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.