Kinda off topic but, deciding between 04 Mustang Mach 1 or 2002 Camaro SS | Ford Explorer Forums - Serious Explorations

  • Register Today It's free!

Kinda off topic but, deciding between 04 Mustang Mach 1 or 2002 Camaro SS

JLindley

Well-Known Member
Joined
October 25, 2010
Messages
113
Reaction score
1
City, State
North Carolina
Year, Model & Trim Level
'02 Ex XLT, '97 Ex EB
Im having a hard time deciding what i should get either a 2004 Mustang Mach 1 or a 2002 Camaro SS. Its gonna be a year or so before i get one but would like some other peoples thoughts about the cars
 



Join the Elite Explorers for $20 each year.
Elite Explorer members see no advertisements, no banner ads, no double underlined links,.
Add an avatar, upload photo attachments, and more!
.





Mach 1 definately.. Rick and JDraper both have one..
 






Mustang all the way!!!!
 






SS all the way

5.7 vs 4.6
 






Get the Mach 1. Look at the reviews (the epinions, not the car magazine reviews) of both. The Mustang trumps the SS in everything. I've driven both (haven't owned either, but 2 friends have the cars) and the Mach 1 seems like a much better car. Lighter, better gas, seems to handle better (they let me drive them like they drive them) and while it's not much, the Mustang is 2 years newer.

2002 was the last year for the Chevy, and they were all the same from 1998 up. The Mach 1, while not a big change from the GT, was a bit more rare than an SS.

The aftermarket parts market will be almost equal, but check out the possibilities available to the Ford. The Ford had, what, 305 or 310 HP? The Chevy, I believe, was 325. Throw a sidewinder onto the Ford and now you've got 450 HP, easy.

Be responsible and remember - friends don't let friends drive Chevys.
 






Cam the LS1 its done.....
 






This isn't even something that should be debated...Mach 1 hands down :)
 






..... The Mach 1, while not a big change from the GT, was a bit more rare than an SS.....

Umm..define what you mean by "not a big change". Different motor, different suspension setup, different interior, different hood, shaker intake system......

I drove both when looking at buying one new, and they are significantly different in performance. I wouldn't have bought the GT. I couldn't not buy the Mach 1.
 






Umm..define what you mean by "not a big change". Different motor, different suspension setup, different interior, different hood, shaker intake system......

I drove both when looking at buying one new, and they are significantly different in performance. I wouldn't have bought the GT. I couldn't not buy the Mach 1.

OK - poor choice of wording on my part. The '02 SS was essentially no different in appearance than the '98 base. Yeah, hood, wheels, and a few other things, but for 5 years they were hard to tell the difference from each other. A non-enthusiast might not be able to tell them apart.

The Mach 1, though, is pretty recognizable. Again, a non-enthusiast might not recognize them easily, but it is a lot more rare than an SS.
 






Mach 1!!!
 






Go test drive both and decide.. Trust me the mach handles better hands down
 






'stang
 












I've had 3 Camaros.....I can't wait to own a Stang.
 






>>>>>>>>>
Im having a hard time deciding what i should get either a 2004 Mustang Mach 1 or a 2002 Camaro SS. Its gonna be a year or so before i get one but would like some other peoples thoughts about the cars
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I like both, but the older ones from the 60's and 70's. True muscle cars. MY brother in law bought a brand new 1971 Plymouth 'Cuda 383ci right after he came home from the Vietnam war. Now that car was cool and could haul a$$!
 






>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I like both, but the older ones from the 60's and 70's. True muscle cars. MY brother in law bought a brand new 1971 Plymouth 'Cuda 383ci right after he came home from the Vietnam war. Now that car was cool and could haul a$$!

You'll find that the new muscle cars will run circles around the old ones performance wise. Faster, better handling, better braking, better fuel mileage, etc.

At the time it was built, the 03-04 Mach 1 was the 3rd fastest production Mustang made (0-60 wise and 1/4 Mile) behind the 03-04 Terminator and (if I remember correctly) the 1969 Boss 429.
 






SS all the way

5.7 vs 4.6

I have 2000 GT 5 speed and walk the 5.7s all day and all I have is an intake and exhaust
 






DOHC 4.6 is a killer motor. Love our Mach 1.

71front1.jpg


71grill.jpg
 






I drove both when looking at buying one new, and they are significantly different in performance. I wouldn't have bought the GT. I couldn't not buy the Mach 1.

Same experience here. We test drove the GT, didn't like it, and were going to leave the dealership. The salesman asked if we wanted to try the Mach 1. I wasn't familiar with the car at all. We walked out back and that shaker scoop got my attention! Took the car for a ride and it handled NOTHING like the GT. The suspension setup is different. It uses Tokico struts in front which makes a big difference. The brakes are the same as on the Cobra of the same year. Hit the throttle and the thing will turn 13s bone stock and still get an EPA mileage of 28mpg on the highway. A really nice package.
 



Join the Elite Explorers for $20 each year.
Elite Explorer members see no advertisements, no banner ads, no double underlined links,.
Add an avatar, upload photo attachments, and more!
.





>>>>>>>>
You'll find that the new muscle cars will run circles around the old ones performance wise. Faster, better handling, better braking, better fuel mileage, etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

There is no doubt that the computerized technology of today is better and the suspensions, braking are better. As far as fuel economy they are better today, but when you want a real muscle car, who cares how good the gas mileage is. The older, simpler, true muscle cars were pure horsepower right from the factory without all the high tech gadgets and air pollution BS of today, and they looked a hell of a lot cooler than these copycat cars of today. In fact, most of these newer cars have some kind of older model feature built into them like racing stripes, hood scoops, shape, showing just how popular the older models were. The older ones also came stock, with heavy duty gearing and transmissions, rear wheel drive, factory posi traction and dual exhaust. I don't much about the newer cars, but I suspect they are front wheel drive, I could be wrong and if they are, that kills calling them muscle cars IMO. These newer cars also cost a lot more to buy and up keep than one of those muscle cars from the 60's and 70's, not to mention try and work on one from today, you basically can't yourself. With all the gadgets and technology in these newer cars comes the PITA of replacing faulty sensors etc. and they and their parts won't last nearly as long on the road over their lifetimes. They just don't build things to last like they use to in this country.

>>>>>>>>>>At the time it was built, the 03-04 Mach 1 was the 3rd fastest production Mustang made (0-60 wise and 1/4 Mile) behind the 03-04 Terminator and (if I remember correctly) the 1969 Boss 429.
>>>>>>>>

It isn't just about the speed off the line, it is the look and feel of the pure muscle and rumble of the stock engine and car, the sound from the factory dual exhaust and the posi, double burn out, rear tire trail going down the street in a cloud of tire smoke. Can't do that in a front wheel drive, it just isn't the same. My bro-in-laws 71' Cuda could do 150-160 mph or more all day long and hold that speed there without flinching, and without any high tech, fancy, computerized technology helping it along. Only thing that would slow it down would be the lack of road. Just pure horsepower off of the lot and no sensors going off warning you about your speed or some other issue (door ajar :) ) wrong in the car. His 'Cuda also came with factory, lock down hood pins which added to it's overall cool look. Cuda's also came with 340 ci and 440 ci engines as well. His was the 383ci.
 






Back
Top