"Cherry_man1" (Cherry_man1)
06/08/2014 at 02:07 • Filed to: NPCP, Ford Mustang, Mach 1, 2003
1
30|
"Cherry_man1" (Cherry_man1)
06/08/2014 at 02:07 • Filed to: NPCP, Ford Mustang, Mach 1, 2003 | 1
| 30 |
Nice Price or Crack Pipe it?
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
Ok I went and saw this tonight and I know the wear issue on the driver seat with this high of millage and lemme tell you there is no wear.
Iheartmy365kHonda - Car enthusiasts do like FWD
> Cherry_man1
06/08/2014 at 02:09 |
|
NP from me!
M54B30
> Cherry_man1
06/08/2014 at 02:18 |
|
$13,000 for a nearly 12 year old car with 70,000 miles? It wasn't even that great of a car. My mom has a 2003 GT, it's uncomfortable, thirsty, and has blind spots from hell. Sounds great though. Not my cup of tea.
GhostZ
> Cherry_man1
06/08/2014 at 02:52 |
|
Iffy.
The reoccuring problem with these Mach 1s is that they tend to command a hefty premium over GTs because of their condition (they're usually kept in shape better) and their rarity. However, they only offer a slightly improved performance/mechanical advantage over a GT.
The only reason it is approaching NP is because Cobras haven't come down in price for a long time. Still, I'm hesitant and would have to see it in person before deciding NP or CP, even if it's not my money being spent.
|
GhostZ
> M54B30
06/08/2014 at 02:54 |
|
If you're not going to keep it for more than 7-10 years, 70000 miles is perfectly acceptable on a car with a good history of reliability.
Still, I've found that the SN95 and New Edge mustangs had some of the most comfortable interiors of any car I've driven (ignoring materials, but in terms of layout) and felt more comfortable in them than in most luxury cars of that era. I'm not sure what you mean by it being uncomfortable.
Blind spots are bad for a early-2000s sedan (but not bad for an early-2000s coupe, look at the G35 or Camaro) but it still has better visibility than any new pony/muscle car on sale today.
To me, the age, mileage, and comfort are non-issues and don't make or break this. The price, depreciation, interior and exterior quality, and previous owner would, like any used car. Shopping for comfort, age, and visibility means you're far more likely to end up with something unreliable, overpriced, and underperforming.
Conan
> Cherry_man1
06/08/2014 at 08:33 |
|
I like the Mach 1. I don't like the Zinc Yellow. Haggle down and go for it if you do.
boxrocket
> Cherry_man1
06/08/2014 at 08:41 |
|
You can get much newer, nicer, faster, and more economical for the same or less money. http://www.carmax.com/search/results…
Milky
> Cherry_man1
06/08/2014 at 10:51 |
|
First off tinted headlights = eww.
But CP. For that much money I can get a 400hp GTO or a 350hp SRT6.
|
Cherry_man1
> Milky
06/08/2014 at 11:32 |
|
I don't do GM or Chrysler
|
Cherry_man1
> boxrocket
06/08/2014 at 11:33 |
|
the only newer car I would want is an 08 bullitt I found but it's got 96k miles and it's still 16k
|
Milky
> Cherry_man1
06/08/2014 at 12:23 |
|
Your loss
|
M54B30
> GhostZ
06/08/2014 at 12:54 |
|
I meant uncomfortable simply by meaning that the ride is rough, the engine's loud (which gets annoying after a bit), and they sit very low and aggravate if you're doing errands all day. I was 24 last time I drove my mom's mustang (2010) but I remember getting annoyed pulling myself out and falling into it every time.
The blind spots are atrocious. The mirrors are small, the C pillars huge and the hood is generally straight - hard to see the front bumpers. I'm a small guy (5'7") so maybe that's part of the issue, but it's an issue I never had in any other car.
While 70k miles is low for a nearly 12 year old car, it's still 70,000 miles. Low for the age, but not necessarily low. Just my $0.02.
|
GhostZ
> M54B30
06/08/2014 at 13:13 |
|
A 2010 mustang has nothing in common with a 2003 Mustang. Nothing. (and in your previous comment, didn't you say she had a 2003, not a 2010?) And I agree, the blind spots on the 2005+ models WERE bad. But 1992-2004 had one of the best Mustang interiors ever in terms of layout and design. If you're thinking about a 2010 Mustang vs a 2003 Mustang, that's an entirely different comparison, and the 2010 interiors (in my opinion) were laid out way worse, and the blocky body did cause major visibility problems.
2010:
2003:
Notice how on the 2010, everything is pushed away from the driver, at awkward angles, and the buttons are just sort of placed in a row? The 2003 had a totally different approach, and it basically put everything very close to the driver so you can see and reach everything very cleanly and easily. The gauges easy to see from the steering wheel (which was more comfortable to hold) and the shifter/parking brake positioning was excellent. The seats were near identical, but the way they sat had the cabin molded around them, instead of the 2010, where they had basically big square boxes cut out that they threw the seats in. Those little things make a huge difference on how easy it is to get in and out, and the curve of the dash (making it lower on the corners) in the 2003 helped prevent visibility problems. It was the last "non retro" mustang that was trying to be a good car of its time, rather than a mediocre car that reminded you of the 60s.
To me, Low mileage means "will there be any miles-related repairs in the time I plan to own it?" This means if you plan to own the car for 1-2 years, as long as it can go another 20,000-30,000 miles you're fine. A 2003 Mach 1 can reach 150,000 miles before major repairs (transmission might be the first thing to go after that) so this is easily a 5-7 year car. Age has less to do with it.
wabbalosthiskey
> Cherry_man1
06/08/2014 at 13:28 |
|
For some reason Mach 1s and Bullitt cars hold their value a little too high for what they are IMO - Neat over a standard GT but realistically what you are getting is a decades-old platform at the end of its life. For the same price if you want a Mustang find an '06-or-so S197 GT. Significantly better platform with a much more capable drivetrain.
|
M54B30
> GhostZ
06/08/2014 at 13:32 |
|
sorry - I wasn't clear. She has a 2003, last I drove it was 2010 before I moved back to the states.
|
Cherry_man1
> Milky
06/08/2014 at 17:02 |
|
ford GT40 nuff aaid
|
Cherry_man1
> wabbalosthiskey
06/08/2014 at 17:08 |
|
true but the bullitt is the better platform cause it's got the GT500 interior and what is now 2010 mustang GT suspension with a CAI 5 speed. Hell just read the jalop article on it. And the Mach 1 has a 4.6L DOHC aluminum block with a 5 speed behind it and pretty much the suspension of a cobra. Besides the irs.
|
wabbalosthiskey
> Cherry_man1
06/08/2014 at 20:25 |
|
Nothing you said about the Bullitt makes any sense, and would generally be considered the lesser of the two coming with a 2v motor instead of the 4v - although it gains points being shipped sans-rear spoiler, one of the best examples of a factory special taking the less-is-more approach and winning. The Bullitt and Mach 1 cars essentially shared their interiors - They had the same seats (with different upholstery), gauges and shift knob, with a few trim color differences between them. The seats were nicer than the standard GT seats and might be the best improvement that you get with either one over a GT. Both came with the 13" PBR brakes, same as the Cobra. The Bullitt cars were 2v motors with a slightly improved intake (+5 hp!). Mach 1 cars used a 32v motor almost identical to the 99-01 Cobras but with a different set of cams which improved low end torque but sacrificed a little top-end HP, which unfortunately is the only thing the 32v motors really do well. Both used the same 5-speed, slightly different shocks/springs, mediocre factory shit either way.
|
wabbalosthiskey
> Cherry_man1
06/08/2014 at 20:27 |
|
...And this is a MUCH better value. The S197 chassis is significantly better than the Mach 1 you were looking at. There's a reason calling someone's 04 Cobra a fox body pisses them off. :P
|
Cherry_man1
> wabbalosthiskey
06/08/2014 at 20:27 |
|
I'm not talking new edge bullitt im talking s197 bullitt. you got the wrong bullitt in your head.
|
Cherry_man1
> wabbalosthiskey
06/08/2014 at 20:33 |
|
This is the one I was talking about NPCP Bullitt Mustang
|
wabbalosthiskey
> Cherry_man1
06/08/2014 at 20:38 |
|
You asked about an 03 Mach 1 which are very similar to Bullitt cars as far as buildout and value, so that's what I was comparing to - '03-vintage Mach and Bullitt cars.
And no, an '08 Bullitt doesn't have a GT500 interior or 2010 suspension, and the "factory CAI" isn't comparible to any real aftermarket intake (and most pre-loaded tuners don't support it either), so don't get hung up on that. The seats use the same bolster arrangement as the GT500s with different upholstery. The springs are setup 1/2" lower than a GT but still stands like a 4x4, the struts/shocks are valved a little differently than the regular GTs (but are NOT the same as the Tokico-built FRPPs) but again, not comparable to anything aftermarket. The factory 3.73 gearing is nice though, if that's all you want to go for, otherwise it's annoying they use a different pinion bearing.
|
wabbalosthiskey
> Cherry_man1
06/08/2014 at 20:39 |
|
It looks nice, upholstery in good shape, tint the windows and lower, and you are set. Love how they come without a spoiler, clean.
|
Cherry_man1
> wabbalosthiskey
06/08/2014 at 20:47 |
|
Its the millage thats got me worried on it though.
|
Milky
> Cherry_man1
06/08/2014 at 20:55 |
|
….. I mean thats not a very good argument because they don't make it, or anything like it anymore.
|
Cherry_man1
> Milky
06/08/2014 at 21:20 |
|
Also only GTO I will ever want is a vintage one. pre trans am. Also Chevy/GM is too much of a pain to work on.
|
Milky
> Cherry_man1
06/08/2014 at 22:31 |
|
The GTO though has a LS, so reliable. Also it doesn't have the F-bodies shitty engine placement problems.
But IMO the point of a muscle car is cheap HP/fun. That mach you posted isn't that cheap or that powerful.
|
wabbalosthiskey
> Cherry_man1
06/09/2014 at 01:08 |
|
Being an 08, they don't typically have the problems the earlier ones did. The drivetrains are solid and will run to 150-200k miles without much issue, as long as you keep oil in it. At that point they need a timing chain overhaul (guides/tensioners, really) which isn't a huge deal. If it feels reasonably tight and solid, it's probably just fine.
|
Cherry_man1
> wabbalosthiskey
06/09/2014 at 08:15 |
|
I'm planning on going to look at this car sometime this week
|
Cherry_man1
> Milky
06/09/2014 at 08:17 |
|
How is $12k not cheap? also LS motors are the "me too" engines of the car world.
|
Milky
> Cherry_man1
06/09/2014 at 09:30 |
|
I'm not saying I don't yawn when I see a LS swap, just don't understand where the "GM is too much of a pain to work on." thing came from.
12k isn't cheap for just 300hp. Like I said, imo muscle car = cheap hp & for the same price 400hp or 350hp can be had.