1996 Ford Mustang GT from North America - Comments

When I first got the car the whole transmission went out and had to be replaced. The dealer replaced it with a new 98' tranny under the warranty that we got, bumper to bumper 75,000 miles.

Since then I've had to perform only routine maintenance as per the owners manual.

This car is awesome.

If you are very tall, over 6'2" tall your legs will want more room, but other that that it's an awesome car.

I've added a lot of bolt-ons that have added about 60 hp+ without a supercharger. I added all of them myself without a problem and I'm no professional mechanic.

Dusts any camaro??? are you only comparing against a V-6?

Everybody knows a stock mustang will NOT beat a stock Camaro in the same class. A Z28 will whip any GT and an SS will beat a Cobra. That's all there is to it. If you look in any car magazine it will tell you this (excluding any Ford enthusiast mag).

It is important to get the facts when making a bold statement. When saying that an early SOHC can beat a Camaro you are not correct. They ran the same times as the V6 Camaro. However, the 4.6L does respond VERY well to mods and doesn't need major HP to get decreased track times.

Just look at the 99+ stang. Only went up 35hp from 98 and yet it runs over one second faster in the 1/4 with the same 3.27 gears.

It is also important for Camaro owners not to get so defensive because it only hurts your cause, it's not helping anything. If you want to fight, all that has to be said is: 01 Mustang GT: 281ci, 260hp, 302ft/lbs, and runs 0-60 in 5.4 and 1/4 in 14.0. Compare that against a 01 Camaro SS: 346ci, 325hp, 350ft/lbs, and runs 0-60 in 5.2 and the 1/4 in 13.8. That's not too much better. Also the mustang has more practicality and drivability characteristics.

Oh yeah, Camaro is going into its last year of production. That must be because it is so much better.

It's as simple as this. The Mustang and Camaro are two very nice pony cars that provide a lot of enjoyment to many people. They are both a blast to drive. The early 4.6L stangs were slow compared to the newer ones and Camaro's. Trust me, I own a 96 Stang GT.

The newer GT's however have traction control, 260hp and ride nicer. They are also almost as fast as the Camaro with a lot more hp. The Camaro has more sporty looks and has a lot more power for a round town driving due to its high torque.

But all in all, the Camaro is like a college freshman football player coming back to play in high school and only being slightly better than the competition. Big advantage on paper, but in performance the gap narrows and in sales, drivability, visibility, technologically advanced engineering, safety and build quality the flag goes to any stang.

I agree that the newer stang GTs (99+) are much much better runners than the 94-98s. Not to flame, but the numbers you posted for a 99+ GT to run are a little on the better side of what I've seen them go. I've seen only one 99+ GT that's stock hit below 14.2 and it ran a 14.0 on a cold day.

I have seen Camaro SS and Z28s run below 13.8 on those same days. They run around 13.6 or 13.5 if the driver is extremely good. Now .4 or .5 seconds in the quarter mile might not seem like a lot on paper, but it's many car lengths defeat at the track. I own a 97 Z28 (stock) and must say that I destroy 94-98 GTs (stock), but I have run against the new ones and they do VERY well. I beat most of them and have only lost to one (don't know if it was modded or not, but I didn't lose by much... 1 car length). Usually they stay well up to about 70 and then I start to slowly walk them.

Anyway, also consider that the stangs that pull off those low 14s in the 1/4 mile are 5-speed GTs. Ford buffs and enthusiasts both know that the automatic transmission that they charge almost 1,000 dollars as an option on these cars SUCKs. With an auto, the GT will loose at least .4 to .6 tenths of a second in the 1/4 mile. On the other hand, GM makes damn good auto trannies which unless the driver is practically a professional with the 6-speed Z28/Trans Am, the auto (especially with the 3.23 gears as an option... which is what I have) will dust them.

They are very even and many auto Z28s and Trans Ams make better times in the 1/4 than the 6-speed drivers, unless the driver really knows how to drive and even then the difference at the MOST is .1 or .2.

Anyway, GT or Z28 both great cars, but a stock LT-1 will walk a stock 5.0 or 96-98 4.6, and a stock LS-1 will walk the new 99+ GTs and Cobras (although not so badly with the Cobras).

You can't always base your opinions based on Hp Numbers or all the other numbers stated.. Every Driver will be different and I drive a 96 Cobra and I have had a supercharger, nitrous and about every bolt on imaginable.. When it comes down to it, its the driver who determines which car is better.. I am not the best driver, but I have wasted Z-28's and SS.. If you want to compare 96-98 and 99-02 then you have to also consider LT1's and LS1.. two completely different engines.. That's my 2 cents.

I belive that ss and z28 are faster than the gts and cobra, but there is not much difference in them, but the fact is that both of them are worth what you paid for them. If you want to save a little money choosing to buy a mustang don't feel like you are getting riped off cause after all they are better looking with the difference in price you could buy you a cold air intake and and full exhaust and be just as fast as the camaros and have a car that is not so plain looking. If you want the looks with the performance that is in the camaro price range look no further than the ws6 its bad it is faster than the cobra and looks better than the mustang or the camaro.

There is barely any difference between the two. You all are talking about stock this and stock that. Have you ever heard of mods? There is no telling who is going to win until you take it to the tracks. If you have a Z28 and you pick on stock gt's all the time yeah maybe you will win. But as soon as that gt does some work to it all you will see in a race is his/her back bumper.

OK I'm about to get a GT and I wanna know if you can give me a list of the mods you did to give it 60 more HP...

Commander_matt_nso@hotmail.com.

Yeah you said it got 60 more hp, but did you take it to the dyno? If not that is called "claimed horsepower", power your putting to the flywheel. once it hits your tires I gaurantee it's no where near that much.

Look, I've got a 1996 Mustang GT and I have a cold air intake with MAF housing 76 mm 78 mm bbk throttle body with a plenum new exhaust, cats and no mufflers with 2 1/2 inch piping and a programmer and msd coil packs and wires and new plugs, all racing oil throughout the entire car (not that that does much) 5 speed with a short throw shifter and 3.27 posi.

The car is only like 3100 pounds cause it's a GTS and I tear up Z28s and SS too. It's not that Mustangs can't beat them, they can no problem. I don't even have that much power from those mods, but stock Z28 and even my duddies, which has exhaust and intake and a chip I still beat, so don't hate on the Mustangs. Ponys for like.

Look? Did you invent a new Mustang model? What the heck is a GTS? The 92-99 Mustangs had no respectability. The V6's 0-60 times were slower than a Tanks and the GT's were nowhere as fast as Z28's and Trans Am's of the same era! Don't get me wrong I love Mustang GT's. Just don't over exaggerate the GT's performance times for the 92-99!

He could get 60 plus horsepower from a PI swap using 99-04 heads and lower intake. Since the newer heads have smaller chambers, he would have more power than the stock 99-04 Mustang GT, from the added compression (which is about 10.51 ratio), and that's using stock Ford parts.

Comment 12:50 does make a pretty good point. I'm a Mustang fan and have owned 7 over the years. My last 5.0 was slower than a V-6 Camaro and slower than my current 4.0 V-6 Mustang. Although they were built like a tank and ruggedly reliable, they were not all that fast or powerful, and rode like they had steel axles bolted to the frame with no springs.

I'm not sure I'd say the older V-6's were "slow as a tank", however. I've driven several 94-99 V-6's (by the way there are no '92 or '93 V-6's) and I thought they offered pretty respectable performance. They weren't as fast as the new 4.0, but they weren't any slouch either.

To the person above:

The GTS was a limited run Mustang in the year 1995. It used the 5.0 H.O. along with a T-5 manual trans. It was a stripped down GT Mustang with a focus on performance instead of looks. It came with the five spoke pony wheels stock as well as no trunk lid spoiler.

I own one of the 95 GT-S. They only made them in 95 though so the guy claiming it's a 96 must be off or incorrect; BUT the GT-S is a legit model and it WILL walk most Cam. and Trans. Ams. I'm running a CAI, Shorty headers, x pipe, flowmaster 40's, under drive pulleys, pro 5.0 shifter, 3.73's and I have no problem walking or even pulling hard on most cars I run against.

More info on the gts model:

http://www.quannet.org/corey/gtsinfo.html