Mustang Bullitt Forum banner

1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,060 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Didn't like it at all! To big and lumbery. Definately felt like 325 horses though and had great pull in 3rd (probably because it was a 6 speed with 3.42 gears), but I would never trade in my Bullitt for it!

Coundn't even grab second with a chirp and when dumping the clutch, only got a little spin with TC off!

For 32K it just isn't worth it in my book. Besides I know I could take it off the line with my 3.73s! It would probably get me in 3rd or 4th though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
437 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 2002-01-03 22:25, h1resq wrote:
Didn't like it at all! To big and lumbery. Definately felt like 325 horses though and had great pull in 3rd (probably because it was a 6 speed with 3.42 gears), but I would never trade in my Bullitt for it!

Coundn't even grab second with a chirp and when dumping the clutch, only got a little spin with TC off!

For 32K it just isn't worth it in my book. Besides I know I could take it off the line with my 3.73s! It would probably get me in 3rd or 4th though.

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

All I can say is, to each their own. I love my 2002 WS6 and I wouldn't have traded it in for the Bullitt and that's why I bought the Bullitt on top of the WS6!

Also, I have seen drivers get chirps on almost every gear, except 5 and 6. Also, there is pull on all the gears, the car never loses power; AMAZING!! I am no expert here, but I would assume one would have to a pretty good amount of mods to a Bullitt to match a stock WS6 (so I have been told). It may be big but boy can it handle!! Chews up curves like there is no tomorrow!

I also paid way less than 32K!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,060 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I'll give you that, on the curves. It did handle very well. I guess I was used to the agile handling of my Bullitt. And, I don't think I was used to the weight and size of the car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
437 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 2002-01-04 08:48, h1resq wrote:
I'll give you that, on the curves. It did handle very well. I guess I was used to the agile handling of my Bullitt. And, I don't think I was used to the weight and size of the car.

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

Yeah, I have to adjust the way I drive everytime I go from the WS6 to the Bullitt and vice-versa. They both drive and handle quite differently and I agree that the Bullitt is really quite agile. Hey, I love both cars!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
228 Posts
Actually WS6 is the performance and handling package which includes the Ram Air and 17" wheels. I traded in a '97 Trans Am in on my Bullitt, so I am familiar with F-bods. (Especially since I've owned 3)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,235 Posts
Yes those LS-1s are quick,but I liked the Pontiacs better back when they were 100% Pontiac. I miss those RamAirIVs,428 HOs and SD 455s. I mean those cars had their own sound.Ever hear a Ram Air IV Poncho,at idle......music to the ears! Or a W-30 Olds for that matter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
147 Posts
I feel somewhat dirty...especially since I love the SD 455's! I do remind myself though, they are as American as the Mustang, not quite the legend, but it sure is American made!
Anyone up for Chinese Buffett?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,428 Posts
I also liked the WS6, but could'nt justify the price. I took into account that the WS6 has 72 more cubic inches and is just marginally faster/quicker than our Bullitts. Figured for the difference in money I could put a Super Charger on the Bullitt and have a hotter car and still not spend what the WS6 would have cost. Also, the 0.0% interest for 5 years was a major contributor as this made the Bullitt over $8000 cheaper than the WS6. Last, but not least I really like for the Bullitt stands for and it is a GREAT car for the price.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
437 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 2002-01-04 22:31, donwil wrote:
I also liked the WS6, but could'nt justify the price. I took into account that the WS6 has 72 more cubic inches and is just marginally faster/quicker than our Bullitts. Figured for the difference in money I could put a Super Charger on the Bullitt and have a hotter car and still not spend what the WS6 would have cost. Also, the 0.0% interest for 5 years was a major contributor as this made the Bullitt over $8000 cheaper than the WS6. Last, but not least I really like for the Bullitt stands for and it is a GREAT car for the price.

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

The WS6 is not marginally faster, but quite a bit faster than the Bullitt in both 0-60, 1/4 mile and top speed (evidence of this can be found anywhere). Also, like I stated in a previous post, I didn't pay $8000 over the price of the Bullitt, infact, I paid a lot less. GM offered 0% APR on the WS6 as well. I drove my WS6 after a week of not driving it due to bad weather and I cannot wipe the BIG smile off my face. Can't wait to get to the Bullitt tomorrow! Also, just as we speculate that Ford downplayed the HP/Torque numbers of the Bullitt, there is strong speculation that GM did the same thing to the Firebird/Camaro to keep from hindering Corvette sales. So this means that the WS6 is most likely stronger than it's published numbers and by driving it, I can easily believe it. Also, keep in mind that the Firebird/Camaro won the "Best Bang for the Buck" Award!! In all the WS6 is one amazing car same as the Bullitt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
228 Posts
I agree with Dan. I had a '97 non WS6, LT1 powered, obviously, and it definitely had more power than my Bullitt. I really am not a big new Mustang fan, but when I saw the Bullitt for the very first time in magazines, I knew that was one Mustang I would buy. I have three friends with F-Bods, 97 WS6 T/A, 2000 WS6 T/A, and a 99 SS. All three of these cars would smoke my Bullitt in the long haul. I hate to see these blasted Ford and F-Body wars, but apparently its only natural and stems back to the early days of American rivalry. I love my Bullitt very much, but I will never degrade an F-body. They deserve respect, even if their makers are corporate idiots who won't tend to the enthusiast.

RIP
F-Body after August 2002.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,428 Posts
Look up the definition of margin(ally) in a dictionary. There is nothing there that states a specific number. It is left to the interpretation of the user using the word. Therefore, it is my opinion that the the performance difference is not worth the cost difference. IMO 0.5 seconds in the 1/4 mile is MARGINALLY faster, as reaction time, wheel spin and driver ability can more than make up this time at a track.

There is indeed a SIGNIFICANT cost difference between these two cars. At sticker the WS6 I drove was $33,520 and the Bullitt I bought was $27,380. This is a difference of $6,140. To me this is a SIGNIFICANT amount of money. Especially when factoring in the 0.0% interest for 5 years from FOMOCO and the 0.0% interest from GM for 36 months. The time value of money only makes the spread more significant over the longer finance term. As a general rule of thumb I will not pay more that 90% of sticker for any new car. Since I don't have any connections to any automobile manufacturer I can't get the larger discounts some on this site have gotten, but I can state that I paid right at 90% of sticker through an Internet purchase. I could take the $6k savings and put it into the Bullitt and then it would be faster than the WS6 in the 1/4. Therefore, IMO the Bullitt is a better performance purchase.

As far as "Best Bank for the Buck Award" these "awards" are determined by all types of auto publications and personnel. I saw on SPEEDVISION where their BBFTB went to the WRX. To each their own.

_________________
DONWIL - No Mods...




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: donwil on 2002-01-05 01:42 ]</font>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
Had some time today on my hands, so I thought I might take my five year old son along and go over to a GM Dealer to look at a 2002 WS6, SS, or a Ram Air T/A.

Like a lot of you I love my Bullitt, but I like and respect the above cars for their performance and history.

Unfortnately, a review of this Saturday's The Denver Post-News Classified for New Cars (large advertisments) disclosed not even one Camaro, Z28, WS6, SS, T/A advertisement. To the contrary, there were 3 or 4 adds for Mustangs.

It is a shame, GM could not have done a better job marketing and selling these special cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
878 Posts
I know the Camaro SS and T/A are faster than the Mustang but the F-bodies are very difficult cars to get in and out of-the Mustang is a much more "livable" car. Besides the Mustang sells 4 times what the F cars sell combined and will live to see many more model years. I'm sorry, but the F cars do not have the heritage that the pony has. Even if GM does do another Camaro there won't be any link-just like the new T-Bird
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
I won't bring up my thoughts on which car is better or faster or better handling. They are both cool and i will leave it at that. btw 72 ci, where u come up with that number. an ls1 is not a 353ci engine. Close, but more like 346. In any case, i would not shoot u if u put a new Ws6 in front of my door
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,428 Posts
99svt32v,

The calculations come for the following math.

302 CI = 5.0 L, as advertised by FOMOCO
302 CI / 5L = 60.4 CI/L (this really is 61.0237 CI per L)

4.6 L * 60.4 CI/L = 277.84 CI
350 - 277.84 = 72

These are based on FOMOCOs 302 CI = 5.0 L, which are based upon rounding and therefore inaccurate because of this rounding.

Actually, there are 61.0237 CI per L
4.6 L = 280.709 CI
5.0 L = 305.119 CI
5.7 L = 347.835 CI and

If I knew the bore and stroke of each engine I could have more accurate numbers here. Since I don't I extrapolate the info to get an esitmate of the CI for the 4.6L.

281 CI ~= 4.6L
302 CI ~= 4.94889 L and
350 CI ~= 5.73547 L

So the approximate REAL difference in CI is 350 - 281 = 69 CI.

If not for the rounding each manufacturer does when assigning CI and L the 72CI -vs- 69CI is negligible. I will look for the bore and stroke for each engine and post the real numbers.
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top