Nope, but it's nice, eh? It looks a little bit like mine (colors and leather)..but...mine is old...just had to put in a new radiator (plus the hoses and thermostat), ran me $500. Ouch. Surprisingly most of that was parts, not labor.
When are you going to stop drooling over one and just pull the trigger?
Think I'm selling mine...
I can't imagine driving a nice BMW like that in Boston. I once took my new RX-7 there, the alarm went off about a zillion times in a month. Drove me nuts.
Not to mention the time I stepped out of the car and did the splits on a dog ****. Fell in it too.
Decided that was no beantown car so I totalled it and replaced it with an urban assault vehicle (1970 Ford Maverick, smurf blue with black racing stripe).
My car is rarely parked on the street. I live in the suburbs outside Boston, and I have off-street parking at work. Only time it's on the street in the city is on the weekends, and I'm pretty careful about parking it. My car has maybe one very minor chip on the rear bumper.
I found a 99 Porsche Boxster, 18 or 19K miles, burgandy with black interior, 5-spd, for a pretty unreal price, so I think I'm jumping on it.
Definitely an upgrade from a 323.
Only in some ways. They're both 2.5L sixes, but the 3-series has a trunk and a backseat. I do like my car alot, I wish I could afford both. The Boxster probalby isn't the smartest thing for me to buy, but fvck it, do it while I can.
all i have to say is the mustang uses a little 302or 4.6 281 and still keeps up or out does the camaro with a big 350 now try to compare
chris, those 5.0 Mustangs had (according to my Google just now) a max of about 235 horsepower (GT model).
The Camaro z-28 came with a 382 cid "stroker" capable of 475 hp, according to
this chart.
Sure looks like no contest to me....what am I missing?
The last firebird/camaro was 275-285 hp factory, and was a little heavier than the Mustang, which was a little less hp(in the same year car, 2001-2002ish). The firebird/camaro, in stock form, sliiiightly edged out the mustang in most performance times, but the mustang is more popular, sold more cars, and there's a bigger market for aftermarket performance mods.
It's a personal preference, kind of like how long to grow your mullet, and which Nascar driver to root for.
Camaro Vs Mustang
I bought a 2002 Camaro brand new in June of 2002. It has the 3.8 Series II V-6...about 200 horses stock. My Little V-6 will keep up with a Mustang GT with a 4.7 V-8. My personal opinion is that thats a very poor showing for Ford. The Mustang may have outsold GM, but perfomance and styling..Ford can't compete with Camaro or Firebird.
Did that Camaro come with three years of free mullet cuts?
And I'm not sure what you mean by your V6 Camara' will keep up with a Mustang GT...that's not true. I think the V6 Camaro 0-60 is around mid to high 7 seconds 0-60, the Mustang GT is sub-7.
CJ, you have to stop with these way off responses. GM's promotion was a free NASCAR coffee mug and windshield sticker, NOT mullet cuts. The Firechicken came with the mullet cuts.
Damn, I missed out on that. I always wanted A NASCAR coffee mug.
A mullet isn't just a haircut...
It's a waya life.
Slappy Doo Hoo wrote:The last firebird/camaro was 275-285 hp factory, and was a little heavier than the Mustang, which was a little less hp(in the same year car, 2001-2002ish). The firebird/camaro, in stock form, sliiiightly edged out the mustang in most performance times, but the mustang is more popular, sold more cars, and there's a bigger market for aftermarket performance mods.
The last F-bodies had 305HP from the LS1 V8, with Camaro SS & Trans Am WS6 models getting 320HP. Both were capable of 160+MPH & 1/4 mile times in about 13.2 seconds (with the 6-speed manual).
Hmm... Lets See
2001-2002 Camaro:
Engines:
3.8 V6 200 bhp.
Z28: LS1 5.7 V8 310 bhp @ 5200 rpm, 335 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm.
SS: LS1 5.7 V8 320 bhp @ 5200 rpm, 345 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm.
Performance:
Z28(3439 lbs): 0-60 in 5.5 seconds, 1/4 mile in 14.0 seconds @ 101.3 mph.
SS(3439 lbs): 0-60 in 5.3 seconds, 1/4 mile in 13.7 seconds @ 105.6 mph.
2001-2002 Mustang:
Engine:
GT: 4.6 V8 260 bhp @ 5250 rpm, 302 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm
SVT Cobra4.6 V8 320 bhp @ 6000 rpm,317 lb-ft @ 4750 rpm
Performance:
GT(3113lbs) : 0-60 in 5.7 seconds, 1/4 mile in 14.1 sec @ 99 mph
SVT Cobra(3472 lbs): 0-60 in 4.8 seconds, 1/4 mile in 13.5 sec @ 105 mph
Its a Close Call, but for the top model battle, the SVT Cobra takes it over the SS, as for aftermarket parts both cars had a wide selection of tuners and brands to choose from.
I have seen 100% box-stock LS1 Camaros run 13.2 on street radials (and 12.90's on slicks) with a good driver.
With minimal effort, you have a true 10-second street car.
ok first of NOS supra kid....
i don't know where you get your information from but a stock 2002 Z28 does not run 14's in the 1/4 i would know this because i own one. when my car was completely stock it ran a 13.8 in the middle of summer in Florida. after i put a new lid and exhaust and ran it in cooler temps i ran a 13.2
second... there is no difference between an SS and Z28 other than suspension and appearance that would make a huge difference in performance. SS has a factory high performance intake and a " low restriction" exhaust setup. which wouldnt even give as big of gains as other aftermarket pieces. i have raced against an SS and still won in my Z28. I have also raced a 01 cobra and handed him his ass.
third... from some one who goes to the track and actually sees what these cars run, instead of getting my info from a magazine, a 2002 GT is not going to run a 14.1. Im sure that somewhere someone managed to get a 14.1 out of a mustang GT that was stock but it must have been a factory freak. I two friends with 03 GT's and one of them is pretty much stock except for intake and he was in the 15's when he ran. My other friend who has a 03 GT w/ longtube headers, full exhaust, and intake still only ran a best of 14.6
on another note... i think someone posted before about how there V6 camaro kept up with a GT...before i got my Z28 i owned a 99 V6 camaro with the same 3800 series engine and i raced a mustang GT that must have been a 94-98 body style ( which i understand are a little slower than the new ones) but the nose of my car was at the rear quarter pannel the whole time....so i def believe that this kid could have kept up with a newer GT
sorry to bring back such an old post, but i felt it was important to set things right :wink:
