2004 350Z w/ 70k for $11,000?
...or 2005 Mustang GT with 120k for $9000?
Also, what are the main downsides of the 350Z besides lol winter, lol break wear?
P.S. for all /o/'s yelling about muh V8, I expected more than 300 horses on the 5th gen GT
>>14897828
brake*
Wow, no one is yelling memes about can't turn regarding the mustang, etc?
Am I to assume both are reasonable choices?
>>14897828
Get whichever makes you most happy to drive. The price on the GT sounds a bit high to me though, if you are searching for a Mustang in the 10k range you could get yourself a 4v car instead of the 3v and have a better engine.
>>14897828
Are you in Canada? These prices seem high
>>14897942
v being valves/cylinder in this case? I know jack shit about mustangs.
>>14897955
Shitty city. Think Indianapolis. There is nothing for sale. The Z blue books at $9000 or something, didn't even check for the Mustang. It's impossible to find cars in 6-12k price range here.
>>14897961
Yes, generally when talking about the 4.6 mod motors people will refer to them as the 2v, 3v, and 4v motors.
The 2v was used from 96-04 in the GT. The 3v was used from 05-10 in the GT. The 4v was used in Cobras and Mach 1s from 96-04. The 4v is widely considered to be the best 4.6 because it's the only one that uses DOHC and it responds to mods the best.
If you have other questions on Mustangs go ahead and ask, I know a fair bit about them.
>>14897985
Nothing specific, unfortunately I am too lazy to research in true detail anymore. My main question is what you would recommend under 15k, I do want it to last a couple years and be presentable, but performance is close second (both turning and straight line).
Thanks for your help btw.
>>14897985
Holy shit, never knew the 2v and 3v were SOHC. What a fucking meme engine. Ford is a fucking joke
>>14898064
OP here - lolol, I thought that was pre 90s, didn't even realize it was SOHC vs DOHC until >>14897985 pointed it out. I never owned an american car, but you have to give ford their due, they are a good company overall.
>>14898016
05-09 GT's are pretty easy to find for under 15k, with the release of the new Coyote engine in 2011 the 3v cars took a decent hit in value. They are good cars though. 96-01 Cobras are also fairly easy to find under 15k, you'd have a bit of an older car but you'd be getting the excellent 4v motor plus you'd have a Cobra so you could look down on other Mustang owners as if they are plebeians. 03/04 Mach 1's also go for under 15k in good condition, you've be getting the 4v motor with that also, a cool shaker hood and other aesthetic stuff over the GT's, and you'd have a relatively uncommon, low production car which is also cool. I've also seen some 03/04 Cobras with higher mileage go for under 15k but that's a harder find, those had the supercharged 4v motor and IRS from the factory.
Generally I'd say it depends what you want to do with the car. An 05-09 GT would probably be the most comfy as a daily driver since it's a bit newer, but they're a dime a dozen and not considered to be all that amazing among Mustang people.
An older Cobra or Mach 1 would probably turn more heads and perform better if you planned to do some work to the car, but the interiors are not quite amazing on the 94-04 cars.
The good thing about all of those cars is they are generally pretty reliable as long as you aren't super abusive. The 4.6 motors have a great reputation for reliability, the Tremec 5 speed manual transmissions are reliable as long as you don't add a ton of power to the car, and the solid rear axles are fairly indestructible hence why Ford used them for so long instead of switching to IRS.
>>14898088
DOHC is useless for a V8 imo, but SOHC is just a straight up fucking embarrassment. Just a half assed attempt a seeming technocool with a valvetrain that was already obsolete (my dad's 91 Dodge Spirit had a SOHC Mistubishi V6 ffs) by the time they came up with the Modular V8. Meanwhile, the Mustang was getting BTFO by the "ancient" LT and LS pushrod Camaro and TAs.
>>14898122
DOHC and V8 is a glorious combination if you ask me, a high revving NA V8 is a thing of beauty. You get good low end torque because V8, and you get a power curve that keeps building up into the higher RPM's because DOHC and all that airflow.
I disagree also about Ford getting destroyed by the Camaros of that time... if that were the case, the Mustang would've gone out of production instead of the Camaro. Truth is, the LS1 was definitely faster than the 2v 4.6 at the time, but the Mustang was also significantly cheaper and was an overall better package to most buyers. The LS1 and 4v 4.6 were relatively even and still I think the 4v Cobras were cheaper than an LS1 Camaro at the time.
>>14898116
Appreciate it man. Will keep all that in mind.
As far as working on the car, I probably will eventually, but aiming at something I can change the oil / other fluids /plugs / coils / brakes / maybe axles/clutch and be done with except minor stuff for a year or two.
>>14898161
>if that were the case, the Mustang would've gone out of production instead of the Camaro.
It outsold the Camaro for many reasons, performance was NOT one of them
>>14898281
Did you even read what I wrote? I said it's because the Mustang was a better overall package to most buyers, it was less money.
The picture you've posted helps to show the price difference, it says the price for teh Camaro they tested was 29k. A Mustang GT was like 22k at the time and a Cobra was about 28k. It's not hard to see why people bought the Mustang over the Camaro at the time. Like I said, an LS1 Camaro is obviously much faster than a 2v GT.
>>14898324
It was probably the seating position that turned people off. Also the width of the car. The Mustang is closer to a "regular" car, you have to be a diehard F-body fan to DD a 4th gen while any grandma wants a plain jane V6 auto SN95
>>14898348
That plus the aesthetics, terrible interior, and price of the Camaro are what made it flop so horribly in sales. Was the LS1 Camaro fast for it's day? Hell yeah, but that alone couldn't convince people to pay the price GM was asking for it.
>>14898356
>That plus the aesthetics,
This is highly subjective. I think the Camaro looks a bit better than the Mustang but the Firebirds and TAs are some of the better looking cars out there imo. The New Edge weren't ugly but they could have been a little wider
>terrible interior
The Mustang was objectively worse tho. This isn't even close
>Was the LS1 Camaro fast for it's day? Hell yeah
With how heavy cars have gotten in the last decade, I'd say it's still fast by today's standards
>this just in
>pushrods not a meme
>>14897985
2003 mustang gt owner here, besides the sparkplugs blowing out, that motor is the same as the crown vic motor. The 2v is built for reliablity, not so much speed. If you intend to go "fast" don't buy it. If you want a reliable car then sure.
>>14898420
This discussion we're having doesn't really matter much, the public already cast their verdict on this in the 90's and early 2000's with their wallets, the Mustang sold and the Camaro flopped hard. In a better market for performance cars the Camaro may have been more successful, but in the market that existed at the time it just couldn't compete with the overall package Ford offered with the Mustang.
>>14898356
>>14898491
I'd be willing to pay more for an ls1 transam than a 2v mustang today.
>>14898489
The 99+ GT's had the better PI heads and made quite a bit more power than the Crown Vic motor actually. The Crown Vic did not receive the PI heads until years later, though I don't remember exactly what year off the top of my head.
>>14898516
This. Were people this retarded pre-9/11?
>>14898521
yea... I have the PI heads, they increased the power, but for modding, the 2v doesn't flow enough to be worth modding. If you want a fast 2003 mustang, step one is sell your gt.
>>14898516
And that literally does not matter at all. Most customers were not willing to pay more for the LS1 hence why the Camaro failed miserably.
Again, we're talking about a very significant price difference when new. You could pay around 30k for the Trans am or 22k for the Mustang... that's a big difference in 90's money.
>>14898525 no they just cared about their money. Do you not understand that adults buying brand new cars consider more factors than just the engine?
>>14898559
This is a thread about buying things today, that's great that it failed then. I'm talking about buying a car today.
Not even op, but way to get on a tangent about the failure of a car that I didn't mention.
I said trans am. Trans am and camaro are not interchangeable. I'm not interested in buying a camaro SS, I am interested in buying a WS6 trans am.
>>14898559
>no they just cared about their money. Do you not understand that adults buying brand new cars consider more factors than just the engine?
"hmmm, I'd like to buy a muscle car but having a fast car just isn't my #1 priority. In this case I will buy a V6 auto droptop Mustang in Incognito Silver"
>>14898584
Buying a car that looks like a fish was also a pretty big deal for some people.
>>14898576
So go buy a Trans am, anon.
>>14898599
How about the TA then
>>14898625
Better looking than the Camaro IMO, but still funny looking and the TA is a car that is generally best known for having what appears to be a big silly chicken on the hood. I know the newest version didn't come with that, but that's what many people think of when they recall the TA in general.
>>14898675
People who were concerned with looking white thrashy weren't in the market for an American RWD V8 to begin with
>>14898709
Well no but they didn't buy Camaros at least because they had a rather amusing reputation for being owned by people with mullets and guidos.
>>14898709
>>14898809
But anyway who cares, this thread is way off topic. Let OP get advice on cars he's looking at and make another thread on F-body cars if you want.
>>14898809
People still buy Subarus even tho only lesbians drive Soobies, people still buy BMWs even tho only arrogant douchebags drive BMWs, people still buy Priuses even tho only treehuggers and faggots buy Priuses, people still buy Miatas even tho only homosexual hairdressers buy Miatas
>>14897828
if the z is a manual, see if you can find out if the clutch master/slave cylinder have been replaced. the piston bushing can get worn/go bad, and then your clutch pedal doesn't work anymore. also, the power locks and mirrors can give you trouble.
>source: i used to own a g35
it was still a fun little car though, and got 30+ mpgs on long road trips. not bad for a 10 year old v6.
>>14897828
Current 2003 Z owner here
Don't know about the clutch cylinder issue, i track my car and have had no issues.
Buy what you like best, but I will say that price is a bit high for the z. I bought my 2003 in 2011 with 60k miles for $12,500.
Mine has been rock solid, the only issues i've had have been electrical sensors failing and having to be replaced. If you take care of it it will last a long time. I'm at 120k now.
