Do you need a mullet to drive a Ford?

No, that is a Camaro.

:iagree:

Your complimentary in car gun rack should be arriving any day Steve...:stirthepot:

Along with a redneck sticker and complimentary admission to the NRA.

Thanks!

Already a member.

:bowrofl::roflpuke2::bowrofl:

The Mid-Atlantic Z Owner's Club thanks you for the basis of half our jokes this Saturday. Here, have this e-point as a sign of our gratitude.

I am out of one liners

My Z runs 9.0's with a JDM squash air freshner only**

I think its both!

Yup...I've had 3. I suspect #4 will be in the driveway at some point in the future...

Wife said NO to that!

well gentlemen, I finished my 550 mile road trip to El Paso, TX from Oklahoma and i'll say right away, this car HATES the altitude here, it feels like a slug :(

Well, could be a combination of the altitude and the 90 octane I unfortunately had to fill it with because that was the best gas offered in Hobbs, NM which was right about when I was going to run out, seriously, who for the love of god, only offers 90 octane as a premium?

The shifts are too short in the 5.0 Mustang. I'm thinking of fabricating a kit where you can extend the length of the shifter with a sawed off shotgun.

That is crazy, BUT YOU ARE WRONG MY FRIEND! I saw a vid on YouTube of a GT. It had an intake, long tubes, catback, tuning, 3.73 gears, suspension mods, and drag radials running 10.5 I think it was. CRAZY!!! It was a dark blue GT....

I forgot about the Evolution Performance GT. But like you said that was full suspension and skinnies and slicks.

Still hawt though. Whenever you do get around to getting a S/C, go with the twin screw type. Although, I do not know if that is the most efficient any more, but it is what I was running on my GT. Kenne Bell. Loved it.

Twin Screw is where it's at. I almost bought a KB for my '03.

But then I traded it in for a Civic with less displacement than the blower I was going to buy. :roflpuke2::roflpuke2::roflpuke2::roflpuke2::roflp uke2:

That is funny..... That is a FAIL move on your part there!

It was actually a good one since I was driving 600 miles every weekend. :tup:

Then that is full of win! LOL!! But yeah, KB is all good. Do your thing man!! Can't wait to see what you do!!!!!!!!

Well, right now I'm about to do some laundry. :icon17:

speaking of laundry.. thanks for the reminder....

On thing that no one has mentioned in the 39 pages of this thread is the seats.
I have been test driving both the Z & GT and I really like both. It's going to be a very difficult decisions. But one thing that has me leaning towards the GT are the front seats, they seem to be much more comfortable then the Z's. I am sort of worried that they may be really uncomfortable on long drives.

Any thoughts on that from the GT guys the switched from the Z.

The GT's seats are definitely more comfortable. They have good side bolstering for your back but a little less bolstering on the bottom which makes them nice and comfy, while still being supportive.

I drove 900 miles in the Z to get the GT and then 900 miles home with the GT. The Z is not uncomfortable on long trips, but it's not as comfortable as the Mustang.

I drove 2500miles in 2.5 days by myself, and i can still stand upright! I find the Z seats to be fairly comfy. At least more comfy than my R1!

Seriously though, traveling with a dog/cat and as much as i could cram in my Z for that long of a drive is something i am not looking forward to again anytime soon. :shakes head:

Damn, I can't imagine doing that drive with pets.

What's the difference between all the gear ratios offered
Also how many choices are there from ford?

3.31 is the stock gear.

3.55 and 3.73 are the options.

The 3.73 cars are going to accelerate the quickest but will have lower highway mpgs than the 3.55 or 3.31.

Real sports cars trade high mpg's for high mph's. Good choice on 3.73, Steve.0

Some people say the 3.73 is too much gear, but right now, it's perfect. I suspect with FI I would want to dial it back to a 3.55, but N/A 3.73 is nice. If this was a drag-only car I'd think about a 4.10 or 4.30. :tup:

Why? Because a Mazdaspeed 3 does infact feel faster than a 370Z?

Yeah that makes a whole lot of sense. For one, the MS3 makes over 280ft-lb of TQ @3000rpms (under-rated) and weighs 3150lbs. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why and with a few bolt ons it pulls even harder. 1/4 mile times don't always tell the full story of an automobiles pulling power at speed.

And for all those saying the Mustang GT is just a "straight line" car I suggest you give the crack pipe a rest. If the GT was just a "straight line" car explain why it can keep up with an E92 M3 around the track? I swear the fanboyism here is off the charts!

Depends. Under hard acceleration and at low revs, I concur, the MS3 yanks at your lumbar region with every shift. It has more torque than a Z, and it lets you know.

But I think the Z feels much quicker through the corners, much more nimble. And at higher revs, the Z feels ridiculously fast.

The 370Z might have had similar lap times compared to the older 295hp Porsche Cayman NOT the newer 09+ 320hp Cayman S. The current Cayman S is in E92 BMW M3 territory so if the 11 Mustang GT is indeed as capable as the M3 it will surely produce faster lap times vs. a Z around the track.

Oh and not arguing that. I was just replying to smartasses comment.

I don't know about Caymans, but I agree about the Stang pulling the Z around just about any track, if both are stock. Only a blind fanboy would argue the contrary.

Did someone say my name?

:rofl2:

Wait, where the hell did this come from? :rofl2:

I think the 3.55's are the perfect medium of acceleration and fuel economy IMHO, I just drove 550 miles to El Paso, TX from Lawton, OK, heres how I did:

23.6 mpg halfways through the trip, it actually went up to 24.5 overall average when I arrived in El Paso.

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/g...t6/p_00901.jpg

And if you look at the trip, I set that at fill up, so at 200 miles, she drank half a tank.

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/g...t6/p_00903.jpg

not too shabby if I may say so myself.

I will say though, I gave up 100 miles a tank from the Z, on my trip to Ohio in the Z, I went 510 miles before I had to fill up, having tank with 3 less gallons could also be a culprit.

I got mine up to 23 on the way home from STL. But yeah, the smaller tank sucks. The Z's was huge at 19.x gal. I think ours is 15.x.