Okay, I don't want any flames on here, just opinions.

In the new Mustang mag, they tested a 100% stock 2002 GT, and here are the results:

14.986 @ 94.47 2.237
14.557 @ 97.09 2.219
14.684 @ 96.42 2.213
14.45? @ 97.82 2.31?
14.218 @ 98.06 2.222

Then they removed the air filter assembly (I don't like this mod, but technically it is free) and silencer. They removed the spare tire and jack, bumped the front tires to 46psi, and loosened the sway bar!

13.96? @ 99.02 2.054
13.721 @ 101.8 2.011

I think that overall there is alot of potential for no money! I was thinking of purchasing a newer Mustang, like a 1999 or 2000, and don't get me wrong they are great cars, but I need something other than a Mustang!

What do you guys think. Give honest opinions and NO FLAMES!!!

 

Turbo-charged K-car or a turbo-charge Caravan.

 

My honest opinion is this...

For much less money (15K) I picked up my '98 t/a.

It ran 13.5 bone stock trim/weight. With under $1500 in mods I have no problem with 12's.

Doesnt look like that good of a deal to me at all. No flames, no brand loyalty, no "LS1 is built by ***"...just $$ to ET comparison.

-Doug

 

No flames here either, but I have seen 1999 GTs going for $9500 near me! It's all a mute point when we talk about used cars, but as far as new cars go, it is pretty respectable for the price!

 

They didn't comment on the weather or the condition of that car (remember it was a reader's car), but I was highly dissappointed in those times. Afterall, MM&FF got a 13.7x out of a bone stock 2001 GT without pulling any air filters, sway bars, etc.

 

They did dyno it and it made 238/279 I believe, but still, it should be quicker!

 

yea, im with 85trans on this one. i mean, you could even pick up an LT1 for under 8 grand, throw on 1000 in mods and see mid 13's or faster. and im not saying chevy just because i liek chevy better than ford, but i will say chevy offers more power per dollar than anything else i know.

 

I mean for a new car. I could pick up a 5.0 Fox body for $3000 and put $20,000 worth of mods in it and run in the 10s, but I am asking about how it compares with other new cars!

You could do the same thing with a used Civic, but I jus want to know what you think of a new car with this performance for $24,000.

 

So basically it went 14.2@98 stock and 13.7 with tweaking? I've heard of people "tweaking" in that manner on "stock" Ls1's so that they run high 12's! So for a brand new car I dont' think thats fast. And the 101 mph shows that the motor is not really making that much power. For comparison.........check out my girlfriends camaro in the sig (even though its now wrecked) that car went 99.8mph with a ****ty *** truck 350 with crappy 305 heads, a cam, and a peg leg 3.42 rear. Ls1's in this area usually run 105-7 bone stock. Hell, my formula went 13.5@104 with stock 305 vortecs and a truck 350 with a mild cam. The ultimate budget newer car would still be like a used 98ish Ls1 with light mods or a early 90's 6 speed Lt1 with mods. Either of those will go 12's for half the price.

 

My honest opinion is that they have some ****ty *** drivers. They suck bad. Look how inconsistent they are - even the trap speeds. I wouldn't take numbers like that as good evidence of a car's potential.....

Chris

 

The 60's are horrible. They should be pulling low 2.0's bone stock.

 

I agree, I always thought they had some good drivers there! I guess not! They should have been 13s before they took out the air box, and did all the tricks to it!!!

 

MM&FF has a few really good drivers writing for them. The guys at 5.0&SF are probably a better reflection of what you'd see out of an average driver though.

 

Are you talking about Evan Smith. I know he is a great driver, and I actually found out that the guy running our club, used to race with him in the brackets and he said Evan isn't as good as he sounds. I don't know if he was BSing me or not, but he sure as h**l made me believe him after talking about it!

 

Didn't Evan win some championships or something? I think he's every bit as good as he sounds, unless the mags lie about the times he gets.

Chris

 

Brian,
Take it from me a guy who owns an LS1. Get the GN or t-type. I'd be driving one if it wasn't for the fact that I couldn't get enough in a loan to buy one. Much better bang for your buck.

 

In general, not just Evan Smith, MM&FF seems to have some pretty good drivers on their staff.

 

Very true!

Everyone also keep in mind that the cobra's torque curve isnt very forgiving on poor drivers. LS1's are very easy to get respectable times out of compared to cobras.

I have driven my friend '97 cobra many times. You guys have to stay on your toes (4.30 gears dont help).

-Doug

 

This was a GT not a Cobra, they have gotten the Cobras to go 13.3s, but you are right about the Mustangs (all, especially IRS Cobras) being difficult to launch. They don't have much weight over the rear end, and have low end torque also!!! The gears do make it harder, but with tires and any traction they are well worth it!!!

 

OK back to the question at hand. The best bang for your buck (no Mustang's, Late 80's Mustang's probably the best answer to you bang for the buck question). Probably the GN or Type T's, but don't under estimate the ability of the turbocoupe or supercoupe T-birds. You being a Ford guy maybe more appealing. If non of those work and you want to go N/A pick up a 93' - '97 LT1 Camaro w/ a stick (not brand loyalty just what I know)

Later and Good Luck, Garrett

 

Hey Camaro Freak, look in my sig!!!

I know what the best bang for the buck is, both GM and Ford HEHEHE!!!

 

I have less than a $1000 in mods in my 3440lb GT and run in he 13's on street tires. All accesories...no short belt..stock 16's. I haven't even swapped out the gears yet...still have stock 3.27's tha came in it. I have not been impressed by the times I've seen at my track with the LT1 cars....could just be all bad drivers.

 

About this topic. A guy at my track with a 2000 GT runs CONSISTENT 13.3's @103 with a TB,cold air,H-pipe,catback,3.90 gears, and MT E/T streets on 16's. Full weight GT with no short belt or skinnies. Has 17" rims in front with 16's in back. Stock MAF and exhaust manifolds still....no pulleys OR short belt. Thats not bad. He also ran a best one time 13.76 DEAD STOCK including tires! Most of his times were 13.8-14.1's dead stock on stock tires. All it takes is a good driver.

 

I'd like to have a 5-speed '99+ GT for a night at the track. I think with a little practice, good air, and some good notes it would be easy to whittle the times down into the 13.7 - 13.8 range bone stock. The average Joe at the track just doesn't seem to understand how important it is to keep a detailed log book.