Question - which year is cost effective, and good driving ?

Mustang -

If I was going to buy one in the next few months, which year is the most
cost effective, good driving with high horsepower ?

the 93 5.0 has 220 HP and with a blower up to 300 but that is almost 20
years old and about $9,000

the 2011 has about 400 HP but $30K

and which years would you avoid ?


If I added a blower it would be a keene bell, $3k for 5,0 and up to $6K for
2011

"huhie" > wrote in message
...
> Mustang -
>
> If I was going to buy one in the next few months, which year is the most
> cost effective, good driving with high horsepower ?
>
> the 93 5.0 has 220 HP and with a blower up to 300 but that is almost 20
> years old and about $9,000
>
> the 2011 has about 400 HP but $30K
>
> and which years would you avoid ?
>
>
> If I added a blower it would be a keene bell, $3k for 5,0 and up to $6K
> for 2011
>
I personally dont like the 93 body style but it is lighter, cheaper to
upgrade and insure. You can get more than 300hp with engine upgrades and
still be way way under 30k. The blower is only part of the cost. You have to
upgrade pumps, wiring (sometimes), add gauges, tuner, etc. My $5700 blower
on my '05 ended up around 9k after all the ancillary stuff.

On Aug 17, 1:59*pm, "huhie" > wrote:
> Mustang -
>
> If I was going to buy one in the next few months, which year is the most
> cost effective, good driving with high horsepower ?
>
> the 93 5.0 has 220 HP and with a blower up to 300 but that is almost 20
> years old and about $9,000
>
> the 2011 has about 400 HP *but $30K
>
> and which years would you avoid ?
>
> If I added a blower it would be a keene bell, $3k for *5,0 and up to $6K for
> 2011

I think you need to do some test driving to narrow down your choices.

Patrick


..

" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 17, 1:59 pm, "huhie" > wrote:
> Mustang -
>
> If I was going to buy one in the next few months, which year is the most
> cost effective, good driving with high horsepower ?
>
> the 93 5.0 has 220 HP and with a blower up to 300 but that is almost 20
> years old and about $9,000
>
> the 2011 has about 400 HP but $30K
>
> and which years would you avoid ?
>
> If I added a blower it would be a keene bell, $3k for 5,0 and up to $6K
> for
> 2011

I think you need to do some test driving to narrow down your choices.

Patrick

>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<

Ive driven 93 a lot, not the newer ones, the 94s seemed cramped

know of any years to avoid?

I heard the 2011 is great, will test drive it.



..

On Aug 17, 10:57*pm, "huhie" > wrote:
> " > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Aug 17, 1:59 pm, "huhie" > wrote:
>
> > Mustang -
>
> > If I was going to buy one in the next few months, which year is the most
> > cost effective, good driving with high horsepower ?
>
> > the 93 5.0 has 220 HP and with a blower up to 300 but that is almost 20
> > years old and about $9,000
>
> > the 2011 has about 400 HP but $30K
>
> > and which years would you avoid ?
>
> > If I added a blower it would be a keene bell, $3k for 5,0 and up to $6K
> > for
> > 2011
>
> I think you need to do some test driving to narrow down your choices.

> Ive driven 93 a lot, not the newer ones, the 94s seemed cramped
>
> know of any years to avoid?
>
> I heard the 2011 is great, will test drive it.

All opinion here. Of the Fox cars, I'd get any year 5-liter, 5-speed
LX. I'm not a fan of the '94-'98s. Of the '99-'05s I'd opt for '01
Bullitt, '03-'04 Mach 1 or '03-'04 Terminator. With the '05 and ups,
I'd get an '08 Bullitt, any Shelby GTs or GT500 and any '11 and up
GT. To me these are the cream cars, that's not to say there aren't
other really good Mustangs in those years.

Between the older Foxes and new GTs, understand they are completely
different animals, and as different as a Fox Mustang is to '65
Mustang. The Fox feels like a go-cart in comparison to the new GT.
That said, the new GT drives small -- it doesn't feel like a big
car.

Again go do some test driving, so you can decide what is better for
you.

Patrick

On 08/17/2011 11:59 AM, huhie wrote:
> Mustang -
>
> If I was going to buy one in the next few months, which year is the most
> cost effective, good driving with high horsepower ?
>
> the 93 5.0 has 220 HP and with a blower up to 300 but that is almost 20
> years old and about $9,000
>
> the 2011 has about 400 HP but $30K
>
> and which years would you avoid ?
>
>
> If I added a blower it would be a keene bell, $3k for 5,0 and up to $6K for
> 2011
>
>
I would go with an 03/04 Terminator. Just slapping on a blower is kind
of a waste, if you don't hook that power to the road.

" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 17, 10:57 pm, "huhie" > wrote:
> " > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Aug 17, 1:59 pm, "huhie" > wrote:
>
> > Mustang -
>
> > If I was going to buy one in the next few months, which year is the most
> > cost effective, good driving with high horsepower ?
>
> > the 93 5.0 has 220 HP and with a blower up to 300 but that is almost 20
> > years old and about $9,000
>
> > the 2011 has about 400 HP but $30K
>
> > and which years would you avoid ?
>
> > If I added a blower it would be a keene bell, $3k for 5,0 and up to $6K
> > for
> > 2011
>
> I think you need to do some test driving to narrow down your choices.

> Ive driven 93 a lot, not the newer ones, the 94s seemed cramped
>
> know of any years to avoid?
>
> I heard the 2011 is great, will test drive it.

All opinion here. Of the Fox cars, I'd get any year 5-liter, 5-speed
LX. I'm not a fan of the '94-'98s. Of the '99-'05s I'd opt for '01
Bullitt, '03-'04 Mach 1 or '03-'04 Terminator. With the '05 and ups,
I'd get an '08 Bullitt, any Shelby GTs or GT500 and any '11 and up
GT. To me these are the cream cars, that's not to say there aren't
other really good Mustangs in those years.

Between the older Foxes and new GTs, understand they are completely
different animals, and as different as a Fox Mustang is to '65
Mustang. The Fox feels like a go-cart in comparison to the new GT.
That said, the new GT drives small -- it doesn't feel like a big
car.

Again go do some test driving, so you can decide what is better for
you.

Patrick

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<< <

I test drove a 1998 Mustang today which was done all out, has 450 HP, custom
racing engine, Vortek blower, intercooler, everything was sized to handle
500 hp, drive trane etc, the frame was very ridgid, nice car, great
breaks, first class and well done!
The person in the passenger seat will experience the 'come to Jesus time'.

On Aug 18, 10:48*pm, "huhie" > wrote:
> " > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Aug 17, 10:57 pm, "huhie" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > " > wrote in message
>
> ....
> > On Aug 17, 1:59 pm, "huhie" > wrote:
>
> > > Mustang -
>
> > > If I was going to buy one in the next few months, which year is the most
> > > cost effective, good driving with high horsepower ?
>
> > > the 93 5.0 has 220 HP and with a blower up to 300 but that is almost 20
> > > years old and about $9,000
>
> > > the 2011 has about 400 HP but $30K
>
> > > and which years would you avoid ?
>
> > > If I added a blower it would be a keene bell, $3k for 5,0 and up to $6K
> > > for
> > > 2011
>
> > I think you need to do some test driving to narrow down your choices.
> > Ive driven 93 a lot, not the newer ones, the 94s seemed cramped
>
> > know of any years to avoid?
>
> > I heard the 2011 is great, will test drive it.
>
> All opinion here. *Of the Fox cars, I'd get any year 5-liter, 5-speed
> LX. *I'm not a fan of the '94-'98s. *Of the '99-'05s I'd opt for an '01
> Bullitt, '03-'04 Mach 1 or '03-'04 Terminator. With the '05 and ups,
> I'd get an '08 Bullitt, any Shelby GT or GT500 and any '11 and up
> GT. *To me these are the cream cars, that's not to say there aren't
> other really good Mustangs in those other years.
>
> Between the older Foxes and new GTs, understand they are completely
> different animals, and as different as a Fox Mustang is to '65
> Mustang. *The Fox feels like a go-cart in comparison to the new GT.
> That said, the new GT drives small -- it doesn't feel like a big
> car.

> Again go do some test driving, so you can decide what is better for
> you.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<< <
>
> I test drove a 1998 Mustang today which was done all out, has 450 HP, custom
> racing engine, Vortek blower, intercooler, everything was sized to handle
> 500 hp, drive train etc, the frame was very rigid, *nice car, *great
> breaks, *first class and well done!
> The person in the passenger seat will experience the 'come to Jesus time'..

Over built, "first class and well done" sounds good to me.

Patrick

" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 18, 10:48 pm, "huhie" > wrote:
> " > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Aug 17, 10:57 pm, "huhie" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > " > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > On Aug 17, 1:59 pm, "huhie" > wrote:
>
> > > Mustang -
>
> > > If I was going to buy one in the next few months, which year is the
> > > most
> > > cost effective, good driving with high horsepower ?
>
> > > the 93 5.0 has 220 HP and with a blower up to 300 but that is almost
> > > 20
> > > years old and about $9,000
>
> > > the 2011 has about 400 HP but $30K
>
> > > and which years would you avoid ?
>
> > > If I added a blower it would be a keene bell, $3k for 5,0 and up to
> > > $6K
> > > for
> > > 2011
>
> > I think you need to do some test driving to narrow down your choices.
> > Ive driven 93 a lot, not the newer ones, the 94s seemed cramped
>
> > know of any years to avoid?
>
> > I heard the 2011 is great, will test drive it.
>
> All opinion here. Of the Fox cars, I'd get any year 5-liter, 5-speed
> LX. I'm not a fan of the '94-'98s. Of the '99-'05s I'd opt for an '01
> Bullitt, '03-'04 Mach 1 or '03-'04 Terminator. With the '05 and ups,
> I'd get an '08 Bullitt, any Shelby GT or GT500 and any '11 and up
> GT. To me these are the cream cars, that's not to say there aren't
> other really good Mustangs in those other years.
>
> Between the older Foxes and new GTs, understand they are completely
> different animals, and as different as a Fox Mustang is to '65
> Mustang. The Fox feels like a go-cart in comparison to the new GT.
> That said, the new GT drives small -- it doesn't feel like a big
> car.

> Again go do some test driving, so you can decide what is better for
> you.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<< <
>
> I test drove a 1998 Mustang today which was done all out, has 450 HP,
> custom
> racing engine, Vortek blower, intercooler, everything was sized to handle
> 500 hp, drive train etc, the frame was very rigid, nice car, great
> breaks, first class and well done!
> The person in the passenger seat will experience the 'come to Jesus time'.

Over built, "first class and well done" sounds good to me.

Patrick

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

Quickest car I have been in.

another question, or add any comments!

he has a vortech v2 set at 8 # boost, and intercooler (which looses 1 psi)
, I dont know if it had a bypass valve for street driving (part throttle)
Seems they spent a lot of time tuning it all up, perhaps they started with
too much boost from Vortech (they heat the air a lot hotter than an KB) and
worked down.
Could have engine heat soak on long trips (?)

(you end up going slower and slower to avoid det, happened to me in
aridzona after 1.5 hours in 100+ temps, 8# KB with no air bypass, in a 93
5.0, got down to 55 mph. one cylender probably had some extra oil. it was
an 14 hour trip, night was better, new rebuilt engine and adding on air
bypass made huge difference)

But it seems a Keene Bell at 6 or 7 lbs would not need intercooler, assuming
you could program the computer air/fuel/timing maps for both.
So it seems that one could drop a KB on a stock engine and do OK, as long as
the engine has lower miles (not yet plugged up with stuff)

Cooling the supercharged engines is the big problem.

On Aug 20, 1:43*am, "huhie" > wrote:
> " > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Aug 18, 10:48 pm, "huhie" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > " > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > On Aug 17, 10:57 pm, "huhie" > wrote:
>
> > > " > wrote in message
> another question, or add any comments!

> he has a vortech v2 set at *8 # boost, and intercooler (which looses 1 psi)
> , I dont know if it had a bypass valve for street driving (part throttle)
> Seems they spent a lot of *time tuning it all up, perhaps they started with
> too much boost from Vortech (they heat the air a lot hotter than an KB) and
> worked down.
> Could have engine heat soak on long trips (?)

That's something I'd want to know about before I'd buy. And to find
out I'd ask for a lot of seat time, in all sorts of driving/traffic,
to find out. And if the seller baulked at the idea, I'd walk.
Because mods improperly/incompletely done, can be a real pain to sort
out and fix.

> (you end up going slower and slower to avoid det, *happened to me in
> aridzona after 1.5 hours in 100+ temps, 8# KB *with no air bypass, in a 93
> 5.0, got down to 55 mph. *one cylender probably had some extra oil. *it was
> an 14 hour trip, night was better, new rebuilt engine and adding on air
> bypass made huge difference)

> But it seems a Keene Bell at 6 or 7 lbs would not need intercooler, assuming
> you could program the computer air/fuel/timing maps for both.
> So it seems that one could drop a KB on a stock engine and do OK, as long as
> the engine has lower miles (not yet plugged up with stuff)

I think the key to a happy SC'd street motor is low/moderate boost.
It's when you get greedy -- upping boost -- is when problems
arise.

> Cooling the supercharged engines is the big problem.

And excessive rear tire wear. :-)

Patrick