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

[synyster]

MACH 1 or COBRA....no chevy's! lol

 

[JDraper]

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

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.

You have a lot to learn about newer muscle cars...From the factory, they come with all the features you described. Posi rears, dual exhausts, they are rear wheel drive and are far better in every way except the look. They are more dependable, last longer, cost no more to maintain, etc..

Go take a ride in a new Mustang or Camaro..you'll be amazed at how much the muscle car has been improved.

BTW, I also have a '66 Mustang, and driving the two Mustangs back to back is no comparison. The ONLY place that the '66 does better is the body style.

 

[94Eddie]

I say get the Mach. In the long run you will be much happier with it for a variety of reasons.

 

[tower]

Camaro or Mustang that is like asking blond or brunette

I vote for the Mustang given the ones you asked about.

As to new or old that is much easier. Looks and sound old, in every other aspect there is no comparison as new has way more power, is way faster, handles way better, way more comfortable and so on.

 

[Exproblems]

>>>>>>>>

You have a lot to learn about newer muscle cars...>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I said I don't know much about the newer cars and I wouldn't call the newer ones, muscle cars, just high technology driven vehicles. You can get a 4 cylinder BMW to do 140mph and I wouldn't call that a muscle car.

>>>>>>>>. They are more dependable, last longer, cost no more to maintain, etc..>>>>>>>>

I doubt any of these. The parts made today don't last long, junk, thats why we are all here complaining about problems in our Ex's in the first place, which will lead to bad dependability and they cost way more to repair, mostly due to all that technology stuffed into them. Much more difficult to work on than older model cars which leads to higher maintenance costs as well.

>>>>>>>>Go take a ride in a new Mustang or Camaro..you'll be amazed at how much the muscle car has been improved.>>>>>>>>>

Nah, can't afford one , so I wouldn't take a test ride in something I can't own. I've seen a few around though.

>>>>>>>>>> I also have a '66 Mustang, and driving the two Mustangs back to back is no comparison. The ONLY place that the '66 does better is the body style.

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

Then you should know what I am talking about regarding the sound and feel of an older model muscle car.

 

[Schobanger]

just please, if you can work a clutch. GET A CLUTCH. biggest pet peave of mine is when people whom i know that are perfectly capable of working a clutch buy and automatic American Muscle car. Make it loud too :

 

[lynchy wa]

Still mustang .......and brunette too, now that's been put on the table.

 

[Rick]

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

Then you should know what I am talking about regarding the sound and feel of an older model muscle car.

Yeah there's nothing like the poor fit and finish, and squeaks and rattles from an old '60s muscle car.

I own and race a '70 Dodge Dart with a 512 CI big block. Runs 10.30s... I know Detroit muscle and the '04 Mach 1 IS a muscle car, or to be more accurate "pony car"... It has the sound coming from it's dual exhaust, and the look, with it's functional shaker hood scoop. What it doesn't have is ****ty brakes, and ****ty handling like the first gen muscle cars ALL did. About the only old "muscle car" that handled and stopped were the old Cobra's but they were sports cars, not "muscle cars".

 

[JDraper]

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

Then you should know what I am talking about regarding the sound and feel of an older model muscle car.

Yep, know exactly what you're talking about....and the new ones are better. I've owned/driven many a '60's Muscle car. The ONLY things the old ones have that is better than the new muscle cars is the nostalgia, the aesthetics and the ease of working on them.

As far as being made better? The new ones are made FAR better than the old ones. Most of them rusted out in under 10 years. Maintenance? Out of pocket expenses in my Mach 1 so far has been for oil, gas, new tires (on my 4th set already) and new brakes (3rd set). At 7 years old it has no rust issues, no creaks, no groans, no tuneups needed, etc.

My first car was a '66 Mustang that I bought in '79. At 13 years old, it had no floorboards, rotted out quarterpanels, shot seats, a bad transmission and it needed new bearings and rings in the motor. I guarantee that my Mach will far outlast the '66 before it needs major work (as long as I don't blow something on the track).

 

[Joe Dirt]

Only argument needed.






And I know mullets, I am Joe Dirt.

 

[lynchy wa]

Are you for the camaro or was that a yay for the Ford?

Wicked vid regardless mate!!!

 

[Joe Dirt]

I was sad when they stopped building the Camaro, as it temporarily ended the ass-pounding that Chevy was taking.

Buy the Mustang- performance aside, it's a MUCH better built vehicle front to back.

 

[JLindley]

Thanks everyone for the comments. Im kind've leanin more towards the Mach 1. Mainly b/c it will eventually become a collector car since they only made them for 2 years. What ever i get im planning on keepin it forever.

 

[JLindley]

This is what i want if i get a mach 1

 

[Exproblems]

. The ONLY things the old ones have that is better than the new muscle cars is the nostalgia, the aesthetics and the ease of working on them. >>>>>>>>>>>>>

Those are huge points on why to like them. It's also the "simplicity" of what created all that horsepower without any computerized electronic aids like todays cars, just a beefy motor and carburation tied into a heavy duty standard transmission and posi traction, pure horsepower. You either get what I'm talking about or you don't. Maybe it's my age and era I'm from, I don't know, we may be close in age, but I'm not impressed by computerized, electronically aided horsepower. Like I said earlier, you can get a 4 cylinder BMW to go 140mph with it's high tech, electronics packed into it. I'm not impressed by that and that transfers over to the copycat V-8's of today. I'm also not concerned with the comfort comparisons between them, gas mileage, or whether the undercoated, plastic covered cars of today versus the bare bones steel cars of yester year last longer in weather. Was never my point, I simply stated I liked the older ones. I've already stated that the suspensions and braking are better today as well. Since you made the rust out comparison then I could also use the argument that these plastic coated cars will fold up like cheap suits on an accident, causing more internal damage costing more to repair than an older, solid steel body car would. Remember this, the older muscle cars went just as fast as todays cars, without all the high tech tire, suspension and electronic engine help and they did it weighing a lot more as well.

>>>>>>>>>My first car was a '66 Mustang that I bought in '79. At 13 years old, it had no floorboards, rotted out quarterpanels, shot seats, a bad transmission and it needed new bearings and rings in the motor.>>>>>>>>>

You bought a 13 year old car, not knowing it's maintenance or actual driving history, like how hard it was run or beaten etc, and complain it needed some work on it? Then you state how well your 7 year old Mach 1 is running repair free and want to compare the two? You could only make that comparison if you owned both from day one, did exact maintenance on both and drove them just as hard as each other.

>>>>>>>>I guarantee that my Mach will far outlast the '66 before it needs major work>>>>>>>>

Thats 6 years away, too far of a projection.

>>>>(as long as I don't blow something on the track).

>>>>

Might be what happened to the 66 before you bought it, but in those 13 years prior, you have no way of knowing.

 

[Cozmik]

For the new vs 'classic' debate, I had a 67 Camaro SS, beautiful car. Great in a straight line. Stopping and turning was like eating filet mignon after a shot of Novocaine. My 87 Iroc would run circles around it. And the newer ones...well they just kick ass. (Mustang or Camaro)

Get a Mustang. They are better.

 

[Rick]

>>>>

Might be what happened to the 66 before you bought it, but in those 13 years prior, you have no way of knowing.

Jdraper's "new" '66 which he talked about in an earlier post has been through a complete ground up restoration... He currently owns a fully restored, better than factory new '66 AND the Mach 1, and as he said, the Mach 1 is better in every way, except for the styling.

 

[justin146]

If you are going to mod the car for drag racing, get the Camaro. It is the cheaper car to make horsepower in. If you want the car for any other reason, get the Mach. I love the 4v motor; you cant beat the noise it makes at 7krpm.

Heres my 4v.

 

[chitown1211]

Mach 1 hands down. Not even close.

Camaros are a dime o dozen.

The Mach is a special addition car that is collectible. Not to mention it is better.

REAL Shaker hood scoop
50 more HP then a GT
upgraded suspension


The Camaro is nothing. Unless your looking for some drag car to mod the crap out of.

 

[JDraper]

>>>>

Might be what happened to the 66 before you bought it, but in those 13 years prior, you have no way of knowing.

I don't see any 1998 Mustangs running around rusted out. The auto manufacturers changed the metallurgical content of sheet metal since the "classics" were made, and it is far more rust resistant.

As for the comments on how sturdy the older cars are vs. the newer ones..hands down the newer ones are stronger and safer and will hold up to an accident far better than the older ones. There is plenty of data out there to back that up. I would be far more scared of being in an accident in our '66 than in the Mach. The '66 would fold up in a heartbeat. The Mach would take the impact much better.

Also, the new cars weigh more than the old cars when you're comparing apples to apples. My Mach 1 outweighs my '66 by 800 lbs, and the exterior dimensions are almost the same.