Is this just insane, what car to buy next...

OK, my first car was a late 70's Buick station wagon, I then moved on to a few front wheel drive cars and then a '98 ACR Neon. I really enjoy the Neon but it is time to move on to something else. I'm thinking of a 1990 - 2004 Mustang GT. Total price after modifications should be $10,000 or less. I'm looking for something that looks good, handles well and is quick (13's or low 14 second 1/4 mile). Fun with power and relatively reliable. My idea is either a 5.0 or 4.6 with 6psi Holset Turbo/ no intercooler on a stock motor, cold air intake and exhaust and a Megasquirt computer. The '94 and up have stiffer chassis for "better" handling but they cost more and I think the '90-'93 will hold thier value better. Would a 300hp and 380 ftlbs of torque Mustang and a few suspension mods be "fun". Remember I'm familiar with ACR Neons. This was the possibly insane idea.

Or should I do the exact opposite and buy a slower car that handles well but has skinny tires so I reach the cornering limit earlier, hit redline in all gears and the smaller tires are half the price of 275/45 17" tires? Maybe something classic. Or just get a miata and put a hard top on it?

This would be my daily driver year round in Michigan.

You want a Mustang that can handle? In fox-chassis form?!

Seriously though, for $10,000 you can make a ludicrous-fast car. 98-02 LS1 Camaro/Trans Am's are going for $5000-$7000 right now and should drop even more now that the new Camaro is being delivered. You get 300BHP+ stock, a 6-Speed stock, better suspension stock, and a MUCH stiffer chassis (especially in hardtop form) plus they do 12's stock with good track prep/driver. Add a head/cam/intake swap for 400BHP+ and still have leftover for suspension mods. Go WS6 Trans Am/Formula for factory (and SCCA legal) goodness or, if you can find one, a 1LE equipped car (baffled endurance tank, revised shocks/springs, and a host of other track-day goodies).

Or if you don't feel like modding, just pick up a clean 2004 GTO. 350BHP/390TQ and low-13's right out of the box. There's several in my area for $9999 right now.

Back to the Mustang for a second... A stock-class SXT Neon beat every Mustang at the SCCA event here over the weekend. So did a 26-year old, stock-suspensioned, 233K-mile RX-7. And an actually stock 2005 GTO of BFG KDW's. We're talking 05+ GT's on R-Comps and an 02 Cobra on A6's...

Wow I knew they were a little off but

With my Neon I removed the PS for two reasons. It made it a little faster and I had the same excitement and enjoyment around corners while going 10-15 mph slower on a high way access curve. The speed limit is 55 and 65 feels fun around the curve with out power steering. I think my car would be slower at a competition with out the power steering but I have more fun and it's a little safer for spirited driving. I have a couple of friends that have gone "BIG" power with their cars and I don't think I would enjoy that on a daily basis, let alone the cost to build and maintain it as a daily driver. The cars use seems directly proportional to the amount of power. The lowest HP (550) is used the most, then 650-800 and the 950hp camaro has been in repair for three years. None of them could be used in the winter. My 160 hp has been used for the last 3650 days. I really don't want much over a 10 lbs to 1 hp ratio, this helps keep the cost of other parts down, like rear ends and transmissions.

Maybe your right about the Camaro or Firebird. I can focus on keeping the car in good mechanical shape and not worry about adding power. I may want to put in a 4.10 gear to make first gear more enjoyable.

I think I need a wheel of decision. Camaro, Mustang, Miata. Just spin it and move on with my life. Besides, everything can be fixed with enough enthusiasm and suspension of disbelief. Just keep telling yourself, "It is fast, it is cool"

Thanks for the input.

I would go drive each one. A 90 Mustang drives like a pig compared to a 94 compared to a an 04. Drive the ones you're thinking of. Also drive a Z28 and try to find a WS6 (they really are worth the extra $$$ IMO). Drive a Miata.

I think the Miata would be most "fun" in DD conditions on normal roads, but winters in Michigan would have me wanting a real coupe.

I think a hardtop, t-top, or targa-top WS6 is right up your ally. Ram-Air with 320HP (underrated), great brakes and suspension with communicative steering (compared to a Mustang anyways). Buy-in is cheap, it will be bearable in winter/cold/wet, and it will be amazingly fast compared to the others.

Jeez Mike, a little biased are we? Damn...

I would like to argue a few points..

you can make a mustang handle for $10k ($1500 in suspension upgrades was enough to wake my car up buying used parts, you can do VERY well for $3000. insane stuff exists, but then again, better cars also exist then either one)

They are NOT slow autocross cars (i averaged 15%ish pax last year underprepared for ESP) its all about the driver. they do just as well as camaros do (same class and if you look at nationals results any difference is within noise factor in ESP) Autocrossing a ponycar is just a different game then something smaller and lighter. The car accelerates more and has more mass to deal with and can generally be more of a handfull, but that also makes it fun.

Camaros MAY be able to be made to handle better cheaper, engine can be a tossup depending on approach.

Mustangs are lighter.

Try both and find out which ergo speaks to you. (odds are one will be uncomfortable to you)

What do you really want to DO with the car? Do you want to autocross it and compete in a class? HPDE? time trials?

answers vary on what you pick above.

IF you want to HPDE, i must advise to rethink the turbo as heat management gets to be a problem on longer stints.

camaros vs mustangs is a VERY opinionated argument, test drive both and find what feels better for you. I admit that I am on the mustang side of the argument. the ergo in camaros is all wrong to me, every one i have been in rattles (even when they were newer), and as I said, if you look at the results on a national level there isnt really a big speed difference (at least in SP autocross)

after you figure out which car speaks to you more by sitting in both and driving both, and after you come up with a plan of what you want out of it (racing? classes? how competitive? compromise level?) get back on here and we can help with a plan for either.

P71, i dont mean to step on your toes, but the tail end of this comment makes NO sense "A 90 Mustang drives like a pig compared to a 94 compared to a an 04" 94 and 2004 are the SAME chassis. SAME suspension geometry, SAME interior, SAME greenhouse stamping even. I have driven multiple examples of 94-04 mustangs and stock ones arent that different from each other (within trim packages)

Thank you, Apex, I was warming up to making a similar post, but you've covered everything I would say in defense of the Ford.

I will say that engine to engine, the Chevys just flat make more power. The 5.0 a match for the old 350, but it's nowhere near an LT1. The SOHC 4.6 didn't come into it's own until '99, when it got new heads, cams, and intake, and even then isn't a match for the LT1. The DOHC 4.6 is more than a match for than the LT1, but not the LS1, unless you put boost to it.

Apex, No, they are not "exactly" the same. Fox-4 (94-04) has a wider track, revised front suspension geometry, 4-wheel discs, ABS, and a tighter steering rack compared to the fox chassis 90. They are also around 20-30% stiffer. A 94 Mustang GT feels light-years better than a 90! The difference between 94 and 04 is not nearly as noticeable but you can tell. The 04 feels more solid and the brakes and suspension are even better still (especially in Mach 1/Bullitt/Cobra guise). I guess I should have pointed out that I meant "special" 04's.

I wasnt talking about the fox, but the SN-95's are all SN-95's.

Cobra/Bullitt/Mach1 share the same PBR caliper, just gussied up different.

the only suspension differences are shocks/sways/springs. (and IIRC they might have put some small subframe connectors on some of the premium models) these are ALL things that someone would change on the car if they wanted it to perform anyways.

There were no appreciable changes to the structure of the chassis 1994-2004. rooftop and floorpan are the SAME stamping.

the 1999+ cobra had the IRS, but it really didnt amount to that much of an improvement performance-wise. it was more to shut up people who thought that a solid rear was too archaic. it was designed around a frame that bolts into the same pickups the solid rear uses. the impovements were largely in ride, not performance.

in all reality, for the stated budget hes probly not going to find anything more then a GT in 1999+

Rick, heres a nice deal http://atlanta.craigslist.org/cto/1086007154.html

Which is why I pointed him to LS1 F-bodies or an 04 GTO.

I think was going for a "90 as compared to the 94-04" and caught up in it. You do have to admit the 04 Mach 1 is a much better car then the 94 GT, but that's probably mostly the 305HP DOHC 4.6L...

The 13" front brakes/uprated rear brakes shared on the Cobra/Mach/Bullitt are light years better than the stock GT units. They are a pad/fluid change away from being competent at everything, HPDE/Club Racing included.

MikeSVO wrote: Jeez Mike, a *little* biased are we? Damn...

Not biased, fact. Look at the Oregon Region SCCA results:

http://www.oregonscca.com/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1443&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=287

Great drag racers, good daily drivers/cruisers, cheap mods/performance, not all that hot at cone-dodging.

P71 wrote: You do have to admit the 04 Mach 1 is a much better car then the 94 GT, but that's probably mostly the 305HP DOHC 4.6L...

'04 Mach 1 has the c-port heads, and is spec'd at 320hp.

305hp was the spec for the '96-'98 b-port headed DOHC 4.6 found in the Cobras.

The giant poster of a Mach 1 doing a smokey burnout in my garage says 305HP on it. I know Ford was under-rating in 03/04 though as the S/C Cobra was way more than 390HP as well. All the factory lit says 305HP for the Mach though.

http://www.mach1registry.com/Specs/Specs.htm

"Horsepower @ rpm 305 @ 6000 Torque lb.-ft. @ rpm 320 @ 4250 "

Hmm, I would rather have a Neon ACR than a camaro or mustang.

Travis_K wrote: Hmm, I would rather have a Neon ACR than a camaro or mustang.

Plus 1

Even better is my 223 WHP Ford Focus. I much prefer smaller more nimble cars over any pony car.

While I applaud the Mustang nerds and their intimate knowledge of all things Ford, I have to ask why a Mustang?

What about a Corvette? For about $10K you can get a well handling car (compared to the Mustang) The SBC is reliable, provided you know how to work around some of the Corvette quirks (optispark mostly) and it is much much easier to work on compared to the last gen Camaro.

Hell, a decent Porsche 944 turbo would meet some of your requirements and as long as you do your own work you can have a fun, reliable car that handles better and could be as fast as a number of Mustangs (certainly faster around corners) Hell a 944 with a blown engine is a SBC away from being a heck of answer to your question.

Just some food for thought.

Very good points fiat! I'd have a damn hard time bringing home an LS1 Camaro knowing there's a C4 LT1 Vette out there...

A quick price check shows LS1 C5 Vettes are even getting crazy-affordable...

Yup, I found a few 90-95 'vettes on Autotrader for $10K or less. If you shop around you may find an even better deal.

Our favorite mag did some work on a 'vette and a buyer's guide article as well. Might be a good idea to check those out.

If you're into an engine swap with a newer chassis, then perhaps a Miata with an LSx under the hood is more up your alley. http://www.flyinmiata.com has them. Heck, a used Factory Five car might be an option as well if you poke around.

P71 wrote: A quick price check shows LS1 C5 Vettes are even getting crazy-affordable...

+1. Saw an ad in a magazine yesterday for a '99 hardtop with under 50K miles for well under $20K...

My suggestion:

Get an older/ first gen RX7 and a Jeep.

fiat22turbo wrote: Yup, I found a few 90-95 'vettes on Autotrader for $10K or less. If you shop around you may find an even better deal.

I've seen 90-91 vettes under 10K, but I believe they are L98s and down on power compared to the LT1, which I believe started in 92. I'm not sure what the actual differences between the L98 and LT1 are other than the name and the factory HP rating...

V8 FC-RX7 could probably be done for under 10k.

fiat22turbo wrote: While I applaud the Mustang nerds and their intimate knowledge of all things Ford, I have to ask why a Mustang?

For me the reason I got into Mustangs and learned so much was that when i was growing up I helped my dad restore a '68 Mustang. When I was getting my own car I wanted a nice newer Mustang and hadent even heard of autocross.

I dont know if I would do another one personally.

There is just something about slinging around a larger heavy powerful sedan that the smallbore cars just cant replicate. There is a mysticism of why the old transam series races were so cool.

different strokes for different folks, if you try it you may understand it better.

(i would consider a C4/C5 vette if you want to be faster, but at the same time test drive one and see if it speaks to you)

any car can be made to be a better option then another from a point of view. Someone asking "why a car that comes with a strong engine and less suspension?" on a forum where people also celebrate racing a Yugo seems a bit odd to me.

different strengths and different weaknesses. they can work and are just stronger on different portions of the track. (some faster overall then others, natch)

I will fight to the end that mustangs can be a scary fast ride.

Apexcarver wrote: I dont know if I would do another one personally. I will fight to the end that mustangs can be a scary fast ride.

I agree, Mustangs can be a good bang for the buck proposition IF (and it's a BIG IF) you buy one USED that's ALREADY been prepared for your intended use. Once you start fixing the inherent issues with the car(flexy chassis, suspension geometry, brakes, etc.) you're into some serious $$$ and either more $$$ to pay someone to do the work, or a bunch of time to do the work yourself. There are some bang-for-the-buck combos that work well, but if you're starting with a stock car, you're going to be spending some money.

The good news for you as a buyer of a Mustang is that the current owner will get next to nothing (or even less money) for each modification performed. Not only are you getting the parts esentially for free, but also the labor! Look for an owner who put thought into their modifications, and not someone who just threw parts at the car. There are plenty of Mustangs running around with Maximum Motorsports/Griggs parts, and that's probably the one you'll want to look for. The early SN-95 Cobras '95-98 already start a leg up on the standard GT, as they have the better brakes and lowering springs from the factory. Many of these are available for under 10K with relatively low miles. Again, as with any used car, look for something that's been well-maintained.

Incorrect sir, IRS started in 1999 cobra. my 1997 cobra has the solid rear.