|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 432
CEG\'er
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 432 |
Ok after a little financial trouble im a trying to get my new car going here, so i was wondering about some comments on the srt-4 or the new gt mustang, i can get the srt-4 fully loaded along with most of the options on the mustang, but i really would like to start off with an boosted car compared to naturally aspirated one, i will put a super charger on the mustang down the line, but i was wondering whaT you guys think. Lemme know! input is always wanted lets just keep it on the subject of cars around 24-28k please thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 8,281
Captain Impound Boy
|
|
Captain Impound Boy
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 8,281 |
Thread needs more Terminator talk!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,392
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,392 |
no comparison. the mustang all the way. the mustang is starting n/a beyond where the srt starts with boost. factor in resale (the srt's are crap) along with looks (personally i love the mustang) and it's no contest in my eyes. ymmv.
02 Mustang GT... Tuned by Nelsons. Low 12's, anyone? 
.....______
___|______\_____
|/-\_________/-\_|
.\_/...............\_/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 362
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 362 |
Honestly its a tough call. The Mustang GT's aren't really that fast, in fact, I would be willing to bet that given a good driver they should run nearly identical. (I have witnessed a couple SRT-4's run sub 14's, one was a 13.9 with a chick driving) The SRT-4 would be cheaper to get a few more hp out of since it has boost. If you live where there is snow, the SRT-4 can be driven year round while the mustang really shouldn't be.
Now on the other hand, if you go with a nice low mileage LS1 camaro thats a different story. (I don't want to hear about them not currently making them anymore because SRT-4's are done too) The LS1 runs low 13's stock and there have been a few that touch 12's bone stock.
All that said, I say go with the SRT-4 even though its a neon. A lot of my opinion is based off the fact that I hate mustangs and they really aren't that fast.
2001 Volvo S40-Perrin MBC@ 11psi, EST intake, 35% tint, still slow
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,392
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,392 |
Originally posted by CeeBee94Z:
All that said, I say go with the SRT-4 even though its a neon. A lot of my opinion is based off the fact that I hate mustangs and they really aren't that fast.
judging by the mods you have listed in your sig, i'd say it's the camaro that really isn't all that fast. 
02 Mustang GT... Tuned by Nelsons. Low 12's, anyone?
.....______
___|______\_____
|/-\_________/-\_|
.\_/...............\_/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 8,281
Captain Impound Boy
|
|
Captain Impound Boy
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 8,281 |
Originally posted by CeeBee94Z:
1994 Teal Z28, 224/230 cam, 1.6RR, madwolf tune, SS Hood, Hurst Short Throw, Edelbrock Headers, Adjustable Borla Cat-Back, 17" Eagle wheels w/255 45 17 Falken FK-451's, TB Bypass, Air Foil, 160 therm 13.52@106.11mph (with 2 collapsed lifters)
It looks like LS1's run 13.52 modified to me
But what do I know
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 362
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 362 |
Originally posted by SteedaSVTââ??¢:
Originally posted by CeeBee94Z:
1994 Teal Z28, 224/230 cam, 1.6RR, madwolf tune, SS Hood, Hurst Short Throw, Edelbrock Headers, Adjustable Borla Cat-Back, 17" Eagle wheels w/255 45 17 Falken FK-451's, TB Bypass, Air Foil, 160 therm 13.52@106.11mph (with 2 collapsed lifters)
It looks like LS1's run 13.52 modified to me
But what do I know
Apparently not much since a 94 is an LT1 and if you look that run was with 2 collapsed lifters half way down the track. People with very similar setups were running mid 12's, I just never got back to the track after I fixed it. Just to give you an idea of how bad it was running with those collapsed lifters; I ran 13.7 WITHOUT the tune and all of the valvetrain work. (So basically just short shifter and exhaust and STREET tires)
2001 Volvo S40-Perrin MBC@ 11psi, EST intake, 35% tint, still slow
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653 |
Although you can make the srt4 faster for less money... once you get the money the mustang will kill the srt4.
So if you're looking to keep the car for a while, and eventually spend some money on it, go with the mustang.
If you're just looking for quick, cheap performance that you're gonna sell in 5 years, go with the srt4.
And yeah, the mustang is better looking and a nicer ride than the srt4.
Personally, I'd get something used. Probably a mustang.
98.5 SVT
91 Escort GT (almost sold)
96 ATX Zetec (i brake to watch you swerve)
FS: SVT rear sway bar
WTB: Very cheap beater
CEG Dragon Run - October 13-15
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,816
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,816 |
"American Muscle?" 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,910
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,910 |
Mustang GT period, looks and sounds better
- 95 Mystique LS - Zetec/5spd
- 99 Contour SeVT Sport - Duratec/5spd
Official NE-CEG Contour/Mustang Family
|
|
|
|
|
