The new king of bang-for-buck: Mustang GT vs. SRT-4

When the SRT-4 came out in 2003, it was the undisputed king of cheap speed. Sub-14 second quarter mile times and 66 mph+ slalom speeds for $20,000? No one stood a chance. Now, it's 2005, and Ford has finally re-designed the Mustang, giving it even better acceleration and infinitely better handling. Quarter mile times for the 2005 Mustang GT have gone as low as 13.6, and it's only been out for a month; low 13's are definitely conceivable. Some would also argue that the Mustang GT outhandles the SRT-4. Although it doesn't generate quite as much grip, rear-wheel-drive is fundamentally better than front-wheel-drive, and the Mustang GT has bigger, wider wheels and tires. The GT is also a more comfortable daily driver, at least for two people. The ride is noticeably softer and smoother, and the engine is more relaxed and subdued. Feature content on the Mustang is better as well, offering such options as power driver and passenger seats, a six-disc CD changer, and a 1000-watt stereo system.

I believe that the Mustang GT is the new king of bang-for-buck. For $4000 more, you get a car that rides better, goes faster, and doesn't look like a riced-out economy car. And when the Mustang SVT Cobra comes out next year, it should raise the Mustang to a level of performance that it has surely never seen before outside of the race track.

Discuss :)

I would definitely take a GT over a SRT4 anyday...RWD, NA reliability, just as easy to mod, I would venture to say better aftermarket....you'll see...give it time

Not a big Mustang fan, but that power for that price, I'd take the mustang.

WHAT???? A mustang GT is $24,000 in the U.S. ??????? bastards! over here in the Emirates the car dealers are selling them for over $37,500 coz they're like the new toy out on the market.

Damn it, i wish i c9ould get a new stang, definitely better looking than an SRT4. Only problem for me with the new stangs is they're sooooo wide like driving a ship not a sports car, but i can get over it :p

Yea the GT Mustangs are going from 24-25 here...but you know...you could talk them down a bit too

If I had to choose between the two, I would surely take the Mustang GT. Still I believe the SRT-4 is a better bang for the buck. I'm not sold on the Mustang being to outhandle the SRT-4, and I believe that the SRT-4 has the better brakes. Like I said though, I still take the Mustang GT in a heartbeat, I'd be willing to pay an extra $4,000.

I'd take the Mustang. Personally I feel RWD cars handle better. I feel you can control the back end better then with a FWD. That is one of the major things I hate about my ride it being FWD.

I'd take the Mustang. Personally I feel RWD cars handle better. I feel you can control the back end better then with a FWD. That is one of the major things I hate about my ride it being FWD.

That's true, but on certain roads, the SRT-4 is gonna be easier to control anyways, due to its IRS.

I'd take the stang anyday over some ugly looking neon

Mustang Definatley, i have a cousin with an SRT-4 he's done a lot of things to it and it is pretty fast and everything, but when he first got it, i felt it was over rated, and ive never driven in that new GT but everyone says it what they say it is

Reasons why I'd take the Mustang over the SRT-4:

1. more horsepower and torque
2. better 1/4 mile and 0-60 times
3. SRT-4's looks aren't close to the Mustang's
4. better aftermarket for the Mustang
5. SRT-4 comes with a turbo and that makes me edgy
6. IT'S A FREAKIN 2005 MUSTANG!

^Number 6 was a good point :). I would have to agree with him on all of them except for 5 turbo doesn't bother me. I pick the Mustang.

I cannot believe anybody is even arguing wether the Mustang GT handles better than the SRT4. Car and Driver got the Mustang within a whisker of base 350Z slalom times, and the GT turned in a better skidpad performance than the base Z! All this on the 17" all season tire/wheel package as the 18"s have yet to arrive!

Autoweek recently named the Mustang GT the winner in a comparo with the 05 GTO largely because the Mustang handles so well! Their words folks, not just mine. The only reason we are even having this discussion is because there is a live-axle under the pony's rear end. If somebody asked the same question but used a GTO or 350Z instead of the Mustang GT they would be laughed off the forum.

Say what you will about live-axles, a whole lot of IRS cars are going to be getting a full-on view of tri-bar tailights for years to come wether in a straight line or on the twisties.

Acceleration is simply no contest as the V-8 pony has turned a 13.5 at 103mph in the hands of Motor Trend testers, and the best verified bone stock time by a private owner is a 13.35 sec. e.t. bone stock thus far. SRT4's are fast stock, but they aren't that fast. The SRT4 is a good deal for the money, but the Mustang GT has it covered pretty convinicingly even at 4 grand more.

Also, good luck getting an 05 Mustang GT for less than 24k. Base price for the car is $25,2xx.00, and right now the average life expectancy of a GT on a dealer's lot is under 2 hours. These suckers go for sticker or very close to it simply because demand is enormous.

The Mustang GT is the reigning king of bang-for-the-buck, and likely will be for some time to come.

^Number 6 was a good point :). I would have to agree with him on all of them except for 5 turbo doesn't bother me. I pick the Mustang.

Turbo really doesn't bother me either, but my friends and family have had turbo cars that didn't do to well. When the turbo is running it's awesome and is fun to drive, but when it's broke, which seems to be too often, it's a pain.

The Mustang handles so well, in comparison with what? A GTO which weighs 3800Lbs? Wow. Don't get me wrong, the 2005 Mustang GT, is a step above the previous generation, but it still has a long way to go before it claim to up there with other performance vehicles. The SRT-4 is a car that I must admit I have underestimated, I don't think it's really an awesome handling car, but I don't think this about the Mustang GT either.

The Mustang handles so well, in comparison with what? A GTO which weighs 3800Lbs? Wow. Don't get me wrong, the 2005 Mustang GT, is a step above the previous generation, but it still has a long way to go before it claim to up there with other performance vehicles. The SRT-4 is a car that I must admit I have underestimated, I don't think it's really an awesome handling car, but I don't think this about the Mustang GT either.

Do you read posts before you reply? have you driven an 05 Mustang GT? (let me answer this for you...no..I have)

Car and Driver said Mustang GT handling was virtually on par with a 350Z, something I pointed out above and you apparently missed. Tghe Z slalomed faster, but the pony posted better skidpad grip and did this on the all season wheel/tire option. At one point they actually said it had composure to match a BMW in the twisties. Strong words

Slalom and skidpad numbers simply are what they are and the Mustang on all seasons pulls .89g's+ on the skidpad and an emergemency lane change of 64.7mph. Remember, this is on the skinny all season tires, once tested on the wider 18" BF Goodrich tires that lane change will certainly go up a couple mph and skidpad will top .90g! That is Evo/WRX territory from a sheer numbers standpoint.

The SRT4 is a nice enough car, and if you are looking to spend Mustang V-6 money a compelling choice. But, the GT has it covered in virtually every performance category. Like I said the numbers speak for themselves and the only reason we are having this conversation is due to a live rear axle.

I'm wondering, if Ford did this good with a live rear axle for the 2005, could the 2006 Cobra do the same?
It's said it's going to have an IRS like the 2003s and 2004s but could they change their minds? I mean the thing is said to have the 500 horsepower 5.4. Wouldn't that set up work better with the live rear axle?

As was mentioned previously, the 2005 Mustang was designed to accomodate an IRS, but it was changed to a solid rear axle due to public demand and the allure of offering V8 power for under $25,000. I'm sure that the more performance-oriented SVT Cobra will use a well-tuned IRS.

Yeah I read your post and still not impressed. The Z is a better handling car period, I give you credit the GT almost handles as well, ALMOST!!!! Why don't you do some research and maybe you will find that SRT-4 almost handles as well also, ALMOST!!!! Besides there is much more to a cars handling than skidpad and slalom numbers. You want me to give the Mustang GT credit for being a much better handling car than the previous generation, I will do that. But please give some credit to the SRT-4, because the SRT-4 is not that bad of a handling car, and the 2005 Mustang GT is not that great.

3000ways, for the last time, the Mustang GT was on shitty tires. Give all three cars performance tires and see who matches who.

ill take the stang over a neon as well.

3000ways, for the last time, the Mustang GT was on shitty tires. Give all three cars performance tires and see who matches who.

my belief would be the Z would still out handle the mustang GT by just a tad. you are comparing the base model Z you have to remember...so if your gonna give the GT the 18" wheels with the BF goodrich your gonna have to compare the performace model Z with the 18" nismo's with whatever tire comes on it. but this isnt a 350Z vs. mustang GT comparo...

overall, you have to hand it to the mustang. it is the best bang for the buck as the numbers show....

my belief would be the Z would still out handle the mustang GT by just a tad. you are comparing the base model Z you have to remember...so if your gonna give the GT the 18" wheels with the BF goodrich your gonna have to compare the performace model Z with the 18" nismo's with whatever tire comes on it. but this isnt a 350Z vs. mustang GT comparo...

overall, you have to hand it to the mustang. it is the best bang for the buck as the numbers show....

That's true, I can't wait until they compare them both so we can see what happens. I know this isn't a 350Z vs. Mustang GT comparo, but it should be, seeing as how the two cars directly compete with each other. Any other sporty RWD coupes in this price range could be compared as well. Anyways, even though the Mustang might not handle quite as well as the 350Z, it does beat it in acceleration, and it does so for thousands less. What the numbers don't show, however, is that the Mustang is much more comfortable when driven slowly, and more practical, seeing as how it has usable back seats.

That's true, I can't wait until they compare them both so we can see what happens. I know this isn't a 350Z vs. Mustang GT comparo, but it should be, seeing as how the two cars directly compete with each other. Any other sporty RWD coupes in this price range could be compared as well. Anyways, even though the Mustang might not handle quite as well as the 350Z, it does beat it in acceleration, and it does so for thousands less. What the numbers don't show, however, is that the Mustang is much more comfortable when driven slowly, and more practical, seeing as how it has usable back seats.

ahhh...but i think i remember heaing that the 2005 350Z's would also be getting bumped up to 300hp!!! i dont know about the base model but i know a couple of the models are getting bumped. ya never know how close it may be in the straight aways. the fastest time i heard for an 03-04 Z was 13.6 and the slowest was 14.5. so the Z isnt too far off the mustang's numbers without the HP bump. :D

also, you have to think about the displacement difference...and give the Z some credit there. :lol:

Yeah the Z does get a bump in HP, but it loses some low end grunt (torque drops). Still I would like to see a comparison as well. Although I'm not sure if they would do such a comparison due to the fact that the Z car does not have a back seat and the Mustang does. The more likely comparison would be between the G35 Coupe which also gets a bump to 300HP (6-Speed models only) and the Mustang GT. By the way, I took the initiative to go sit in Mustang GT (turns out one of my neighbors owns one), a definite improvement over the previous generation. The color changing dash is pretty cool. The back seats or front seats are not as comfortable as an EVO in my opinion, but the ride is less harsh. Thought I'd just share that with you guys. Anyways I would enjoy a comparison between the G35 Coupe and Mustang GT. As far as this comparison, the Mustang GT over the SRT-4.

also, you have to think about the displacement difference...and give the Z some credit there. :lol:

You also have to think about the fact that the Mustang GT is using a 3-valve SOHC head for better fuel economy, and that it runs on regular 87 octane gas. Plus it makes more torque and has a fatter powerband. :)

You also have to think about the fact that the Mustang GT is using a 3-valve SOHC head for better fuel economy, and that it runs on regular 87 octane gas. Plus it makes more torque and has a fatter powerband. :)

:lol: i'd hope it has more torque than the 3.5L 350z, the Z is over 1L smaller....and the Z still gets better gas mileage than the 3-valve SOHC V8. i think its impressive that a 3.5L n/a engine can even compete with a 4.6L+ engine in the 1/4 mile, or compete in soemthing (1/4 mile) that it wasnt even built for. we can bring in facts and facts, but we will just have to wait. i think the mustang should take it, but it wont be an a** whooping.

Z - 20/26 w/ manual trans
GT - 17/25 w/ manual trans

also, just to mention, the 2005 350Z (track and anniversary) weighs about 200lbs less, also.

I'm not huge on the styling of either one, but I'd rather have the Mustang GT...it seems to be dead even with the Z on just about everything, but it's a good 2 to 3 thousand cheaper, and that's comparing it to the base Z which doesn't even have an LSD.

I'm not huge on the styling of either one, but I'd rather have the Mustang GT...it seems to be dead even with the Z on just about everything, but it's a good 2 to 3 thousand cheaper, and that's comparing it to the base Z which doesn't even have an LSD.

sorry i edited my post...

but i agree, i do not like the styling of either car. even if i had the money, i wouldnt buy either car. too many cars out there for me to settle on a car i think is ugly. you know what i mean...and yeah, price is the only huge difference seperating the 2 cars. well the GT has more than 40 ft-lbs of more torque, but the Z makes up for it buy holding onto its gears a little longer. overall, a good comparison, and i cant wait to see the results.

Mustang GT without question.

I like the mustangs, but a major problem is, is that in a couple years you will see them everywhere... I love the SRT-4, but then again preformance, RWD, Looks, etc all pull me towards the GT

first i'd take the mustang over the srt-4 anyday

second with comparing the Z and gt, well the Z handles a little better and the gt is a little faster. evens things out pretty good i think.

i'd wrather have rwd than fwd, i think many people simply can't handle a rwd car and think that it can't handle very well. half the people on this board if you turned off the t/c on a vette and put some guys in it, they would probably think that it can't handle very well, simply because they can't drive very well.

but i agree, i do not like the styling of either car. even if i had the money, i wouldnt buy either car. too many cars out there for me to settle on a car i think is ugly. you know what i mean...and yeah, price is the only huge difference seperating the 2 cars. well the GT has more than 40 ft-lbs of more torque, but the Z makes up for it buy holding onto its gears a little longer. overall, a good comparison, and i cant wait to see the results.

Yeah, I can't wait for that match-up. I've always thought of the Fairlady Z as Japan's Mustang: a cultural icon with distinctive styling, instant name recognition, and cheap performance. And, like the Mustang, it ushered in a new era of performance vehicles from its country.

And yeah, if I had that kind of money, I wouldn't buy either of those, I'd buy a 5-speed WRX sedan.

Yeah, I can't wait for that match-up. I've always thought of the Fairlady Z as Japan's Mustang: a cultural icon with distinctive styling, instant name recognition, and cheap performance. And, like the Mustang, it ushered in a new era of performance vehicles from its country.

And yeah, if I had that kind of money, I wouldn't buy either of those, I'd buy a 5-speed WRX sedan.

yeah, the Fairlady Z was cheap performance until 1990 when they introduce the z32. for some reason nissan upped the anty to almost $50k i believe in 1990 for the z32TT. hence its life coming to an end in 1996, here in the US, with sales suffering every year. i think like 17k were sole in 1990 and that was the most out each year. crazy...

i think if i was looking for a new car, i would get a scion TC w/ TRD supercharger and put the extra cash towards my z32...

yeah, the Fairlady Z was cheap performance until 1990 when they introduce the z32. for some reason nissan upped the anty to almost $50k i believe in 1990 for the z32TT. hence its life coming to an end in 1996, here in the US, with sales suffering every year. i think like 17k were sole in 1990 and that was the most out each year. crazy...

To be fair, that price was pumped up by a very strong yen at the time. Also, didn't the Z32's price drop later on during its life cycle? I know the Supra's did. But yes, Nissan definitely did move the Fairlady Z from affordable RWD sports coupe to not-so-affordable luxurious sports car, and it was a bad move. The new Z is right back where it should be: under 30K and under 14 seconds.

To be fair, that price was pumped up by a very strong yen at the time. Also, didn't the Z32's price drop later on during its life cycle? I know the Supra's did. But yes, Nissan definitely did move the Fairlady Z from affordable RWD sports coupe to not-so-affordable luxurious sports car, and it was a bad move. The new Z is right back where it should be: under 30K and under 14 seconds.

the price may have dropped a few grand but nothing remarkable. still a rather unaffordable car of the time. well worth the money but way too new and technolgically advanced for us "old-fashioned" americans in the 1990's. they took a stab in the dark by sending the Z32 over here and they failed in sales, but they didnt fail totally. you have to remember that this car forced other car manufactures to go to the drawing boards and create soemthing better or just as good. hence the supra, 3000gt, and FD3S.

yes, nissan did not want to make that mistake over again when they created the new Z. which now has built nissan a very nice money stack so now they can take another stab in the dark with the new GTR...hopefully the US will take kindly to this one. :D

they took a stab in the dark by sending the Z32 over here and they failed in sales, but they didnt fail totally. you have to remember that this car forced other car manufactures to go to the drawing boards and create soemthing better or just as good. hence the supra, 3000gt, and FD3S.

It gave the Corvette a good scare, too. :)