2004 mustang gt !!!

Just want to see if any of you all have seen anything on the 2004 mustang gt. They are re-doing the body and added even more horses , like 285 to 300 stock in the gt's. They are even going to make the v6 pony with 215 horses. Thats what my 97 came stock !!! But let me know what you all think of the new body style.

[MC20GT]

I forget what magazine I was browsin' but I did see a sketch of the 2004 GT. Is it true they are going with that old school retro look? I'm not sure if I like it, but I only saw a sketch. I Didn't know the'll be sportin' that many ponys stock either. I better start 'moding'.

Here are some links to more info on the 2004 mustang gt

http://www.motortrend.com/sept01/ponycar/ponycar_f.html

http://bradbarnett.net/mustangs/concept/2004/



I hope these links will work and you get to some info on the new stang. If not just go to www.google.com and search for 2004 Ford Mustang , and you will find a lot of info. Then lets see if we can get some feed back .

[Rice Hunter]

Looks like there are a couple of different concepts. I'm not sure if I like the @ss end of the retro Stang, but they should be pretty neat. Weren't they going to bring back Boss production? If so, the retro look might fit. If they come stock at 300 HP, then everyone better start putting on mods! Good lord! My Cobra came 320HP stock. Will they keep the prices about the same you think? Seems like increasing horsepower is spreading like wild fire. Mustangs need to keep getting those boosts just to stay ahead of the ricers. The bad thing is, it may be like buying a computer. You buy it new one day, then the next day it's slow .

[wally6761]

i doubt they will design the motor to put out that much horsepower. it's probably hype to get people exited and think about buying a new car.

[Bama01GT]

Thanks for linking to my site.

J Mays said that the next Mustang will be retro-styled, so you can throw out some of the computer-enhanced "spy photos" on my site.

Here's a quote from Automobile Magazine:

Victimized by several development delays, the next-generation Mustang returns to its roots with a retro-style design that will reflect the classic Ford pony cars of the late 1960s and early '70s. The 2004 Mustang is to be built on a lighter, less expensive derivative of the Thunderbird's DEW98 chassis, known internally as "DEW Lite." Company sources say the base 'Stang's 3.8-liter V-6 is to be replaced by a new 215-horsepower, twin-cam 3.0-liter six, and the GT model will get a new, 5.0-liter variant of the current 4.6-liter V-8. The SVT Cobra coupe and convertible will boast the usual suspension and driveline tweaks, with output reportedly in excess of 400 horsepower.

[Try Me]

If it looks anything like this man, then hell ya i'd buy one!

[Dark_5.0]

Originally posted by Try Me
If it looks anything like this man, then hell ya i'd buy one!

I see you have a quote of mine from a previous thread in your signature...

Would you agree that a fox body stang with gears, full exhaust, usual bolt ons....and

A GOOD TUNE - Meaning advanced timing, and a air to fuel ratio that is in perfect hamony.

Could run a 13.4 with a lets say 1.9-2.0 60ft.....

Now get some slicks dump the clutch at a high rpm and watch your 60 ft drop to a lets say 1.6......Now you are running a high 12.

I will not clutter this site with name calling like you do....instead I will let the facts speak for themselves.

I do not appreciate the fact that you call all of the members of this site that have managed to bust into the 12's without going into the engine "liars"

If putting my quote in your signature is an attempt at sarcasm....then the joke is on you.

[Unit 5302]

Don't know how many of you remember back before the 1994GT came out. I remember back in 1992 reading through all the articles. Here was the scoop, the 1994 GT was going to have a high revving version of the 4.6L SOHC V8 that was going to make 350hp. Power predictions stayed the same when Ford announced the 4.6L would wait until 1996.

So with that, I say I don't believe anything until the pricing is out, lol.

[SLOW 97]

Oh great you guys are going to start this argument again. Dark 5.0, while I do not think putting your quote in his sig is cool, I do think he has a point. High 12's with the mods you mentioned is very optimistic. And another thing, my car may be pretty slow, but I CAN take down you '00 GMC pickup. Why the hell do you own a GMC anyway? The F-Series pickups are hands down way better than the GM trucks.

[Dark_5.0]

I drove both the GMC and the Ford, I liked both trucks and they were priced about the same.....When it came down to making a decision I got a better interest rate from GMAC than I could get from the Ford place, and the GMC had a smoother ride than the ford.

So far I havent had too many problems with it other than the crappy General tires that came on the truck only lasted 19,000 miles.

When looking at my quote the key thing I mentioned is a 1.5-1.6 60ft. Without that you wont get near a high 12. It takes slicks suspension work and a driver willing to do a 5000 rpm launch on slicks. When you think about it you can get around 240RWHP with full exhaust and all the bolt-ons on a 5.0.

One of your own "Mustang 92" runs a 12.30 with 253RWHP.

I did not mean to make fun of you car, my car used to be a slow turd, and it still isnt that fast....so I have no room to talk.

I apologize.

Later,

[SLOW 97]

No prob. Stock my car sucks but slowly but surely it'll get quicker. 12.30's with 253 RWHP is very believable. Like you said suspension and tires are what you need to nail your 60 ft time.

[jb31]

He must one bad @$$ driver. Because that is FAST!

[Dark_5.0]

Correction I now see that he runs a 12.79 with 253RWHP.

Sorry,