Camaro vs Mustang

[Raza]

I severely doubt the Mustang was ever the fastest production car in the world.

That's because you hate America, terrorist.

[SVT666]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the 89 notchback 5 speed with the optional gears (do not remember ratio) was the worlds fastest production car.? ?It was the year after the death of the Grand National who had owned that title for a couple years prior.? ?I guess, if I remember that right, makes the Mustang faster for that year breaking up the Camero run you mentioned.

As far as I know the Fox body LX 5.0L will run circles around any Camaro from '87 to '92.

[TheIntrepid]

Mustang was a better looking car, that's why it sold better. 

Looks are subjective.

[J86]

must...resist...redenck...jokes...for...fear..of..incuring...wrath....

[TheIntrepid]

must...resist...redenck...jokes...for...fear..of..incuring...wrath....

I've been resisting them for quite a while now.

[JYODER240]

Looks are subjective.

somewhat

[ChrisV]

somewhat

Exactly, Too much money is spent studying design to say that it's not as much a science as it is random luck as to what looks good or not. True, you can't please everyone, but there are some rules that can be figured out, and a lot of designers know them (whether they stand up to the engineers that have to make the designs function, or the bean counters that have to pay for the tooling is another story).

But, suffice it to say in a category that is spurred by emotional decision making, i.e. not a practical choice, more sales generally is at least partially driven by better design and better looks.

[Raza]

Exactly, Too much money is spent studying design to say that it's not as much a science as it is random luck as to what looks good or not. True, you can't please everyone, but there are some rules that can be figured out, and a lot of designers know them (whether they stand up to the engineers that have to make the designs function, or the bean counters that have to pay for the tooling is another story).

But, suffice it to say in a category that is spurred by emotional decision making, i.e. not a practical choice, more sales generally is at least partially driven by better design and better looks.

As Robert Cumberford put it (and as I keep repeating, and as you already know), styling is often subjective, but design is not.  All it takes is one art class (or geometry) to see how proportions and symmetry play into how shapes become pleasing to the eye.

[GoCougs]

As far as I know the Fox body LX 5.0L will run circles around any Camaro from '87 to '92.

Not the 5.7L IROC-Z/Z-28.

[SVT666]

Not the 5.7L IROC-Z/Z-28.

The acceleration times are almost a dead heat, but the Mustang outhandled the IROC.  The IROC also only came with a 4 speed auto.

[GoCougs]

The acceleration times are almost a dead heat, but the Mustang outhandled the IROC.? The IROC also only came with a 4 speed auto.

The LX 5.0 however didn't have the upgraded handling hardware of the GT. Also of note, all '87 - '93 V8 Mustangs had rear drum brakes - the IROC/Z-28 had rear disks.

In most comparison tests, my bet is you'll find the IROC posted the better handling numbers; the article from '87 previously posted in this thread shows that as well.

Don't get me wrong; I would never, ever own an '82 - '92 Camaro. They were terrible cars. OTOH, I really like the Mustang, particularly the LX 5.0. However that may be, the IROC/Z-28 was the slightly better factory performer.

[SVT666]

The LX 5.0 however didn't have the upgraded handling hardware of the GT. Also of note, all '87 - '93 V8 Mustangs had rear drum brakes - the IROC/Z-28 had rear disks.

The 5.0L LX had the GT suspension and drivetrain installed on the LX body which had a traditional trunk.  The GT was a liftback and had a bunch of cosmetic changes that included an ugly ass body kit that added drag and weight which is why the 5.0L LX is the fastest and best handling version of the fox body Mustangs (ignoring the Cobra of course).

In most comparison tests, my bet is you'll find the IROC posted the better handling numbers; the article from '87 previously posted in this thread shows that as well.

What article?

[SVT32V]

The LX 5.0 however didn't have the upgraded handling hardware of the GT. Also of note, all '87 - '93 V8 Mustangs had rear drum brakes - the IROC/Z-28 had rear disks.

In most comparison tests, my bet is you'll find the IROC posted the better handling numbers; the article from '87 previously posted in this thread shows that as well.

Don't get me wrong; I would never, ever own an '82 - '92 Camaro. They were terrible cars. OTOH, I really like the Mustang, particularly the LX 5.0. However that may be, the IROC/Z-28 was the slightly better factory performer.

The 350 was not available until mid 1986, from '82 until that point the Mustang GT held the performance edge.  Pretty significantly up to that point the 302 was a much better engine than the asthmatic 305.

The LX5.0 had all the mechancals of the GT mustang, and is at least as fast as the F-body 350 variants.  The lighter mustang did have drum brakes vs the 4 wheel discs camaro but that is about all it had on the mustang. 

[SVT666]

The 350 was not available until mid 1986, from '82 until that point the Mustang GT held the performance edge.? Pretty significantly up to that point the 302 was a much better engine than the asthmatic 305.

The LX5.0 had all the mechancals of the GT mustang, and is at least as fast as the F-body 350 variants.? The lighter mustang did have drum brakes vs the 4 wheel discs camaro but that is about all it had on the mustang.?

1987 5.0L Mustang
5 speed manual
225 hp
300 lbs-ft
0-60mph = 6.7
1/4 mile = 15.3
Top Speed = 148 mph
Price = $12,500 (new in '87)


1987 5.7L Camaro IROC-Z
4 speed auto
220 hp
330 lbs-ft
0-60mph = 6.8
1/4 mile = 15.3
Top Speed = 149 mph
Price $18,500 (new in '87)

[GoCougs]

The 5.0L LX had the GT suspension and drivetrain installed on the LX body which had a traditional trunk.? The GT was a liftback and had a bunch of cosmetic changes that included an ugly ass body kit that added drag and weight which is why the 5.0L LX is the fastest and best handling version of the fox body Mustangs (ignoring the Cobra of course).
What article?

Perhaps Canada was different. The LX 5.0 in the states was available in notchback (trunk) and hatchback form. In the states, the LX 5.0 did not have the same handling hardware. The LX 5.0 had a traditional dual shock rear where as the GT had the quad shock rear. Look hard enough and I bet you'd find the GT had stiffer springs and larger sway bars, but at the moment that's just hunch - the quad shock rear is a rather big difference in and of itself.

Does "late 70's through 92" include 1987?

http://www.stangbangers.com/87_MustangGTvsCamaroIROC-Z_Article.htm

I won't spoil it for you, go ahead and read the article.

[GoCougs]

The 350 was not available until mid 1986, from '82 until that point the Mustang GT held the performance edge.? Pretty significantly up to that point the 302 was a much better engine than the asthmatic 305.

The LX5.0 had all the mechancals of the GT mustang, and is at least as fast as the F-body 350 variants.? The lighter mustang did have drum brakes vs the 4 wheel discs camaro but that is about all it had on the mustang.?

The 305 was indeed not a very good motor. However that may be, HEMI666 framed the debate around the '87 - '92 Mustang. The 5.7L IROC/Z-28 of that era still have the significant drawback of being fitted only with an auto.

As previously posted, the LX 5.0 didn't have all the same (handling) hardware as the GT.

[SVT666]

I just finished reading the article and it's pretty much a toss up.  Slaslom numbers were nearly identical, acceleration was identical, top speed was identical, but the Camaro's chassis and suspension was stiffer which made for slightly better handling on table top smooth test tracks.  On real world roads the Mustang faired better.  The Camaro came with only an automatic tranny, which for me, knocks the peg down on the fun meter.  I've driven both several times, and the Mustang was more fun and felt quicker (even if it wasn't actually faster) because of it's lower weight and smaller size.  I pick the Mustang and not because I'm a Mustang Troll, but because I just liked it more when I drove it.  Because of the huge performance advantage in the '94 and up Camaro, I would actually be tempted to buy one instead of a Mustang, but in the end a Mustang is what I would buy because the Camaro looks like a Geo Storm on steroids. 

[Raza]

Real Mustangs have four cylinder engines!

[SVT666]

Real Mustangs have four cylinder engines!

...with a Turbo from a John Deere tractor.  Don't laugh, I've seen one on a GT and it produced more power then any of the single turbo kits I've seen from any manufacturer for the Mustang.  It had almost 700 hp.

[ChrisV]

Real Mustangs have four cylinder engines!

No, real Mustangs had inline 6s...

Of course, some airplane nut will say real Mustangs had 16 cyl engines...

[Cobra93]

Perhaps Canada was different. The LX 5.0 in the states was available in notchback (trunk) and hatchback form. In the states, the LX 5.0 did not have the same handling hardware. The LX 5.0 had a traditional dual shock rear where as the GT had the quad shock rear. Look hard enough and I bet you'd find the GT had stiffer springs and larger sway bars, but at the moment that's just hunch - the quad shock rear is a rather big difference in and of itself.

I'm fairly sure you're wrong on this one. I recall that there were no drivetrain or suspension differences between the 5.0 LX cars and the GT's.

http://www.mustanggt.org/87gtvslx.htm

Also of note, all '87 - '93 V8 Mustangs had rear drum brakes - the IROC/Z-28 had rear disks.

The '93 Cobra had rear disks. Trust me on this one.

[GoCougs]

I'm fairly sure you're wrong on this one. I recall that there were no drivetrain or suspension differences between the 5.0 LX cars and the GT's.

http://www.mustanggt.org/87gtvslx.htm


The '93 Cobra had rear disks. Trust me on this one.

Fair enough, looks like I was at least wrong on the quadra shock setup not being on the LX 5.0.

I hear you on the Cobra: I intended to state that the GTs had the rear drums.

[SVT32V]

The 305 was indeed not a very good motor. However that may be, HEMI666 framed the debate around the '87 - '92 Mustang. The 5.7L IROC/Z-28 of that era still have the significant drawback of being fitted only with an auto.

As previously posted, the LX 5.0 didn't have all the same (handling) hardware as the GT.
<B>For 1985, the Quadra-Shock system entered full production on all V-8 Mustangs as well as on those equipped with the GT/Handling suspension option. (Following their Fall 1984 intro, delivery of 1985 V-8 Mustangs to dealers and their customers was delayed.)

For 1985, the Quadra-Shock system entered full production on all V-8 Mustangs as well as on those equipped with the GT/Handling suspension option. (Following their Fall 1984 intro, delivery of 1985 V-8 Mustangs to dealers and their customers was delayed.)

[Nethead]

Camaros always win, especially when it comes to rednecks.?


Let's get one thing straight: I don't want to see whining, like: "...but the Mustang came out first, Chevy just copied it...".
That is a bullshit argument, and is irrelevant to which car is better, which happens to be the Camaro. Not that I have a personal vendetta against Mustangs, it's just a fact that the Camaro has always been a better car.

Let's get one thing straight:? Mustangs never died--Camaros did.? Why?? Mustangs were simply better.?
Fact:  A study of vehicular death records by the insurance industry found that more occupants were killed in Camaros than in any other vehicle for sale in the US--more than in any pickup truck, SUV, sportscar, van, other Mustang imitation, musclecar, whatever.? And it wasn't like Camaros were all that numerous--in many years Mustangs outsold Camaros and Firebirds combined by substantial margins.  When the Camaro became extinct, the bodycount crown was assumed by the Chevy S10 pickup and its offshoots (Blazers, etc.).? Of course, it will take a long time for the S10/Blazer/etc. to catch up to the bodycount amassed by the Camaro before it became extinct...No wonder you hardly ever see a mullet anymore.

IMO, 1970.5 and following Camaros were better than any '71--'73 beached whale Mustang and remained so until Ford got serious about the Mustang again in 1979.  From '79 through the extinction of the Camaro, the Mustang has been a better vehicle.  Mustang styling was lame from '71 through '98, even though the vehicle itself was quietly being improved all along.  For '99, it was decided--finally--to upgrade the styling significantly to match the upgraded chasses.  And that initiated the tailspin from which the F-bodies never recovered.  From then on it was just a matter of negotiating an end to production with the unions, the subcontractors, and all the various and sundry factions that have to agree to a time and a date for a production line termination and a plant closing.
 
Ford made the Mustang young again in 2005, and the rest is history!

[Nethead]

No, real Mustangs had inline 6s...

Of course, some airplane nut will say real Mustangs had 16 cyl engines...

ChrisV:? That was a Rolls-Royce Merlin V12, I think.? Much like four-wheeled Mustangs with the Aston Martin Vanquish V12 slipped neatly under the hood with plenty of clearance for longtube headers and accessories.? www.wmsracing.com

[Raza]

The good die young, Nethead.  The Mustang will live forever.

[SVT666]

The good die young, Nethead.? The Mustang will live forever.

From the guy who wants one.

[Raza]

From the guy who wants one.

I'm just getting under his skin.  I never understood the whole "I like the Mustang so I hate the Camaro" mentality.  Of the SN95-II and the F bodies, I like them all; but I like the Trans Am best. 

[SVT666]

I'm just getting under his skin.? I never understood the whole "I like the Mustang so I hate the Camaro" mentality.? Of the SN95-II and the F bodies, I like them all; but I like the Trans Am best.?

The reason you don't understand it is because you didn't grow up with the pony car wars.

[Onslaught]

The reason you don't understand it is because you didn't grow up with the pony car wars.

Did you? Aren't you around 30 or so?