invoice on a 2k2 mustang gt is around $22k, it has a little more HP and tq. than a 2k2 max, it seems to me like the mustang gt would be a pretty good deal for anyone interested in that type of car (i would NOT be on that list)--why is it that they ARE so cheap, is there something i'm missing in regards to their reliability in comparison to the 2k2 max???

 

omg how can you even compare a POS mustang to a semi-luxury sedan just because they have similiar engine outputs. the list is too long for me to even take my time to go on about. just get rid of this thread before i get sick.

 

The fit and finish are not even close to a Max's. If I'm not mistaken the rear seat sits 2, where as the Max seats 3 which is huge to those of us that have 3 kids, it's also 2 doors, which is a pain waiting for kids to get in before you. The Mustang Bullit is a nice car for the cash.

 

i CAN compare a POS mustang to a max b/c i don't know anything about mustangs, nor do i really care that much, i was just curious as to what exactly about them was so "POS", rephrasing that:i was just curious as to what exactly about them makes them so cheap, could someone that is niether rude nor easily offended please 'enlighten me' (i have 2k2 max also and can personally tell you that you have no reason to be insecure, i just didn't want to go to a gayas$ mustang forum, people here tend to not be gaya$$es)--i say this respeectfully, no need for flames
thx,
matt

 

It's cheap because it's a ford... nuff said


I mean, all that money you save is going to inevitably go towards the gas it takes you to drive back to the dealer every time ford issues a recall on some flammable component.

-Tom Z.

 

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

Yep, having owned Fords, I think that just about says it.

The Mustang is not known for quality. Friends who have them love it because it's an inexpensive V8 sports car. They also have seen the car deteriorate in front of their eyes.

Probably a good buy if you only plan on keeping it for 2 or 3 years. I think that Maxima drivers plan on keeping their cars longer than that. Plus Maximas are more practical.

 

Well, the trucks, that is; or at least, my 94 Ranger. This truck has exceeded my expectations all around. It has the 4.0 V6 and has nearly 100k miles on it. I've put nothing but gas, oil, and a fan belt into it and it has held up remarkably. There are no fit/finish issues at all. The interior (when clean) looks showroom new, no kidding.

I can't say that I'd go into debt for any other Ford product, but with the 4.0 Ranger, you can't lose. The truck is excellent.

And I know folks that have had their Mustang experience. Suffice it to say they no longer drive them and in fact they are now driving Nissan's: 1 drives a Max and the other a Pathfinder. The mustang was in their "stable" oh, about a year or two, and that was enough.

So, I'll echo the other's comments when there is NO comparison b/w the Max and the mustang...they are not even in the same class and never will be. The Maxima is one awesome machine and there isn't another marque out there that offers the characteristics of the Maxima...and oh how the Taurus SE wants to be a Maxima (grin)!!!!!

 

Mustang GT's also have been known to dyno quite low for their 260HP output. I thought I saw some dynos of the 5spds at around 190HP ?!?!? WTH? That's worse than most auto's

And yeah, they just don't seem to hold up well at all. I've seen the newer body style Mustangs (99+) already starting to fall apart and they're hardly even a few years old.

When you have good performance at ultra low prices then something has to give. And in this case it's quality.

 

I'm no mustang fan (as a C5 owner)... but some of you are a little ignorant. The new 99+ mustangs, rated at 260hp usually put down 225-230hp at the wheels (not 190hp), actaully the 215hp 5.0 and 4.6 put down around 190hp.

They do hold the power well. The Mustang drivesdrain is very strong. Tunners ship 400-450hp GTs with all stock drivetrains they are so strong, which is part of the reason they are so popular to modify. I put 90k+ miles on my 96GT (my first new car at 19) without any signifcant problem. The 99+s ride and handle quite well. To top it all off, they are very cheap to work on.

The Mustang GT is not perferfect.... but its a lot of car for the money, not to mention it will outrun and outhandle any stock max for only $20-23k. I considered buying one when I had my 00 Maxima SE (I traded in my 96GT for the 00Max, only keep the Max 7 months), as an additional vehicle. Ended up up trading for my Vette and buying a civic. If I could find a 99+ GT cheap now, I would buy one. Actually, I got a loan for one near Charotte, NC a month ago, a 2000, but it had a salvage title that the dealer did not disclose.... luckly someone ran a carfax on it for me the day before I drove 4 hours to pick it up.

But comparing the GT and Max makes no since, they are both good cars for what the are... the Max a 4-door "sporty" family car and the GT a american musle car. the 02+ Max and the 99+GT are both bargains.

 

thanks steve, that's exactly what i was curious about

 

Hmmm...there must be some mighty conservative dynos out there then, because I've seen the dyno for a stock "260" HP GT at only 190 rwhp. Maybe the dyno was messed up and I missed the discussion on it. Or maybe it was really an auto and I thought it was a stick...

There was also that recent mainstream mag review of a Mustang Cobra, and a Camaro SS, both of which had 320HP at the crank. But for some reason the Camaro SS dynoed 20-30 some horsepower higher than the Mustang...

It just seems that Ford has a trend of getting lower than average amounts of power at the wheels for a given amount of horsepower

 

Camaro VS Mustang - In fact your are right about the HP discrepency between the two, but it is due to the Fbodies being highly underrated from the factory and the Mustang being right on. Its not uncommon to see the LS1 powered Fbodies, rated at 305hp turn 295-315rwhp on a dyno. The Fbodies should be rated at 340-345hp.. only a few HP shy of a C5 Corvette.

BTW- the dyno in that artical was way low... something was wrong with it.

I'm fairly sure most 260hp Mustangs usually dyno in close to 220-230rwhp. Some of the 5.0 (215hp rated) and the weak 4.6 (215hp 96-98) are usually around 190rwhp.

FHR- in the 90k miles I drove my 96GT, I had 1 alternator go and 1 pcv valve (a $4 part). Both covered under the extended warranty.

I looked into a Steeda Mustang before I bought the vette... I was considering just having a Vortex Supercharger installed. Its routine for them, and comes with the factory warranty in tack via an aggreement with ford. 3years/36000miles. Complete on a loaded GT with Vortex the car would have cost around $26,500. Steeda rating it at 380hp (flywheel), Vortex claims 391hp (flywheel) on their web site. You can order the Mustang from your local ford dealer and get it drop shipped at Steeda for no extra cost, or steeda can usually make arrangements with the local ford dealer to get you the car at invoice. I think the supercharger was around $4400 installed with dyno testing.

 

I agree. They were saying something like 30% drivetrain loss for the Mustang (completely ridiculous) and 20% loss for the SS (still pretty bad) so I agree that the dyno was probably a tad off

That Steeda sounds yummy!

 

because at Ford, quality is our No. 1.....0000000001 concern.

 

you guys sound like the guys on the TL-S board....using luxury as something to brag about over similar performance numbers

 

I traded my 00 Max SE 5 speed for an 01 GT 5 speed. The gentleman with the C5 who previously posted is right on in that these are 2 totally different cars serving 2 totally different markets.

My 00 Max SE was a much nicer car overall with superior creature comforts and fit and finish rivaling cars costing much more -- this is why I bought the car in the first place (traded in a 96 SE for it). It was my second Max in a row and I genuinely loved the car. I just wanted something a little more of an all out muscle car.

There's nothing better than the sound of a healthy American V8 flowing through straight pipes with Flowmasters -- I never listen to my radio when I drive the Mustang, I just listen to the sound of the engine and exhaust -- pure heaven.

I was also commuting 120 miles a day and killing the value of my Max with miles. So I bought the GT and an old Civic to commute with. The GT is a blast to drive on the street and I recently completed some open track events with it -- I was pleasantly surprised with its power and handling out of the box on the track. Respectable for an overall low-tech car.

In terms of quality, I did my research and discovered that the 99+ GT's have a reasonable track record for reliability. Of course, it depends on how you drive the car -- many people beat the snot out of these cars, which is why they tend to break. I intend to drive mine hard on the street and the track and, if it breaks, I'll live with it.

Bottom line is the Max is an awesome car and the GT is a great value. There's just no way to compare them side by side.

 

Outrun in a straight line, yes, but I'd put a stock SE up against a Rustang in the twisties any day. The only mustang that handles worth a darn is the new Cobra. Have you ever seen a mustang at a SCCA Autocross?

 

You'd lose big..... maybe you drive a stang. I'd admit my OO SE Maxima was a nice handler for a sedan, but nowhere close to a Mustang. Center of gravity, tire width, and tire quality are big factors... not to mention Mustang is RWD.

I've owned both, its not even close.

A quick lookup on MT:
Lateral acceleration, g 0.80 maxima SE, .86 GT
Speed through 600-ft slalom, mph 62.0 Maxima, 66.8 GT

 

The answer is pretty simple. When is the last time you really saw a clean, good condition 5-8 year old Mustang? Almost never. But yet you see lots of nice Maximas for in that vintage. Built quality is quite different between the two cars.

 

WOO HOO We've moved on from magazine racing to magazine handling!! I'm guessing that is the test of the 2000 Maxima SE that was before the 17" rims with V-Rated tires were available. Weight is a big factor too. If you throw some good wide Z-rated tires like the ones that come on the Mustang GT on a maxima, the maxima's gonna take it to school through the twisties. I have Potenza RE730's and a RSB on my car. And I know a lot of it is the driver, but if it counts for anything I stuck a VR4 up a two lane canyon. He'd pull on the straights of course, but I'd catch up on every corner. I really think the maxima's stock handling is highly underrated, and when you throw on the FSTB and RSB...mmmm mmmmmmm good.

 

Gimme a couple of years and I'll show you a clean 5 year old Mustang.

They are cheap b/c they aren't Fords "flagship", hell, I dont even think Ford has a flagship. Maxs are supposed to be the flagship of Nissan, thus, more expensive. The parts on the car are cheaper, and many other factors play into it. Plus they keep them cheap so that people will buy them over the Camaro. That's why I didn't buy a Camaro, couldn't afford it. I think the main target market that the GT's and all other Mustangs are in is the younger crowd, what parent is going to buy their teenager an almost $30k car? Not many. Its a good car for what you pay, and while I haven't had any problems with mine (knock on wood) their reliablity is often questioned. Although I think that the newer ones are getting better, somewhat. I think I got lucky.

 

Find any max numbers you would like to compare... I'm not into "magazine racing", just pointing out the obvious. My 00SE Maxima had the 17"s and V-rated... I can tell you the Mustang handles better hands down. Not to be disrespectfull to the Maxima.... it good handling wise in comparison to other sedans in its price range.

 

My 00 SE had Eibachs with 235/45/17 SP 8000's with an STB and handled great for a FWD sedan.

Now I realize there are several more suspension mods I was missing on the Max compared to some folks here, but my GT would beat my Max in the twisties and in a straight line.

Took them both to Thunderhill and I could hot lap much faster with the GT (SOTP -- based upon cars I could run with).

Again -- these cars aren't made to be compared -- they're built to fulfill 2 entirely different purposes. The GT simply has better performance numbers, but the Max is the best sprorts sedan for the money.

 

I'm not to quick to toot my own horn (owning a maxima), but does anyone remember that SCCA result list posted here once... You know, the one where the maxima was #1, taking out a couple corvette's in the twisties... I don't remember what mods the guy had on it, but I remember thinking to myself that it wasn't overly excessive... Admittedly, a LARGE part of it was undoubtedly driver skill... but still, at least no one can accuse the maxima of being a slacker in the handling department..


-Tom Z.

PS... i'm still waiting for an AWD maxima... *sigh*

 

Jeff 92Se you have a great point, I have yet to see one!

 

THAT WAS ME!!!!! And here's the list again just in case there's any doubters....The only mods I had at the time were Intake and Y-pipe...so in the handling department I was bone stock! By the way, note where the mustang is...the only guy that was slower than him was my friend in his prelude that for some reason couldn't figure out his way through the cones.

1. 40/STS MIKE SINGLETON, N 00 NISS MAXIMA SE (0.782) 42.114
2. 88/STS ROBERT ORR, N 01 TOYO CELICA GTS (0.782) 42.678
3. 170/FS CH PERDUE, N 97 CHEV CAMARO (0.809) 43.005
4. 75/STS JEFF BAYSINGER, N 95 NISS 240SX SE (0.782) 43.492
5. 28/BSP TODD HARMON, N 00 CHEV CORVETTE (0.838) 43.545
6. 32/SS ED CHRISTIANSEN, N 99 CHEV CORVETTE (0.829) 43.566
7. 89/STS DAVID JARNAGIN, N 89 NISS 240SX (0.782) 43.586
8. 88/BS MICHAEL FOERTSCH, N 99 MAZD MIATA (0.812) 44.172
9. 2/BSP DENIS GULAKOWSKI, N 00 CHEV CORVETTE (0.838) 44.188
10. 37/CSP JOHN "JJ" COLLIER, N94 HOND DEL SOL SI (0.840) 44.476
11. 33/AS MARK FERGUSON, N 00 HOND S2000 (0.820) 44.784
12. 9/ES DAN SANFORD, N 93 MAZD MX-6 (0.784) 45.025
13. 16/DSPL JOYCE ROGHAIR, N 87 BMW 325 IS (0.822) 45.510
14. 123/GS BILL JR. WELLS, N 01 MITS ECLIPSE (0.794) 45.963
15. 7/GSL JENNY HIGHTOWER, N 01 VOLK JETTA (0.794) 46.165
16. 150/AS RICK DENBLEYKER, N 88 PORS 944T (0.820) 46.317
17. 21/GS BRIAN LANE, N (0.794) 46.879
18. 42/STS JASON BRANDT, N 90 HOND PRELUDE SI (0.782) 47.004
19. 1/GS BILL SR. WELLS, N 01 MITS ECLIPSE (0.794) 47.619
20. 2/GSL MARIA STEELE, N 00 TOYO CELICA (0.794) 48.947
21. 31/FS CASEY SCHWENDEMAN, N95 FORD MUSTANG (0.809) 49.800
22. 4/GS TIM ESPLIN, N 94 HOND PRELUDE (0.794) DNF

 

sweet... that makes me feel so much better about my car!!!

congrats man...


-Tom Z.

 

damn, good job man, congrats.

 

GT Stang 260hp, one of the best bangs for the buck out there. Owned a 90 5.0 GT after college, chicks dig it, absolute deal. Butt sagged, transmission failed, check engine light came on, fog lights burned on me, I still loved it. Those cars are great for someone that wants a lot of hp for the $$$. Quality-wise, they suck. Even stock Potenzas on our cars(a really weak point), are significantly better than the BF Goodrich's that they have. Please don't compare a bang for the buck car to an entry-level Japanese luxo.