Results 1 to 20 of 29
Thread: 99 mustang gt
-
03-30-2009, 07:54 PM #1
99 mustang gt
not a kill.....but definately killed any interpretation i had of a n/a mustang killing my ws6. to cut to the chase....mustangs are really slow. i had no idea of how slow because i havent drove a ford in probably 10 years untill this weekend my aunt told me to go ahead and take her 99 mustang gt for a spin. i used to have a 2000 pontiac bonneville ssei that i bet would beat the snot out of that poor little thing. at first i was kind of scared to drive it cuz im thinking damn what if this thing feels like it could give me a little competition. well that was soon over with needless to say. so if all that ford is giving to the new gt's is 45 more horses they have a long way to go to catch up with gm. has anyone else done this experiment? by the way the handling felt really sloppy too.
-
03-31-2009, 05:10 AM #2
2v stangs are funny. the newer 3v's are getting better.
-
03-31-2009, 06:58 AM #3
Ive driven 4 of the older gen mustang i think from 99-04. Everytime i would drive one it was a disaster and would disappoint me big time. Believe it or not i really wanted to buy a mustang on a couple of occasions but all it takes is test driving both cars and any doubt about the camaro or T/A goes out the window and is the clear winner. The mustang feels like it has a good amount of torque on innitial tap of the gas pedal and then falls flat on its face in power. The auto is much worse and always seems to be out of its powerband doesnt like to be driven hard at all. The newer Gen stangs i do admit are alot better and they usually pull about 260rwhp 2005+ stangs and they will do the job as far as feeling fast but it still really needs a 6speed the gearing feels too wide to me when it hit 3rd gear and felt worse going into 4th and 5th. Either way they have a reason as to why they appeal to soo many people but i will say this most of the people who buy them hardly ever test drove a camaro back in those days 93-02 and i know, thats usually what i end up asking mostly every mustang owner. Granted you will have the few that have and have owned a LS1 or LT1 and went to a mustang either way.
-
03-31-2009, 06:45 PM #4
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Location
- Jacksonville Tx
- Age
- 33
- Posts
- 983
Black- 2002 ws6 (6 speed)
1999 mbm Z m6/ forged 346, lt's, wires, ls6 intake, sts rear turbo.
*SOLD*2002 black ws6- <Bolt ons, ls6 heads, mild cam, dyno tune, full susp. and 4.10s> --440rwhp/395rwtq
-
03-31-2009, 07:09 PM #5
Id agree ^^^, ive seen a cammed and full bolt on 02 Gt only pull 259 rwhp(cant remember cam specs) granted they start about 220rwhp so getting them to LS1 rwhp numbers is gonna be hard. I have to admit the Mach 1 mustangs aint too bad with full bolt ons they are fairly quick and do very well with stock LS1's.
-
03-31-2009, 07:12 PM #6
-
03-31-2009, 08:49 PM #7
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
- Location
- Fort Benning, GA
- Age
- 42
- Posts
- 435
Black- '91 turbo fox, '97 vette
I'm a mustang fan in general, but I just can't bring myself to buy a new one. The Terminators have potential for future purchase, and honestly they're more interesting than the GT500. But at least 540 hp, decent cornering ability, and huge modification potential with optional factory hp increases makes the GT500 the sickest muscle/pony car on the road today. Ford definitely has the formula right with that car. I just prefer the terminators because they're lighter, still have huge performance potential, and they're significantly cheaper.
However, no mustang GT since '95 is of any interest to me whatsoever. '95s and earlier have the 5.0s which are a breeze to modify for me, now. But in regard to the new GTs, I just refuse to own a performance V8 car that makes as much power as most of the performance V6s (less than some) on the market and the turbo 4 cylinders. Granted, my vette only makes 45 hp more than the GT, but the car is considerably lighter than the new mustangs and its a different segment, too.
Especially with the new competition on the block, Ford really should step up their game. The new Mustang GTs should come with at least 350 hp, which would put them on par with the LS1 vettes and F-bodies. 400 would be excellent, and anything more would be icing on the cake, though I realize that the GT can't go too much higher before it starts dragging sales away from the GT500s. Though I refrain from holding my breath, if Ford goes to the 400hp 5.0L modular, I would be pretty excited about a mustang GT again.
ChrisLast edited by Chris Arnold; 03-31-2009 at 08:56 PM.
-
04-01-2009, 04:35 AM #8
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Location
- Knoxville, TN
- Posts
- 1,095
B2300 (Fluffy) Retired- Plain-Jane Dodge Truck
....assuming it doesn't also becoming a 3900 lb tank like the 2010 Camaro....
-
04-01-2009, 05:52 AM #9
-
04-01-2009, 05:59 AM #10
-
04-01-2009, 06:04 AM #11
isnt the ZR1 around $100k? Whats the gt500 cost?
-
04-01-2009, 07:42 AM #12
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Location
- Jeffersonville, Indiana
- Age
- 45
- Posts
- 796
Monterey Maroon Metalic- 2000 Z28
http://autos.yahoo.com/2010_ford_shelby_gt500/
The '10 MSRP's for $46,325 - $51,325
-
04-01-2009, 08:35 AM #13
I have never been a big fan of the Mustangs, but in today's world I see them as kind of a brother amidst the sea of rice that has flooded our streets.
There is a large aftermarket for the last gen Mustang that you have posted your doubts about. With gears, and bolt ons, those cars can go comfortably into the 13s and challenge stock LS1s in short stoplight encounters.
When I see someone driving one of those, I feel as though I at least see someone who is grounded properly. The Mach 1 edition, with a shaker hood is a particularly nice model from that generation.
When I see a Honda with a fart can, or a Toyota Celica with stickers all over it, I think, 'man, that kid has issues.'
-
04-01-2009, 08:44 AM #14
-
04-01-2009, 07:01 PM #15
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Location
- Alachua, Fl
- Age
- 42
- Posts
- 1,733
Ignition Orange/Black- 2008 G8 GT, 98 Z28 383
The Auto 99-04 GT's were anemic. I owned a 99 GT with the 5 speed and turned consistent 14.2-14.3@98-99MPH 1/4 times stock. Not too bad for the money, and it was a nice shifting fun car to drive. Does not even compare to an LS1, but I still had fun with it.
-
04-01-2009, 08:05 PM #16
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
- Location
- Fort Benning, GA
- Age
- 42
- Posts
- 435
Black- '91 turbo fox, '97 vette
-
04-02-2009, 05:18 AM #17
-
04-02-2009, 07:43 AM #18
That one from hennessey
This one is from Lingenfelter
-
04-02-2009, 07:54 AM #19
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- Milwaukee
- Posts
- 3,276
Arctic White, red/gray- 1997 Corvette, 92 Typhoon
-
04-02-2009, 01:18 PM #20
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
- Location
- Fort Benning, GA
- Age
- 42
- Posts
- 435
Black- '91 turbo fox, '97 vette
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
Mustang gt's??
By Transamws6 in forum Domestics and ForeignsReplies: 104Last Post: 01-16-2010, 05:28 AM -
05 Red Mustang GT
By Z06-Goose in forum Showcar and DetailingReplies: 20Last Post: 07-30-2009, 08:39 PM -
ls1 vs mustang gt
By midnightnavyz28 in forum Kill StoriesReplies: 18Last Post: 07-05-2009, 04:56 PM -
here's my mustang...
By sit_back in forum Member's RidesReplies: 19Last Post: 08-07-2006, 07:42 PM -
06 Mustang GT vs. 99 z28
By raybroussard in forum Kill StoriesReplies: 9Last Post: 07-10-2006, 12:51 AM
Bookmarks