Mustang Bullitt Forum banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,357 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Did anyone else read this b7%#$t article in the newest issue of Muscle Mustangs??They pretty much trashed the Bullitt. They even had the nerve to brag on a Camaro..I cant believe they would run down one the best Mustangs ever built..So what if it only has a few more hp than the GT, it still looks better,stops better, and is a limited build...Im so pissed im thinking of canceling my subscription of which i have had for the last 10 or more years..I love all mustangs and damn sure wouldnt ever praise a gm product in a all Ford mag..Sorry for the long rant.Kelly DHG#785 and proud of it!!!! P.S. i spanked the crap out of a 95 Camaro LT1 the other day..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
I was wondering if I was the only one to read the article. I just got the issue today.

That tester they had is #28. Well, I got news for them, if they would have tested #1584, we'd be reading a different article all together. I can't believe the highest trap they got was 98.5. I at least 15 timeslips over 100, 4 over 101 and a best of 101.8.

And I can't imagine NJ summer weather being hotter than Houston, Tx.

BTW...did you notice how they finally "figured out" that the Bullitt doesn't weigh 3900lbs? It only took a month for them to decide the scales at Englishtown were off :roll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,455 Posts
Magazines or authors of these magazines who trash this car don't have a clue of the car and I'm not a fanatic it's just interesting hearing people write about a car that aren't real car enthusiasts. Not to say the Bullitt Mustang is the best rendition of the past with an appealing retro stialing but come on this car has an magnificent appeal to not only the owners but the people who see these cars every day.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
420 Posts
I must admitt I buy this magazine most months but I also buy quite a few other automoive and Mustang publications. I feel that on a consistant basis this magazine is the least editorially consistant and usually every issue contains content errors. I accept it for what it seems to be; a thrown together vehicle for the Mustang aftermarket parts community to reach the 16-34 age reader.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,610 Posts
If you've been her and especially at BON for any period of time they sound as disappointed as most of us sounded when we found out the car wasn't going to get the HP numbers we thought. I also have o ask how many miles #28 had on it when they tested it? We have all learned these cars are getting stronger with more miles. But in the end of the article they did say it was worth the money after they figured in everything, not just the track performance.
Cam
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,235 Posts
Yep,just finished reading it and fired off an e-mail to ol Campy!! This wasn't supposed to be the end all fastest Mustang ever built! Wonder how much he would like the Camaro,2 years down the road,when stuff starts breaking and falling apart! I agree it should have had the Cobra engine from the go,but corporate in fighting and egos prevent that nowdays......Oh don't steal the Cobra's engine!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-09-19 22:57, KRS 01 wrote:
They even had the nerve to brag on a Camaro..</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

Yeah... that is awful. If there's one thing I dislike more than Mustangs it's Camaros! LOL :razz: Seriously though... they could have at least compared it to something decent like a Honda S2000! :grin:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,235 Posts
According to a reply to my e-mail,Jim C. really does like the Bullitt for what it is,but likes to raise a little hell with Ford,for not improving the SOHC 4.6. He said he likes our little home here. However,the little article about it,by Jim McCraw,was way off base. It's the total performance AND handling package you get! My car might see the strip only 5 percent of the time.....what about the other 95 percent!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
123 Posts
I don't have anything against other forms of racing, but if my car sees the track it will be longer than 1/4 mile and possess more than four turns. To me, this car was worth the extra money for the suspension alone, plus the fact it is the only way to buy a V-8 Mustang without a rear wing. What this car needs is a little more front end bite and much better steering feel - power is NOT a problem.

BTW, what grade is it now that they cover the word 'argument' in spelling?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>what grade is it now that they cover the word 'argument' in spelling?</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

Heh heh heh! :grin: You almost had me there. I just looked it up in Webster's. The "e" in it denotes the european (and Canadian) spelling.

It's kinda' like how some people spell it "color" and others "colour". :smile:

Besides, I sucked bad at spelling all my life anyway. Being half french will eventually confuse a guy... :roll:

_________________
Kevin H. (son of Bruce H. - DHG 1462)
2002 Mazda Protege5 - Zoom zoom, baby!

"Do not confuse this arguement with facts!" - Colonel Latignant

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Fast Five on 2001-09-21 14:44 ]</font>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
123 Posts
Fast Five-

European spelling? Really? While I don't have the Queen's dictionary on the shelf, I do have Brewer's Phrase Dictionary (an UK publication), and it lists color as 'colour' and agrument as 'argument', which indicates UK and US agreement on this one (BTW, its Latin cognate is 'argumentum').

Oh well, enough linguistics. Finally got 4601 some quality interstate time, and she does love it at 90+! And I thought only Porsches felt that good that fast.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,591 Posts
Speling sucks!
If I had tried harder in school I wouldn't have been an enlisted man for 25 years..... Every time the Lt. wants me to write something I fire off a responce back, "You sure? You know, Sir I didn't go to college. You'll have to re do it your self. So why waist my time".
It sure pissed him off, when he saw the stuff I have writen here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,130 Posts
Jimmy, I know what you mean. On one of my stints when I was an E6 I was assigned to an intermediate HQ. In one of the weekly unit reviews, the 3 star asked for an explanation of the difference between my Maintenance slide and an Operations slide that covered the Operational Ready rate of one of my assigned equipment items.

So, I return to my desk, writ up a Staff Summary Sheet for him with the explanation. Passed that to my Chief who OK'd it and passed it to the Capt for her approval. She returns saying "This isn't what the General wanted to know", and proceeds to tell me what to write. I put away my original draft and write up hers. She approves it an passes it to the Lt. Col, who returns to me saying "This isn't what the General wants to know", and so I write what he wants it to say. Keep in mind these two "officers" were not at the briefing. The Lt.Col approves his version, passes it to his boss, a Col, who passes it to the Directorate Col, who takes it to the 3 star and briefs him.

About an Hour after the final version, the Directorate Col is at my desk chewing me out about how I made a fool of him in front of the 3 star with "This piece of **** writing that isn't anything about what the General asked about". I proceed to pull out the other drafts, show him each one in turn, finally ending with my original. He looks at the original, asks why I didn't turn in that one. I explained the process I went through and he said he would take care of it.

Needless to say I never had to run anything I wrote past that Capt or Lt.Col again......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
103 Posts
I just read that article. I want to know if its true. Are our cars "completed"? Do the intakes need to be Extrude Honed? Is there more power in the computer. It's hard for me to believe that with higher compression, the FMS Intake and dual 58mm throttle-body, that this car doesn't make gobs more power than a stock GT.
I think our cars aren't finished. Someone who is more knowledgeable than me could help us all out if they would look into this.
It's really up to all of us, because the aftermarket responds to demand and there are only 6500 cars that would benefit.
Help finish what Ford started. _________________
Black Clearcoat Bullitt #4662

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: BACKNBLACK on 2001-09-24 18:00 ]</font>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
There is always more power to be found. That is one of the great things about the Mustang...aftermarket. A Camaro or Firebird will perform better stock, but you can't really do as much with it as our cars. Preaching to the converted the Bullitt rules. As for the article, I will be surprized if they don't issue a retraction in the next issue. I e-mailed the editors asking about the weight issue and they said that there may have been a malfunction with the scale, but other cars, non Bullitts, weighed correctly. I asked if they were planning on weighing more Bullitts...no response yet. Maybe the extra 500 to 600lbs was coming from one of their full of shi* magazines that was in the trunk. Performance wise, I'm not worried about the car, yes even when it's stock. As to compareisons to the Cobra (next month's issue of 5.0) or comparisons to the SS (next month's MMFF) They are wallflowers, indistinguishable in a crowd, and not my (or probably your) cup of tea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
610 Posts
I actually thought JC did a decent job on this test.Clearly the car was disapointing in the HP listing...but we've all dealt with that!Beyond that they were almost universal in their praise for the car,for all the intrinsic things about it that we love.IMHO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,196 Posts
Been reading this thread waiting for MM&FF to come in the mail so I could see what all the fuss is about. Finally got it yesterday!

Here’s my take on the article. For the most part they praised the car with the exception of the HP. The GT they tested it against wasn’t stock so that wasn’t a fair comparison. The biggest rub though was the comparison about HP with the Camaro. What’s up with that? I never saw anyone say the Bullitt was going to be a Chevy killer? Did these guys think a 4.6 2V motor was going to put out more HP than GM’s 5.7? I don’t know why they chose to compare the Camaro to the Bullitt that way, especially when the Bullitt is priced substantially less than the Camaro. They should have compared the 2001 Cobra to the Camaro.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
I agree totally Hank. Why they chose to make the Bullitt the sacrificial lamb for the SS is beyond me. The $32,000 cobra 'Vert they tested the previous month would have had it's a$$ handed to it as well by the SS.

And they did the Bullitt contingency no favors with that test mule. The trap speeds really show that #0027 was below par IMO. I think the Cobra testers from the previous months were "above" par.

Thanks MMFF
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,235 Posts
About these test cars. Some of these test cars could always have the hot tune up in the computer. Just like in the old days,a lot of the Pontiacs,Fords and Mopars were run thru a good dyno tune. However,a high 13 to 14 teen at 100 MPH in the quarter is very respectible from any 4.6 Mustang. 90% of all the 60s and 70 Musclecars were in that range,and most were big blocks!
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top