8th Jun 2001, 11:23

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.

31st Jul 2001, 03:09

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).

22nd Dec 2002, 02:08

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.

26th Apr 2006, 13:13

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.

24th Sep 2007, 22:43

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.

8th Dec 2008, 12:50

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!

11th Dec 2008, 11:37

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.

11th Dec 2008, 20:58

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.

31st Jan 2009, 01:01

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 Camaros 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: