Looks and sounds good, fast and comfortable. It lacks in the things like steering feel, brake feel, and overall handling. Did they give the Bullit a new gearshift? The shifter in the GT isn't very good. You can live with it but I would never call it one of the cars highpoints.
It seems like with every Mustang edition they never address any of the Mustangs shortcomings. They just give it more of what it already has enough of.
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 09, 2007, 11:48:05 PM
Somehow me or Nethead is going to get blamed for starting yet another Mustang thread.
I don't think anyone is blaming you for starting Mustang threads. You made the "General Mustang" thread or whatever it's called. Nethead thinks their need to be a thread for modified Mustangs, stock Mustangs, special edition Mustangs, drag racing Mustangs, road-racing Mustangs, convertible Mustangs, and future Mustangs. Then he proceeds to make a page long posts that never says anything new, he somehow tries to prove that the Mustang is better than any other car and everything else is an intimidation of it.
"But like Steve McQueen's original, there's every reason to believe that the new car can take it ? hard landing or soft."
Didn't McQueen's car need constant repairs?
"the 0.84g skid pad performance and 67.2-mph trip through the slalom are both good for a Mustang, but modest for a performance car"
Ouch.
I thought 67 mph through the slalom was pretty good. :huh:
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 10, 2007, 08:54:21 AM
But those other cars ain't got no soul brotha!
Perhaps some, but what about the 350z?
Quote from: JYODER240 on November 10, 2007, 10:26:35 AM
I don't think anyone is blaming you for starting Mustang threads. You made the "General Mustang" thread or whatever it's called. Nethead thinks their need to be a thread for modified Mustangs, stock Mustangs, special edition Mustangs, drag racing Mustangs, road-racing Mustangs, convertible Mustangs, and future Mustangs. Then he proceeds to make a page long posts that never says anything new, he somehow tries to prove that the Mustang is better than any other car and everything else is an intimidation of it.
Actually there are three "official" Mustang threads. There are "The Official Mustang Thread", the "Tuner Mustang Thread", and the "Racing Mustang Thread". Personally I think the Tuner and Official threads could be one, but the Racing one should be on it;s own.
Slalom is a somewhat useless test IMO. You never encounter anything like except maybe during an autocross. The number doesn't mean much to me. I'm more concerned with the cars composure that how fast it can go through it.
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 10, 2007, 11:57:58 AM
I thought 67 mph through the slalom was pretty good. :huh:
It's better than average, but nothing special. I think my car runs 67+ through the slalom, and it's not really a performance car.
It's better then the first gen Viper.
Their 0-60 mph time should be taken with a grain of salt considering flat or even sub-5 second times have been pretty common in magazine tests for a stock GT with less horsepower and a taller rear end.
One thing I do thing Ford needs to work on is steering feel, it was the one complaint I always had about my 05. It went where you pointed it and there was good on center feel, but there wasn't a whole lot of feedback and it always felt more like a force-feedback video game wheel than a "real" performance car usually does.
Quote from: LonghornTX on November 09, 2007, 10:28:35 PM
The car has bad tires in a very narrow size, big deal. Change those and the Bullitt would likely beat the G35 in every single statistic you posted (for less money). Not only that, but the Bullitt (and the Mustang) are also not built to their full potential as far as equipment goes, probably because Ford figures most owners will change the car anyways. The G35, on the other hand, is about as fast and developed as it is going to get.
What does the Bullitt have going for it? For approximately ~$3300 you get a retuned suspension, more power, better brakes, a substantially different interior (trim, seats, gauges, and steering wheel) and exterior (unique wheels, paint, and grill), and a louder exhaust. I would say that is a pretty damn good deal and an excellent starting point for what could be an even faster car and better handling car.
Most of all, the Bullitt has soul, something cars like the G35 lacks greatly in my opinion. I have probably more experience than anyone here with the G35 and I can tell you point blank that it is boring to drive. The Mustang (and Bullitt) are not.
Haha, Didn't we have a similar argument about the 350Z vs the Mustang GT. I claimed that the Z, even in base form, would be a quicker car. Next month, Car and Driver came out with an Issue, with Both the Z and and the Shebly GT. The Z was as fast, handled better, and was overall a better car. It also cost a lot less, and didn't look like shit, with a tacked on hood scoop.
I'm going to say the G35/7 Are better in all aspects.
Some people have a real hate-on for some cars. Wow.
Quote from: ArchBishop on November 10, 2007, 05:53:43 PM
Haha, Didn't we have a similar argument about the 350Z vs the Mustang GT. I claimed that the Z, even in base form, would be a quicker car. Next month, Car and Driver came out with an Issue, with Both the Z and and the Shebly GT. The Z was as fast, handled better, and was overall a better car. It also cost a lot less, and didn't look like shit, with a tacked on hood scoop.
I'm going to say the G35/7 Are better in all aspects.
And I'd still take a V8 Mustang over the Z every time. Funny how that works, isn't it?
Quote from: Raza link=topic=11970.msg637823#msg637823 date=1194749342
And I'd still take a V8 Mustang over the Z every time. Funny how that works, isn't it?
Hey, some people have taste. :ohyeah:
Quote from: LonghornTX on November 09, 2007, 10:28:35 PM
The car has bad tires in a very narrow size, big deal. Change those and the Bullitt would likely beat the G35 in every single statistic you posted (for less money). Not only that, but the Bullitt (and the Mustang) are also not built to their full potential as far as equipment goes, probably because Ford figures most owners will change the car anyways. The G35, on the other hand, is about as fast and developed as it is going to get.
What does the Bullitt have going for it? For approximately ~$3300 you get a retuned suspension, more power, better brakes, a substantially different interior (trim, seats, gauges, and steering wheel) and exterior (unique wheels, paint, and grill), and a louder exhaust. I would say that is a pretty damn good deal and an excellent starting point for what could be an even faster car and better handling car.
Most of all, the Bullitt has soul, something cars like the G35 lacks greatly in my opinion. I have probably more experience than anyone here with the G35 and I can tell you point blank that it is boring to drive. The Mustang (and Bullitt) are not.
All totally correct. Wider, stickier tires make a difference in all cars, but you have to measure carefully to see how much difference that actually is--identical tires do not make identical improvements to every car model that you can fit them on. We got no way to know how much difference 295s would make on a Bullitt, and that's just the width--compound, aspect ratio, sidewall stiffness, tire pressure, yada yada yada are other variables that can make more difference that 60 more millimeters of width, or not...Actually, a different set of test drivers might make more difference than any tire permutations & combinations we might come up with.
BTW, LongDude, where the Nethead here is, the MSRP on the window stickers of base Mustang GTs is just under $26,000 and I read that the MSRP of a Bullitt will be in the low $31,000s. Isn't that more like a $5,000 difference instead of "~$3300"? Still a bargain, and will probably bring three, four, or more times that at Barrett Jackson after you've raised Merry Hell in it for three decades of enthusiastic felony.
Like all Mustangs, it is a great starting point for a far more capable vehicle--with many different ways to go on a build-up. Why do you think 33 other tuner manufacturers besides Ford's own SVT build & sell their own tuner versions of the current Mustang? And that doesn't count a half-dozen more who just build tuner versions of early Mustangs...One of those 33 tuner manufacturers produces tuner Mustangs in Germany, another builds tuner Mustangs in Italy, Jack Roush builds and exports a special tuner Mustang for the UK called the 420RE, and yet another tuner builds tuner Bullitt and Boss versions of the current Mustang exclusively for export to Japan--Mustangs aren't even exported to either of those four countries by Ford. Ford's definitely missing some opportunities there...
Of course, with no changes at all the new Bullitt offers great satisfaction for the buck. Drive one hard and see for yourself...
I've built up Mustang GT Premiums to 30K, so 31K for the Bullitt seems a bargain.
Yeah, it isn't quite fair to compare the Bullitt to a base GT seeing as how it is pretty well equipped.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=11970.msg637912#msg637912 date=1194757081
I've built up Mustang GT Premiums to 30K, so 31K for the Bullitt seems a bargain.
Agreed. The Bullitt is a bargain.
if my mini comes back in not so good a shape from the body shop... should i buy a bullitt :rastaman: :banghead: :partyon: :wub:
Quote from: HotRodPilot on November 10, 2007, 11:05:18 PM
if my mini comes back in not so good a shape from the body shop... should i buy a bullitt :rastaman: :banghead: :partyon: :wub:
Considering there is no way you will find one for MSRP, I say no.
:cry:
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 10, 2007, 11:46:22 PM
Considering there is no way you will find one for MSRP, I say no.
I really hate dealers.
I just did a double take of the photos. This is much better than the '01 model. The plainess of this one really speaks. I really dig it.
would it kill mustang sales if ford decided to actually improve its steering at the cost of giving up some of its bargain appeal?
Quote from: Raza on November 10, 2007, 09:58:01 PM
I've built up Mustang GT Premiums to 30K, so 31K for the Bullitt seems a bargain.
A G8 GT at $29,995 sounds even better!
Quote from: Raza on November 10, 2007, 09:58:01 PM
I've built up Mustang GT Premiums to 30K, so 31K for the Bullitt seems a bargain.
If you buy a Premium GT ($27,000), add leather and all the interior trim options ($1500), add an after market h-pipe ($400)+ Ford's FR2 Drag pack ($1400) and FR3 handling pack ($1150), you've basically got yourself the $33,000 Bullitt in the test. You're also up to $32,000. So for your extra grand, you get the even nicer interior trim and steering wheel, the gray spoked wheels, the unique paint job and better resale value than a standard GT because of the Bullitt name.
I'd say that's a fair proposition.
Now, personally, I think a Premium GT with the handling package and a nice set of tires is the best performance deal going, but if you're got the extra few grand, there's a Bullitt with your name on it. :lol:
Quote from: FordSVT on November 11, 2007, 10:30:28 AM
If you buy a Premium GT ($27,000), add leather and all the interior trim options ($1500), add an after market h-pipe ($400)+ Ford's FR2 Drag pack ($1400) and FR3 handling pack ($1150), you've basically got yourself the $33,000 Bullitt in the test. You're also up to $32,000. So for your extra grand, you get the even nicer interior trim and steering wheel, the gray spoked wheels, the unique paint job and better resale value than a standard GT because of the Bullitt name.
I'd say that's a fair proposition.
Now, personally, I think a Premium GT with the handling package and a nice set of tires is the best performance deal going, but if you're got the extra few grand, there's a Bullitt with your name on it. :lol:
Unless of course you're in Canada where a Mustang GT loaded to the nuts is $38,000. Taking into account the exchange rate and a comparable Mustang GT in the US is $11,000 less.
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 10, 2007, 02:58:18 PM
It's better then the first gen Viper.
Hence why I said it's a somewhat useless test. Didn't some magazine also run a Mini Cooper S through it faster than an Enzo?
On this same topic (sort of), I gues there's still a pretty wide gap between so-called "bloggers" and genuine journalists.
Detroit News Bullitt article (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071110/AUTO01/711100350/1148/rss25)
I think if you're going to go around and call yourself an automotive expert of any sort, you'd better be able to actually drive a frikkin' car, huh?
Quote from: JYODER240 on November 11, 2007, 11:02:48 AM
Hence why I said it's a somewhat useless test. Didn't some magazine also run a Mini Cooper S through it faster than an Enzo?
It's somewhat useless in the same sense that a 0-60 time is somewhat useless: it's a single measurement of a single facet of a multifaceted machine.
Width makes a huge difference in slalom testing, so narrower cars have an intrinsic advantage. However, it does give a good concept of the car's composure and stability in transition when comparing between other like-sized cars.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on November 11, 2007, 11:34:38 AM
It's somewhat useless in the same sense that a 0-60 time is somewhat useless: it's a single measurement of a single facet of a multifaceted machine.
Width makes a huge difference in slalom testing, so narrower cars have an intrinsic advantage. However, it does give a good concept of the car's composure and stability in transition when comparing between other like-sized cars.
Not just width, but weight distribution and drivetrain come into play as well. Small, front heavy, FWD cars tend to do quite well in the slalom. I suspect because they tend to rotate under lift throttle conditions more than a lot of more balanced front engine, RWD cars.
Quote from: r0tor on November 10, 2007, 09:42:07 AM
BFG KDW's are not bad tires and 235 width is not "very" narrow
KDWs are certainly not great and definately pale in comparison to any kind of dedicated performance tire and a 235 width is indeed quite narrow for a car this size and weight.
Quote from: ArchBishop on November 10, 2007, 05:53:43 PM
Haha, Didn't we have a similar argument about the 350Z vs the Mustang GT. I claimed that the Z, even in base form, would be a quicker car. Next month, Car and Driver came out with an Issue, with Both the Z and and the Shebly GT. The Z was as fast, handled better, and was overall a better car. It also cost a lot less, and didn't look like shit, with a tacked on hood scoop.
I'm going to say the G35/7 Are better in all aspects.
Well, I hope you have thoroughly driven those cars then. I have, and personally, I find not much special with the G35 (the G37 a little more so). The Mustang has a soul that is not found in either of those cars. Furthermore, on pure aural pleasure, they lack a great exhaust note above ~4-5K where they start to get rough sounding. They are good cars and phenominal bargains with the equipment that they come with, but they fall a bit short on personality for me.
Quote from: Nethead on November 10, 2007, 09:22:20 PM
All totally correct. Wider, stickier tires make a difference in all cars, but you have to measure carefully to see how much difference that actually is--identical tires do not make identical improvements to every car model that you can fit them on. We got no way to know how much difference 295s would make on a Bullitt, and that's just the width--compound, aspect ratio, sidewall stiffness, tire pressure, yada yada yada are other variables that can make more difference that 60 more millimeters of width, or not...Actually, a different set of test drivers might make more difference than any tire permutations & combinations we might come up with.
BTW, LongDude, where the Nethead here is, the MSRP on the window stickers of base Mustang GTs is just under $26,000 and I read that the MSRP of a Bullitt will be in the low $31,000s. Isn't that more like a $5,000 difference instead of "~$3300"? Still a bargain, and will probably bring three, four, or more times that at Barrett Jackson after you've raised Merry Hell in it for three decades of enthusiastic felony.
Like all Mustangs, it is a great starting point for a far more capable vehicle--with many different ways to go on a build-up. Why do you think 33 other tuner manufacturers besides Ford's own SVT build & sell their own tuner versions of the current Mustang? And that doesn't count a half-dozen more who just build tuner versions of early Mustangs...One of those 33 tuner manufacturers produces tuner Mustangs in Germany, another builds tuner Mustangs in Italy, Jack Roush builds and exports a special tuner Mustang for the UK called the 420RE, and yet another tuner builds tuner Bullitt and Boss versions of the current Mustang exclusively for export to Japan--Mustangs aren't even exported to either of those four countries by Ford. Ford's definitely missing some opportunities there...
Of course, with no changes at all the new Bullitt offers great satisfaction for the buck. Drive one hard and see for yourself...
A dealer over on TMS has stated that the Bullitt package is $3300 after he ordered some for his dealership. This particular car probably had HID and ambient lighting (like most of the Bullitts tested) or navigation and thus costed more.
Quote from: LonghornTX on November 11, 2007, 02:29:30 PM
KDWs are certainly not great and definately pale in comparison to any kind of dedicated performance tire and a 235 width is indeed quite narrow for a car this size and weight.
The Mustang has 235 width rears? My Boxster runs 235 width on the fronts!
Quote from: Raza on November 11, 2007, 02:48:51 PM
The Mustang has 235 width rears? My Boxster runs 235 width on the fronts!
235/50/18 all the way around
Quote from: LonghornTX on November 11, 2007, 02:52:12 PM
235/50/18 all the way around
I'd definitely move to summer tires on it if I were going to run the car year round. Snow tires would make the most sense even if you have all seasons; I remember the scramble for sandbags when my friend ran all seasons on his Mustang in the winter. Not just once did he encounter hills he couldn't climb.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=11970.msg638684#msg638684 date=1194818083
I'd definitely move to summer tires on it if I were going to run the car year round. Snow tires would make the most sense even if you have all seasons; I remember the scramble for sandbags when my friend ran all seasons on his Mustang in the winter. Not just once did he encounter hills he couldn't climb.
Snow tires FTW! With snow tires on my Mustang I didn't need sand bags and I got up hills that most other cars with All-Season (really 3 season) tires couldn't or were having trouble with.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=11970.msg638678#msg638678 date=1194817731
The Mustang has 235 width rears? My Boxster runs 235 width on the fronts!
I had 245's on my last Mustang and when it was stock I would say that was the appropriate width. After the mods I was severely under-tired and had to bump the rears to 285's.
Quote from: Raza on November 11, 2007, 02:48:51 PM
The Mustang has 235 width rears? My Boxster runs 235 width on the fronts!
A limited slip makes it a bit easier to put power to the ground, thus you can get away with narrower tires.
Quote from: MX793 on November 11, 2007, 03:02:44 PM
A limited slip makes it a bit easier to put power to the ground, thus you can get away with narrower tires.
Plus oversized rears on a car with an already front-biased weigt distribution might not be the best ticket handling wise.
Quote from: MX793 on November 11, 2007, 03:02:44 PM
A limited slip makes it a bit easier to put power to the ground, thus you can get away with narrower tires.
Interesting. Even if you don't increase width, something like a Yokohama Advan is going to generate more grip, right?
Quote from: Raza on November 11, 2007, 03:13:49 PM
Interesting. Even if you don't increase width, something like a Yokohama Advan is going to generate more grip, right?
Provided the rubber compound is stickier, yes.
Quote from: LonghornTX on November 11, 2007, 02:29:30 PM
KDWs are certainly not great and definately pale in comparison to any kind of dedicated performance tire and a 235 width is indeed quite narrow for a car this size and weight.
i'd take the kdw's over the 225 width RE040's my car came with...
Quote from: r0tor on November 11, 2007, 04:25:58 PM
i'd take the kdw's over the 225 width RE040's my car came with...
Oops, I mistakingly typed KDW instead of KDWS.
Quote from: M_power on November 11, 2007, 01:55:33 AM
would it kill mustang sales if ford decided to actually improve its steering at the cost of giving up some of its bargain appeal?
M_power: M_Dude, it's not about total sales as much as it is about total car for the money. Yeah, the Mustang GT is the only US car offering 300 HP for under $26,000 brand new. But it's much more than 300 HP, and that's why you can still buy Mustangs but you can't buy any of the imitation Mustangs and you can't buy any of the musclecars--the one semi-exception being the resurrected Charger, and it's only available today as a four-door automatic.
These bygone relics failed because what they did not have is the Mustang's central theme for success: affordable performance in a really good car. A car that offered 2+2 seating without having to learn to love a four-door sedan, a station wagon, or a minivan. A car that working lads and lasses could afford to modify on the limited budgets that the working young must survive on. A fold-down split backseat, one-touch windows, power remote side mirrors, leather upholstery options, four wheel power discs with ABS, manual transmissions, and of course the usual amenities like automatics, A/C, P/S, P/B, radio/CD, yada yada yada.
Offering so much of what so many want for under $26,000 (convertibles are more) is NOT easy--else there'd be plenty of other successful 2+2 or four-passenger two-door V8 coupes in competition with the Mustang. Already, Dodge has cut Challenger first-year production from 30,000 units to only 5,000 units--and Challengers ain't even in the showrooms yet! Dodge has seen just how hard it can be, and GM is still hoping they can find the answers Dodge could not. There appears to be a much lower limit on what is genuinely affordable in the USA today than was previously believed to be the case. When Ford is better off financially, the steering will be improved. It's quite good as is, fortunately. The only way to make a definitive steering improvement right now, when the runaway profits of the 'Sixties just aren't there, is to raise the price. The Mustang GT is currently priced squarely in the sweet spot so the line must be held on the price as long as possible. The resurrected GTO was not priced hugely above the Mustang like the Corvette is, but it became extinct again in just three model years even though massive discounts were offered. And yet the GTO was a four passenger two-door coupe with a bigger V8 and a six-speed manual. Go figure?
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 10, 2007, 11:46:22 PM
Considering there is no way you will find one for MSRP, I say no.
I could get one for $100 over cost. But then again I work for a Ford dealer!
Quote from: Onslaught on November 15, 2007, 02:48:46 PM
I could get one for $100 over cost. But then again I work for a Ford dealer!
Could you? I spoke with a dealer about a GT500 and I asked the salesman if he can buy one. He said "Yes, but only if I pay $20,000 over MSRP".
Quote from: Nethead on November 15, 2007, 10:26:40 AM
Yeah, the Mustang GT is the only US car offering 300 HP for under $26,000 brand new. But it's much more than 300 HP,
Really? How much more? Like 400?
Quote from: Vinsanity on November 15, 2007, 04:29:17 PM
Really? How much more? Like 400?
Western Motorsports in Calgary told me that stock 2005+ Mustang GT's are hitting 267-272 RWHP when they dyno the car for a baseline before they do any modifications. Factor in a 15% drivetrain loss and that's 315-320 crank horsepower.
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 15, 2007, 03:20:47 PM
Could you? I spoke with a dealer about a GT500 and I asked the salesman if he can buy one. He said "Yes, but only if I pay $20,000 over MSRP".
I could probably pull it off because I've been there 14+ years and my dad has for over 26. It wouldn't be the first time someone got a special model for cost at my place. Now if only I had the money to pick up that Ford GT we had that time......
Quote from: Vinsanity on November 15, 2007, 04:29:17 PM
Really? How much more? Like 400?
Vinsanity: VinDude, "more" as in "more than just a car with 300 HP".
But if you do want more than 300 HP, $42,000 will get you 500 HP--plus Brembos, bigger rear brakes, Tremec's latest and greatest six-speed manual, great wheels and tires, a supercharger, an intercooler, DOHC four-valve dual-injector aluminum heads, a bigger radiator, bigger bearings, bigger swaybars, stiffer bushings, and astronomic appreciation at Barrett Jackson in thirty years :thumbsup:.
as opposed to say, a G35, which is really just a car with 300 hp? :huh:
Quote from: Vinsanity on November 16, 2007, 12:42:01 PM
as opposed to say, a G35, which is really just a car with 300 hp? :huh:
Or a G37S with like 330.
The Bridgestone KDWs are not all season tires, they are summer performance tires. I got a set a couple of months ago for the M3 to replace my worn out OEM Contis (track casualties) and IMHO they are better than the Contis. I have already tracked the Bridgestones and felt the car handled better.
So, forget about using the tires as an excuse here.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on November 16, 2007, 04:52:39 PM
The Bridgestone KDWs are not all season tires, they are summer performance tires. I got a set a couple of months ago for the M3 to replace my worn out OEM Contis (track casualties) and IMHO they are better than the Contis. I have already tracked the Bridgestones and felt the car handled better.
So, forget about using the tires as an excuse here.
The Mustang comes with the KDWS, not the KDW. The KDWS is an all season. The KDW is a summer tire.
Quote from: MX793 on November 16, 2007, 05:00:45 PM
The Mustang comes with the KDWS, not the KDW. The KDWS is an all season. The KDW is a summer tire.
Ok, valid excuse then I guess. My bad.
Quote from: Nethead on November 16, 2007, 11:37:47 AM
Vinsanity: VinDude, "more" as in "more than just a car with 300 HP".
But if you do want more than 300 HP, $42,000 will get you 500 HP--plus Brembos, bigger rear brakes, Tremec's latest and greatest six-speed manual, great wheels and tires, a supercharger, an intercooler, DOHC four-valve dual-injector aluminum heads, a bigger radiator, bigger bearings, bigger swaybars, stiffer bushings, and astronomic appreciation at Barrett Jackson in thirty years :thumbsup:.
You must be a blast at parties.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on November 16, 2007, 05:34:30 PM
You must be a blast at parties.
:lol:
Nethead, how old are you?
Quote from: TheIntrepid on November 16, 2007, 05:37:53 PM
:lol:
Nethead, how old are you?
He's got a mountain named after him because he surveyed it.
Quote from: Vinsanity on November 16, 2007, 12:42:01 PM
as opposed to say, a G35, which is really just a car with 300 hp? :huh:
Vinsanity: You know G35s better than the Nethead here, so we'll take your word for it.
Quote from: HEMI666 on November 16, 2007, 06:44:51 PM
He's got mountain named after him because he surveyed it.
Mt. Nethead?
That has to be in Canada.
Quote from: TheIntrepid on November 16, 2007, 05:37:53 PM
:lol:
Nethead, how old are you?
I can still remember the intro of the Thunderbird, the first car I ever wanted to own. Around that time I attended my first car race--stock cars on dirt.
I was fifteen when the GTO debuted, sixteen when the Mustang hit the dealerships, twenty-three when I bought my first motorcycle (a new Honda CB750 Four that I still own), and twenty-four when I bought my first Cobra Jet.
I pretty much saw it all, never thinking at the time that the Age of the Musclecar would ever end. We all thought it would just get better, and that the day would surely come when we'd all own the fire-breathing car(s) of our dreams--the only problem we had to deal with was just how to pick the best from all the great choices out there, even in my little hometown. Even there a doctor had a metalflake gold Ferrari 250 GTO, some other medical specialist had a Lotus Cortina, and finally even a Lime Gold (now called Legend Gold) '67 G.T. 350 coupe with white stripes was bought by a wealthy contractor for his sixteen-year-old son, who totalled it after a coupla three months. Even my Dad bought a set of Goodyear Sportscar Specials with the signature blue dots for the family station wagon--even before they became the OEM tires of Shelby Cobras. $300 was a fortune to spend on a single set of tires in 1961, but Dad had the fever even though he didn't have the bankroll.
I took Driver's Ed in a three-on-the-tree dual brake pedal/dual clutch pedal '63 Chevy Biscayne. Two years later, my former fiancee took Driver's Ed on an automatic, which meant I was Old School even if not old at that time...While terrorizing the countryside and the Driver's Ed instructor in that Biscayne, I never dreamed that the day would come when there would not be full-sized Chevies for sale--be they Bel-Airs, Impalas, Caprices, or whatever. Some things were just unthinkable.
They could make a season-long documentary series on all the great events in automotive competition and in the automotive industry that have happened in my lifetime. While those automotive happenings seem amazing, my late maternal grandfather was born before anyone had ever flown in a heavier-than-air craft yet got to watch "...one small step for Man, one giant leap for mankind" televised from the Moon. By that standard, comparatively little has changed in automobiles in my six decades. In fact, little changed in automobiles in Grandpa's seven decades either--Grandpa was not even one year old when the only two automobiles in the state of Iowa collided with each other.
So, yeah, the Grim Reaper sends me flowers on my birthday and stops by to have a piece of the cake after the Volunteer Firemen get all the candles hosed down. They were gonna lease a water bomber this year but there was a shortage of fire retardant chemicals because of the wildfires in SoCal...
Wow, Nethead that's a huge post. I have a 3 inch screen with which to surf here!
Quote from: Raza on November 21, 2007, 08:08:54 PM
Wow, Nethead that's a huge post. I have a 3 inch screen with which to surf here!
Raza: My apologies, RazDude! For those of you surfin' on three inch screens:
"I'm 59."