06 GTO vs 98 Cobra
06-17-2010, 04:40 PM
#142
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winnar Winnar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tell him what he's won Johnny....
"you get this prestine high performance 1979 Yogo. Complete with seating for 4. Comes with luxury side mirrors, plush plastic seats, and booming 4 speaker sound system and to save the best for last its equipped with a huge 1.3 L engine that boasts a face ripping 80hp. Valued at 600$"
"you get this prestine high performance 1979 Yogo. Complete with seating for 4. Comes with luxury side mirrors, plush plastic seats, and booming 4 speaker sound system and to save the best for last its equipped with a huge 1.3 L engine that boasts a face ripping 80hp. Valued at 600$"
jealous, i know.
Well I guess where you live is the exception. The LS1 Fbodies were worth more because you could no longer buy one new since 2002. Hence why they kept their value. 99-04 2v GTs are however, a dime a dozen. Hence, they do not hold their value as well as the Fbody. It's simple supply and demand.
I wonder where is locale is. Curious to know if it's close to 02wife's.
06-17-2010, 04:45 PM
#143
The 2010 would have to go on a diet or get more hp before it can be able to beat the new mustang stock for stock. The new mustang seems to have pretty god topend as well so I would have to see The new 10 SS try a roll with the 11 gt but I think it will be the same outcome.
06-17-2010, 04:47 PM
#144
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: MOV
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cars with mods sadly, usually go for less because people believe they've been run the hell out of. And a lot of the time, they have. If I ever put mods on my car, I am keeping the original stuff, and putting it back together as the original if I ever go to sell it.
You take a stock low mileage Mustang in almost perfect condition, and a stock low mileage LS1 fbody in perfect condition, the latter is going to go for about 5k more.
Supply and demand.
You take a stock low mileage Mustang in almost perfect condition, and a stock low mileage LS1 fbody in perfect condition, the latter is going to go for about 5k more.
Supply and demand.
06-17-2010, 05:18 PM
#146
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06-17-2010, 05:37 PM
#147
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Nashville / Indianapolis
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
not ricer math at all. look at kein's link to a heads/cams/intake 2v. 333 rwhp/tq...LMFAO that is a 93 lt1 with bolt ons and hotcam dyno. if it doesnt make sense to you, then read it over until it does. here ill help..
heads/cam lt1 - 400 rwhp 370 rwtq
heads/cam/inake 2v - 333 rwhp 334 rwtq
heads/cam/stroked - forged procharged lt1 550+ rwhp on 5 psi
heads/cam/intake /forged - procharged 2v 430 MAYBE on how many psi???
take a look around at some dyno graphs and youll see. not to hard. compare to an ls1 and it just gets so much worse. stopsigns setup is a low 11 second car correct? it cant be accomplished easier with a NA lt1 or ls1? i am gonna bet he has a very aggressive setup n/a or a power adder. you mustang guys just refuse to see the light...
heads/cam lt1 - 400 rwhp 370 rwtq
heads/cam/inake 2v - 333 rwhp 334 rwtq
heads/cam/stroked - forged procharged lt1 550+ rwhp on 5 psi
heads/cam/intake /forged - procharged 2v 430 MAYBE on how many psi???
take a look around at some dyno graphs and youll see. not to hard. compare to an ls1 and it just gets so much worse. stopsigns setup is a low 11 second car correct? it cant be accomplished easier with a NA lt1 or ls1? i am gonna bet he has a very aggressive setup n/a or a power adder. you mustang guys just refuse to see the light...
you should do a little more researching. The camaro isnt faster in the 1/4 than the new gt both e.t. wise and trap speed. Im not praising the new gt either just stating the facts right now and thats how it is. I'm sure gm will have an answer for it though sooner than later
06-17-2010, 06:41 PM
#148
TECH Resident
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wouldnt believe me if i told you
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gotta agree Mustangs dont hold their value as well.
In 08 my dad picked up his s197 with right under 3k miles, zero owner, 2006 auto GT with the shaker 1000(he has no use for that tho haha) and bigger wheels for 17k.
No way could i have gotten an 06 GTO at that price with those miles at the time and i've seen 4th gens with that low mileage going for more haha
Also how does the new 5.0 get dragged into EVERY thread in the srk section? haha
In 08 my dad picked up his s197 with right under 3k miles, zero owner, 2006 auto GT with the shaker 1000(he has no use for that tho haha) and bigger wheels for 17k.
No way could i have gotten an 06 GTO at that price with those miles at the time and i've seen 4th gens with that low mileage going for more haha
Also how does the new 5.0 get dragged into EVERY thread in the srk section? haha
06-17-2010, 06:51 PM
#149
Teching In
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are comparing the 2v 4.6! Compare the 4v and see how your ricer math comes out then
you should do a little more researching. The camaro isnt faster in the 1/4 than the new gt both e.t. wise and trap speed. Im not praising the new gt either just stating the facts right now and thats how it is. I'm sure gm will have an answer for it though sooner than later
you should do a little more researching. The camaro isnt faster in the 1/4 than the new gt both e.t. wise and trap speed. Im not praising the new gt either just stating the facts right now and thats how it is. I'm sure gm will have an answer for it though sooner than laterkein here ya go
mustang gt's -
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/cto/1797568925.html
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/ctd/1792259677.html
heres a nice clean one with 68k 11,800
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/cto/1788694472.html
ls1 fbody
nice and clean ws6 with 69k 8,000
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/cto/1793307220.html
99 with 52k 9800
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/cto/1782172672.html
again...63k 8900
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/cto/1767042679.html
this is the norm...sure there are higher priced collectors vehicles..but it is not every fbody out there.
06-17-2010, 07:26 PM
#150
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: MOV
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3vs hit what 360 NA?
and a 4v is just touching 400 with a non streetable setup. "someday 400 na will be the norm for 4v's" LOL.
kein here ya go
mustang gt's -
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/cto/1797568925.html
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/ctd/1792259677.html
heres a nice clean one with 68k 11,800
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/cto/1788694472.html
ls1 fbody
nice and clean ws6 with 69k 8,000
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/cto/1793307220.html
99 with 52k 9800
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/cto/1782172672.html
again...63k 8900
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/cto/1767042679.html
this is the norm...sure there are higher priced collectors vehicles..but it is not every fbody out there.
mustang gt's -
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/cto/1797568925.html
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/ctd/1792259677.html
heres a nice clean one with 68k 11,800
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/cto/1788694472.html
ls1 fbody
nice and clean ws6 with 69k 8,000
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/cto/1793307220.html
99 with 52k 9800
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/cto/1782172672.html
again...63k 8900
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/cto/1767042679.html
this is the norm...sure there are higher priced collectors vehicles..but it is not every fbody out there.
Most all of those aren't low mileage almost perfect condition cars. Which is what my statement was about.
Not only that, even if I was talking about said cars you posted, which I wasn't, any of us on here can cherry pick sales to justify what we say.
I am not the only person that is claiming you are wrong on this. And most of these people aren't Mustang owners.
Mile for mile, quality for quality, a stock, low mileage LS1 Fbody costs about 5k more than a 2v GT.
06-17-2010, 07:26 PM
#151
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yea im comparing a motor mthat was built in 99-04 vs a motor that was built in 92-97 by gm. 3vs hit what 360 NA? and a 4v is just touching 400 with a non streetable setup. "someday 400 na will be the norm for 4v's" LOL.
kein here ya go
mustang gt's -
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/cto/1797568925.html
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/ctd/1792259677.html
heres a nice clean one with 68k 11,800
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/cto/1788694472.html
ls1 fbody
nice and clean ws6 with 69k 8,000
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/cto/1793307220.html
99 with 52k 9800
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/cto/1782172672.html
again...63k 8900
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/cto/1767042679.html
this is the norm...sure there are higher priced collectors vehicles..but it is not every fbody out there.
kein here ya go
mustang gt's -
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/cto/1797568925.html
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/ctd/1792259677.html
heres a nice clean one with 68k 11,800
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/cto/1788694472.html
ls1 fbody
nice and clean ws6 with 69k 8,000
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/cto/1793307220.html
99 with 52k 9800
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/cto/1782172672.html
again...63k 8900
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/cto/1767042679.html
this is the norm...sure there are higher priced collectors vehicles..but it is not every fbody out there.
06-17-2010, 07:35 PM
#152
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: MOV
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These are the prices I'm used to seeing for low mileage LS1s.
http://tinyurl.com/24vk3z6
http://tinyurl.com/24n6u6d
http://tinyurl.com/24vk3z6
http://tinyurl.com/24n6u6d
06-17-2010, 07:48 PM
#153
Staging Lane
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Camby, IN
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because it is a real threat and it is in the back of everyone's mind. Us GM guys are not used to getting beat by Mustangs but it could realistically happen quite easily now. I like to give my Mustang buddy's a hard time about their cars and I love LS powered cars but I have to admit the new 5.0 Mustang is a great car. As long as it does not have any issues a few years down the road it will have a cult following like the old 5.0(foxbody) if it doesn't already. Not to mention it prolly has a decent rear end that you can beat on unlike an Fbody, CTS-V, or 2005 C6.
06-17-2010, 07:50 PM
#154
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These are the prices I'm used to seeing for low mileage LS1s.
http://tinyurl.com/24vk3z6
http://tinyurl.com/24n6u6d
http://tinyurl.com/24vk3z6
http://tinyurl.com/24n6u6d
06-17-2010, 08:15 PM
#155
Teching In
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lol really? You're comparing dealership priced Mustang GT's to Private listed F-Bodies... That's ******* retarded. There are dealership priced Mustang GT's around here for $14,000, and even some private listed F-bodies ranging $18,500-$24,000 with less than 5,000 miles on it. A car is only worth what you are willing to pay for it.
06-17-2010, 08:29 PM
#156
Teching In
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Said motor first showed up in 91. 2v modulars weren't new in 99-04. And a stock 2v and a stock LT1 is a drivers race. You know that right?
360-400 I believe. But who cares if it's NA? Why does it matter that one person might use a smaller motor with boost, instead of a larger one. You can say "Mustangs need boost to beat a LS1" someone else could equally say "LS1s need extra liters to beat the Mustang" Both are very silly statements. It doesn't matter why or how.
What 4v are you referring to?
So do you take a person's argument, change it, then post the "facts" to change your argument often?
Most all of those aren't low mileage almost perfect condition cars. Which is what my statement was about.
Not only that, even if I was talking about said cars you posted, which I wasn't, any of us on here can cherry pick sales to justify what we say.
I am not the only person that is claiming you are wrong on this. And most of these people aren't Mustang owners.
Mile for mile, quality for quality, a stock, low mileage LS1 Fbody costs about 5k more than a 2v GT.
360-400 I believe. But who cares if it's NA? Why does it matter that one person might use a smaller motor with boost, instead of a larger one. You can say "Mustangs need boost to beat a LS1" someone else could equally say "LS1s need extra liters to beat the Mustang" Both are very silly statements. It doesn't matter why or how.
What 4v are you referring to?
So do you take a person's argument, change it, then post the "facts" to change your argument often?
Most all of those aren't low mileage almost perfect condition cars. Which is what my statement was about.
Not only that, even if I was talking about said cars you posted, which I wasn't, any of us on here can cherry pick sales to justify what we say.
I am not the only person that is claiming you are wrong on this. And most of these people aren't Mustang owners.
Mile for mile, quality for quality, a stock, low mileage LS1 Fbody costs about 5k more than a 2v GT.
now where exactly did i change my arguement? and just to add to your idea of typical mustang pricing..i have never once seen such a low mileage 99-04 gt go for less than 15k. never. once. ever. ok.
if you think i wasnt posting the norm of pricing in my area then go do a search on craigslist. find me a super low mile gt for 10k.
06-17-2010, 09:07 PM
#157
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm saying look at the bigger picture, check different areas, check other websites, but compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. There is also no hostility needed.
06-17-2010, 09:13 PM
#158
Teching In
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i did compare apples to apples. mileage, condition, year, model were all average. i dont need to look elsewhere. i buy my vehicles local. my apologys for the hostility.
06-17-2010, 09:15 PM
#159
dude you cant read! i have been replying to peoples posts that commented on mine. my posts was why i would not buy a mustang, not which motor is better mod for mod. although it is somewhat relevant because i dont have unlimited funds and i am able to build my camaro cheaper. i am sure many mustangs acheive higher than 550..so do lt1's, ls1's etc. it wasnt the point. there is solid roller lt1's with single plane intake and afr's in the high 400's low 500's NA...so what? the average joe isnt going to have the funds to do that. nor is it as streetable,cheap or reliable as 400 hp bolt ons and le2 setup. thats not nutswinging..its the truth.
06-17-2010, 09:18 PM
#160
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just did a quick search for stuff in my area, and there were three '02 T/As with 98k, 101k, and 113k miles respectively that were all the same price or a little more expensive than an '01 Cobra convertible with 48,000 miles... F-bodies (especially Trans Ams) have always been more expensive than comparable Mustangs around here.