NEARLY 2 YEARS WAITING: New Mustang GT PP is finally mine!

Well after much deliberation I have picked my exhaust and getting it next weekend. Went for the Milltek full cat back and lining up someone I trust to install.

Watching the above video's even if the M2 or even M4 was the same price as the Mustang I still would have gone with the Mustang. It has a lot more road presence and just makes you smile all day. The fact it is cheaper and easy to get parts to mod and make it your own makes it just that much more fun.

Also got my quote for adding exhaust to the car. Aviva increasing my premium by £0. They charged £3 for the stripes but nothing for a full cat back...
 
Mr-White said:
I watched an hour long video on fitting a Roush supercharger, you have to cut the existing wiring, tubing, the strut brace and grind down parts of the engine. I dunno how normal that is or if that's the same for the whipple but it doesn't look like you can reverse it too easily.
Click to expand...

Whipple to is proper bolt on kit, easiest fit and reversible, you also buy Whipple over others because:
- whine
- Whipple tune is written by Ford engineers and proven safe with stock drive ability
- software to do boost by gear
- more power with less boost

Only downside is it cost more but if your spending 6k you might as well buy the better kit and cough up another 1-2k to have best and with Whipple you can go to around 1000 horses but stage 2 is most for many, it's safe, easy and 750ish with 600lb/ft is more than enough.
 
ShadowMan said:
Well after much deliberation I have picked my exhaust and getting it next weekend. Went for the Milltek full cat back and lining up someone I trust to install.

Watching the above video's even if the M2 or even M4 was the same price as the Mustang I still would have gone with the Mustang. It has a lot more road presence and just makes you smile all day. The fact it is cheaper and easy to get parts to mod and make it your own makes it just that much more fun.

Also got my quote for adding exhaust to the car. Aviva increasing my premium by £0. They charged £3 for the stripes but nothing for a full cat back...
Click to expand...

Nice b'day present then :p

I do agree with you after being out with you and seeing everyone looking at yours, I can not imagine an M2 or M4 would get the same attention from passersby etc

Kimbie
 
Dis86 said:
Not defensive, accurate. They're comparing one car to another that costs 30% more!
Stick a turbo or supercharger on the ford for part of that cost difference and the tables would change completely.
Click to expand...

and ? why do they have to be of the same price to be compared ?

So one car is faster than the other but costs more ? as long as the reviewer isn't lieing about the price and making out they cost the same, there's no issue.

Stop being so defensive !
 
Fr0dders said:
and ? why do they have to be of the same price to be compared ?

So one car is faster than the other but costs more ? as long as the reviewer isn't lieing about the price and making out they cost the same, there's no issue.

Stop being so defensive !
Click to expand...

But you have to admit, what's the point in the review? It's apples to oranges.
 
Probably the same jokers who compared the Audi hatch to a GTR on a go kart circuit in the wet with very different tyres.
 
Fr0dders said:
and ? why do they have to be of the same price to be compared ?

So one car is faster than the other but costs more ? as long as the reviewer isn't lieing about the price and making out they cost the same, there's no issue.

Stop being so defensive !
Click to expand...

In that case why not compare a veyron to an Austin metro?
It simply shows nothing. The two are unlikely to be direct competition for one another.
 
Last edited:
Fr0dders said:
and ? why do they have to be of the same price to be compared ?

So one car is faster than the other but costs more ? as long as the reviewer isn't lieing about the price and making out they cost the same, there's no issue.

Stop being so defensive !
Click to expand...

I think the point being made is that the cars are too different to be fairly compared. If both had been autos or manual then it would have made it fair, but you're not comparing a like-for-like scenario.
 
It's only really useful in comparing 2 cars that cost so differently is if you're looking at swapping one to the other, or in the case of lulz when the cheaper car was better.
 
Dis86 said:
In that case why not compare a veyron to an Austin metro?
It simply shows nothing. The two are unlikely to be direct competition for one another.
Click to expand...

They're both two door coupes. Not like they are comparing the Ford Kuga to the M2.

Rossi~ said:
But you have to admit, what's the point in the review? It's apples to oranges.
Click to expand...

Surely more like morrisons golden delicious to a Waitrose Braeburn ;)
 
Fr0dders said:
They're both two door coupes. Not like they are comparing the Ford Kuga to the M2.



Surely more like morrisons golden delicious to a Waitrose Braeburn ;)
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is body shape is more relevant than any other factor such as cost, power, drive, configuration?
 
Freefaller said:
I think the point being made is that the cars are too different to be fairly compared. If both had been autos or manual then it would have made it fair, but you're not comparing a like-for-like scenario.
Click to expand...


This man 100% gets it, price differences, don't care, the issue is when in both cars there is the option of both a manual and an auto they should compare like for like. :)

As I said a few post back, auto's have made cars a lot quicker over the last 10-15 years compared to their manual counterparts. They make launching a car far easier but most of all consistent and they lose no acceleration on up changes and again even more so don't have any wheelspin or loss of traction on up changes like a manual does or certainly nowhere near the same extent as the computer simply does a far better job than a human.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom