19th Aug 2010, 11:59
Like I said, look up 0-60 and 1/4 mile times on stock domestic cars and the facts are there. Truthfully, racing people tells you nothing as you may drive better, or once again they may have that pitiful 2.73 rear end in their Mustang which added a second to the 0-60 time, therefore making it slower than your 5.7. What was the axle code on your Mustang by the way?
If I am wrong about this then everyone who worked for the major car mags is wrong too. I was a diehard C&D and MT fan back in the day and they always praised the 5.0 Mustangs as the fastest and the best value. I'd go by professional drivers results rather than an anonymous source like yourself, sorry. I believe you that you never lose a race but there are too many factors about racing that could warranty that, none of which have anything to do with the actual car being faster. To test the cars with the same driver in the same conditions as the pros do is the only accurate way of measuring true dominance.
Facts are facts regardless of what you want to say about it. In truth, fun cars are great to own no matter who edges who out. These days I am way past the racing phase and I could care less about 1/2 second to 60 (Funny thing though...my RAV 4 will take your Camaro in a 0-60 run!) It is good that the Camaro is alive again to compete with the Mustang. Too bad the Firebird couldn't make a comeback as well as the old T/A's are still my favorite of the classics. Today I would rather own a Mustang though as I still think they are the better built car. I'd opt for the V6 with 305 HP though as that is more than enough... and it will easily take your old 5.7 Camaro...HA!
So, lets agree to disagree and stop going back and forth about it eh? Happy motoring!
19th Aug 2010, 14:48
"My viewpoint... I look at the SLP header addition as simply an "apples to apples comparison" with the Stang... after all, the Mustang GT came from the factory with headers and overall better breathing."
Yes but FACTORY STOCK was with regular manifolds. I could put a 351 into a Mustang, so it is apples to apples with your GTA too, and say it is now faster as an equal.
19th Aug 2010, 19:50
Maybe so... but since there were no stats on that "Ford 351", there is really no way to really compare what "could have been" 23 years ago... ya know??? Maybe that 351 wouldn't be any more potent that the Chevy version of the 5.7 litre... after all, don't forget we were FINALLY coming out of a time where the EPA and other agencies in the gov't had been forcing manufacturers to reduce emissions and increase the gas mileage... therefore downsized HP ratings... and don't forget in your not too distant Mustang heritage, the pathetic piece of crap they called the MUSTANG II... hahaha... the Pinto with Pep!! (what a joke) Now there is something to NOT be proud of!!
But your statement doesn't really address the comparison of the 5 litre GM to the 5 litre Ford, which are both documented... The 5 litre GM in 87 was only 5 HP less than the 5.7, according to the posted HP ratings, and you add that dealer/GM SLP option, you are looking at a 30+ HP advantage over the Ford, PLUS you have the 5 speed in that equation with the same 3.27 LSD "new Posi" rear end.
Here is my perspective on the magazines... I had a roommate in college, whose father was lucky enough to have a job as a driver/tester for Road and Track Magazine years ago... (what a fun job, huh??) and his comments... bottom line is that a lot of it has to do with the skill of the driver AND... What they ALSO fail to tell you is that a lot of their accolades are in direct proportion to how many advertising dollars are spent from any manufacturer for any given magazine.
Have you ever noticed conflicting info from one hot rod mag to the next? There you go.
OH... I had a 3.08 in my 89 Stang... 5.0 litre... Mine was the GT Convertible. I liked the looks of the convertible... but not a big fan of the looks on the regular coupe. It was a cool ride, but overall I liked the GM better... The GTA handles better (that is an irrefutable fact, based on skid path testing, lower center of gravity, wider tires, thicker stabilizers, etc.), and because of the SLP, it was substantially faster and more fun to drive.
Since about 1990.. I have made a few more mods to the car, but it has been a very solid performer. No... You wouldn't beat it in a RAV 4... nor would a 6 banger Stang today even have a prayer against it. The mods I have made have been mainly internal (it's a 383 stroker now, and a real sleeper) putting out almost 400hp dynoed at rear wheel (best test was 397HP)... it has a 400 forged crank, forged flat tops, bored 30 over, ported and polished, worked heads, aggressive Cam, 40lb injectors, etc, but still completely naturally aspirated. I show the GTA these days, and have been looking at 89 TTA's here lately. May get one while they are still reasonable, as they are sure to be a major collector car in about 7-10 more years.
20th Aug 2010, 08:18
The GT convertible? That is the heaviest of the Mustangs, and will be slower than say... an LX coupe. Did you brace up the strut towers? That really tightened them up for handling, as the convertibles were merely chopped coupes back then, and not designed as separate models like they are today. A few hundred pounds will surely affect 0-60 times, and you'll lose a good 1/2 second. Even the standard GT was slower than the LX, due to the ground effects package that added at least a couple hundred pounds.
Your car sounds pretty mean today with the stroker and all. The RAV is pretty quick for a small SUV at 6.5 to 60 with an AT. Funny how things have changed so much in the car world. Of course the Mustang and Camaro are now under 5 seconds stock. 5.4 seconds out of a V6 is surely a feat with the standard Mustang as well. They will have to bump the V6 Camaro quite a bit to get to that number.
I am envious you have nice a nice fast car to play around with. Drive it well. Hopefully I'll be getting something again soon. I came really close to picking up a '74 Firebird Formula 400 last year. It was pretty much in mint condition with about 85% of it's original paint. It even had the white buckets and black carpet, dash and center console. It also only had 48K miles on it AND it was a 4-speed... all for $9K. It was stock, however, so not too fast, but the possibilities were endless.
Ever seen a G-hawk? I really want a Trans Am from that era; again, not too fast, but a great cruiser. If I ever do pick up another 5.0 Mustang, it will be supercharged so I don't get smoked by every Altima 3.5 or Accord V6... ha ha ha.
18th Aug 2010, 17:28
One last thing... Keep in mind a 2003 Cobra R was actually made in 2002... I was purely using it as an example to compare bang for the buck in what was available in the year 2002, which was the last year for the Firebird.
I considered buying a 2003 Cobra R myself (in 2007 after there was some depreciation), but didn't particularly like the styling. I then heard that Ford was going "Retro" with the Mustang, so I held off.
Even though it may seem that I am partial to the GM's (which admittedly I am), I have always liked the look of the 69 and 70's Fastback Mustangs (The Boss 302 and 429 especially)... so I would consider them again.
I thought that Mustangs were pretty lackluster in styling thru the 80s and 90s (they looked like souped up Escorts).