[FastCarFanBoy]

Originally Posted by oldman

Chevy says most of the Camaro profit come from the SS and up models.



"blame" is a harsh word, I'm just pointing out the Chevy has a 40 year track record of delivering universal performance vs Ford were performance comes at an ever-increasing price. We all agree it is a business decision, and I think we would agree that Ford's decision results in the VAST MAJORITY of Chevy as delivered, outperform the VAST MAJORITY of Fords in the Muscle car arena. I would also interject that in many instanced this has also resulted in a better performance platform to start from no matter the price point. Probably because of demand. How many more LS engines were built vs Cobra engines would be an example.



Put enough money in it. The best OEM production 5.0 could support less HP than a standard Chevy truck engine. That is sad. Sure if you talk about aftermarket heads, stroker cranks with iffy longevity, a block that liked to walk around leading to poor longevity, a weaker head bolt setup. Right. We both know a SB 350 from GM in just about anything was a FAR FAR FAR FAR better platform dollar per dollar mod per mod.
ATK crate engine ford 302: 300 HP https://www.summitracing.com/parts/h...view/make/ford that is a resonable OEM block, crank, head build with a health .500: 219 roller cam
LT1 5.7 based engine with a typical chevy ZZ cam wouuld do about 400 HP...

Do you honestly think a 5.0 late production, by far the best windsor made, came anywhere near a SB Chevy 350? Really? What was the best 5.0 OEM was it a GT40 Cobra?

Type: 90-degree, OHV Windsor V-8
Displacement: 5.0L / 302 CID
Horsepower: 235 hp @ 4600 rpm (240)
Torque: 280 lbs.-ft. @ 4000 rpm
Bore x Stroke: 4.0 in. x 3.0 in.
Compression: 9.0:1

vs the LT1 that came in EVERY Z/28 275 HP and FAR more torque. So Fords "special", best every engine was far weaker than the standard Chevy... like I said. Lets not forget the Firehark could be rolled with a 360 HP engine... ouch. I was being nice as I could mention the production LT4 was making 330 HP.

you do understand that there is a 48ci difference in those 2 engines, right? the difference in power comes from the extra displacement and stroke not some mythical GM quality. the 302 powered foxes were quicker than 350 powered f bodies and destroyed 305 powered F's until 93 when GM went to the Lt-1. Ford stuck with the 302 because they were switching to the mod motor.

take the 351 from the 95 Cobra R, it made 300hp with the same heads from the 302 and the same gt-40 intake with a revised lower for the wider valley.

[oldman]

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

you do understand that there is a 48ci difference in those 2 engines, right? the difference in power comes from the extra displacement and stroke not some mythical GM quality. the 302 powered foxes were quicker than 350 powered f bodies and destroyed 305 powered F's until 93 when GM went to the Lt-1. Ford stuck with the 302 because they were switching to the mod motor.

Really I smell an excuse. My point was GM was delivering better-based performance and in many cases the base performance was better than the BEST Ford could deliver. LOL not like the mod motor was any good, please that V8 offered the same straight line as my stock Type R, and of course, the Type R 1.8 liter DESTROYED the mod motor anything on the autox

Not once did I allude to mythical build quality, but I have to agree spark plugs flying out of the head leads to a slower 1/4 mile.

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

take the 351 from the 95 Cobra R, it made 300hp with the same iron heads from the 302 and the same gt-40 intake with a revised lower for the wider valley.

What the car that I could call the worst joke of a factory build race car that cost $$$$ as typical of Ford, thanks for making my case, mean while a couple of years later a LT4 vette / fireharwk with MORE HP and a warranty. Please, you would have to give it to me Cobra R and I would sell it and buy a real car. Thanks for making my point, to get performance from Ford, one had to sacrifice much like a/c and warranty, pay an outrageous markup on very limited quality / quantity car, that get destroyed the next year by standard production GM products. Can't make that up.

" The 1993 Cobra R was a tentative, mildly successful step toward a very limited-edition performance Mustang, with just 109 built. Next came 250 copies of the 1995 Cobra R, a more fully realized effort; as tested in the April 1995 issue, our refrigerator-white cover car, with its 300-hp, 5.8-liter pushrod V-8, managed a top speed of 151 mph, quarter-mile performance of 14.0 seconds at 99 mph, 0.89 g on the skidpad, and 70-to-0-mph braking of 165 feet."

http://www.motortrend.com/news/1997-pontiac-firehawk/

Next year the LT4 with 10% more HP, a warranty, and an a/c shows up:
DISPLACEMENT: 350 cu in, 5733 cc
POWER: 330 hp @ 5800 rpm
TORQUE: 340 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm

TRANSMISSIONS: 6-speed manual

DIMENSIONS:
WHEELBASE: 96.2 in
LENGTH: 178.5 in
WIDTH: 73.1 in HEIGHT: 46.3 in
CURB WEIGHT: 3400 lb

PERFORMANCE (C/D EST):
Zero to 60 mph: 5.0 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.5 sec @ 104 mph
Top speed (drag limited): 168 mph

Too funny, you don't seem to have been around them, and you don't realize what a bad JOKE all the Cobra Rs were. The last R actually beat the Vette and the Mustang guys when ape shiznit, then we found out that the testers lower the tire pressure on the Vette (why would you do that on a road course?). Next test the Cobra R got KILLED. Also Ford owners soon found out that if you all out the no warranty car the body package flew off. Yep quality there.

But once agian you make my case, mean while back at the ranch the 4.6 GT in 1996 was making what 215 HP, not some Unicorn that never showed up. LOL
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...ed-test-review
But yeah thank you could buy a Cobra R.... did not make the GT go any faster which was the 99.99 percentile.

[AJL13]

I was just operating under the assumption my entire life that everyone knew the 4th gen F-body was head and shoulders faster than any comparable Mustang during the same time frame for about a decade long stretch.

[GotSSmoked]

Originally Posted by oldman

I got a supercharger... so no problems here.

I love boosted SS’, how much power is it making and what’s it run?

[oldman]

I figure with the Pray ported heads, Pray tune and headers 560 to the wheel as measured on a dynojet. Pray tossed in a TSP special supercharger cam, that I could do with fuel Pray is saying 700 or more engine HP... but if I did that I'd do the dropped in pistons, rod bolts, studded mains, new clutch just for starters. I'm a street fighter so from my perspective it is not a HP thing. I was going stoker cause I don't want any more weight, I wanted 90 ft-lbs in the mid range; however, there are issues with the center trust bearing and the stroker that I did not want to deal with... till I retire (next year).

The real problem with the manual is the lack of gears and a whimpy first gear. The new 7 speed manual should fix it... but I fixed it with a supercharger. My goal is consistent mid 3 second 0-60 times on 220 wear summer tires. My only nemeses as I see it is: A8 LT1s and LT4s and this new GT with PP1 and an A10. I knew that a manual would be the underdog in the stop light wars, but choose to carry on. I ordered my LS1 with an auto cause I knew I was going to race it (street and strip). I chose the M6 gen V to just have fun, I lose I lose. My neck of the woods has had 20 years of non-stop construction, so the lonely highway open road is leaving my part of Texas. All this is talked about in my M6 vs world thread.

The oldlady wants to get back into racing, she is definitely auto only, so I may look into a 2018 GT a10, probably NOT pay for the PP1 look at craigslist for what I need... shafts for sure.

[oldman]

Originally Posted by AJL13

I was just operating under the assumption my entire life that everyone knew the 4th gen F-body was head and shoulders faster than any comparable Mustang during the same time frame for about a decade long stretch.

Heck every generation. Sure as stated there are like 20 percent of the "special" Mustangs that can compete against the base performance Camaro. The SBC dominated, no questions

from 67 and 68 you had the 289 vs 327 and 350 (302 also but that is outright overkill), and please the boat anchor Y block FE LOL vs the rat. 1970 is the first "special" (351C) Mustangs that could actually compete with the SBC, and really it was the rare Boss or CJ that were a threat, not saying the 351 4v was bad. VS EVERY V8 Camaro could be hopped up cheap. Ford you had to start with the "special". The 1974 right to the mid 80s the SBC dominated. from the mid 80s upto the mod moter mid 90s in the stippo 5.0 manuals made a name for themselves, then the LT1 and LS1 dominated the 4.6 SOHC, right to the LT1 which dominated the 5.0 basic addition. Each step of the way one would need to order the "special" Mustang to have a chance stock vs stock, mod vs mod. We, back in the day can tell you how gutless a 5.0 205 HP GT auto convertible Mustang was.. like mid to high 15s in the 1/4. Then we get well if I remove my air restrictor, and this and that and if it were a manual and if there was a prep track, and the engine was prepped, then ALL 5.0 are magically low 14 second machines. Right.... One needed the right combination and list of unknow mods and grip. Cause the engine could NEVER match the HP and torque of a SBC. Then enter the mod motor... now that was a HUGE joke of an engine. Not to mention the car was just plain ugly. I actually like the first Coyote power Mustangs, and my kid is tossing around an ecoboost pp1 vs V6 1le. He wants to stay Camaro, but the ecoboost pp1 probably more within his budget and insurance policy.

Nutshell for the vast majority of the time regular production GMs absolutely destroyed the Ford and even many of the "special" Mustangs Looks like Ford has caught up some with the correct ordering, till GM adds in the A10 or cam in cam technology. I always view the Ford setup as "pay to play", you want bragging rights roll a Boss or CJ, or just get the fastback with the 2bbl and the C4... cuase there is NO way the Windsor is going to beat anything from GM or Ma Mopar. Sure every kid would like to have been that kid with a Boss, I remember two of the local rich school had Boss Mustangs in the lot. Nothing my 440 Dart could not take care of. Then there was the Vette, you know the lawyer (airline pilot) who was dating your older sister owned that bad boy.... but there we few in the highschools or college lots, at least not the college(s) I went to. LOL, really a big block Vette was like the Shelby Cobra in American Graffiti. You heard about them, and every once in a while a friend of friend would claim he rode in one.. Mean while back in reality it was the SBC that powered the go fast for cheap crowd.

[SSfriendly]

Originally Posted by oldman

Heck every generation. Sure as stated there are like 20 percent of the "special" Mustangs that can compete against the base performance Camaro. The SBC dominated, no questions from 67 right upto the LS1 which dominated the 4.6 SOHC, right to the LT1 which dominated the 5.0 basic addition. Each step of the way one would need to order the "special" Mustang to have a chance stock vs stock, mod vs mod. We, back in the day can tell you how gutless a 5.0 205 HP GT auto convertible Mustang was.. like mid to high 15s in the 1/4. Then we get well if I remove my air restrictor, and this and that and if it were a manual and if there was a prep track, and the engine was prepped, then ALL 5.0 are magically low 14 second machines. Right.... One needed the right combination and list of unknow mods and grip. Cause the engine could NEVER match the HP and torque of a SBC. Then enter the mod motor... now that was a HUGE joke of an engine. Not to mention the car was just plain ugly. I actually like the first Coyote power Mustangs, and my kid is tossing around an ecoboost pp1 vs V6 1le. He wants to stay Camaro, but the ecoboost pp1 probably more within his budget and insurance policy.

I'm sorry, 87-93 foxbodies were quite a bit quicker than the camaro...going as fast as 13.9X stock.

[AJL13]

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

I'm sorry, 87-93 foxbodies were quite a bit quicker than the camaro...going as fast as 13.9X stock.

I have the throw the BS flag here. A quick search result yields that a 5.0 LX (meaning the lightest foxbody 5.0 you could get at the time) tested at 14.8 in MT's July 1990 issue. Unless they ran the test at a strip on the top of Mt. McKinley, I don't see how any combination of atmospheric/car/driver/track variances would account for an entire second difference.

Another quick search leads you to the the stang forums, where the fox body 5.0 owners there are saying the best they're getting/got out of their stock 5.0s are high 14s.

Unless you can site a source where a bone stock fox body 5.0 ran a 13.9x, I have a very hard time believing your claim, given the existence of evidence to the contrary.

[R.C. Collins]

I miss my '89 5.0 LX notchback w/5 spd. It sure felt fast in it's day. I raced my buddy's '87 Trans Am GTA between Sacramento and Lodi. It was a dead heat all the way until he blew a tire at 135mph. I don't know how he managed to keep it under control.

[oldman]

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

I'm sorry, 87-93 foxbodies were quite a bit quicker than the camaro...going as fast as 13.9X stock.

Like I said cause Joe XYZ in his manual notch "stock" did it, did not make "foxbodies" quite a bit faster. The actual independent test of true stock cars shows a substantial overlap and sorry if you want a consumer GT auto convertible, they were jokes out off the showroom floor. I've already fairly listed that the late 80s to early 90s were the glory years that performance was roughly comparable. What is that 6 years out of 50... ouch. But wait... most years it was a COMPLETE and TOTAL beat down of the Mustang. but there were 6 glory years there were there was a rough parity, not like we are talking fast LOL.

http://testdrivejunkie.com/1988-ford...le-test-drive/
god, what an ugly car, don't both to torcher yourself it is a 15.7 at 89 MPH and that is a 5 speed, let go ahead and say the auto is 16 flat... 13.9 indeed... and one should note that the lightweight Mustang is light cause the chassis is flimsy, and what held the rear end from scooting side to side? NOTHING. Funny if you ever watch one on the autoX. Meanwhile GM had a really good 3 link with panhard rod. GM had for the most part a twin arm front vs the el chepo but light Fairmont struts. But yep sans handling and chassis flex the Fox notch was light... good for drag racing, not exactly a performance suspension, how could it be, it is from a Fairmont wagon. Once again GM absolutely dominated in the suspension category, unless one went to the late 90s with the Cobra and it was not like that IRS was very much better than the standard GM 3 link... which BTW Ford adopted in 2005 funny right?

[ULTRAZLS1]

Notchbacks in negative da and free mods clipped high 13s.

The average foxy body was mid to high 14s.

[kttxz06]

Originally Posted by R.C. Collins

A conference call would save you guys a lot of typing!

Bwahahahaha. Best reply on the whole thread. I agree. Let's do a conf call. haha. Love it.

[oldman]

Originally Posted by ULTRAZLS1

Notchbacks in negative da and free mods clipped high 13s.

The average foxy body was mid to high 14s.

Seems to be what I found over the time period. This era was really dominated by the last of the late 70s SBC and a few strange combinations of 360 and 400 CID Mopars many in cop packages. It was not unusual to find Joe average 350 Nova with home ported heads, milled, cam carb, manifold, headers, stall = pretty dominant. When I ordered my 1977 Firebird 400 4 speed, it came with a Chevy 350 small block (only in CA and HI). What no Pontiac engine well yeah it was some unaffordable to me at that time WS package with 4 speed, and if it was an auto it was an Oldsmabubble 409. I was kind of happy with the SBC in the long run, it was blue with white interior and vinyl top. Point is, it was EASY to get go fast parts for the 350. You could pickup double hump back heads with 2.02 for $150 a set. Heck even Napa could order them rebuilt. No way you could go down to Napa and order a set of Boss 302 heads... Well anyway the point being by the mid to late 80s there was a lot of affordable sbc around, as well as some cop Mopar stuff. But yeah the Fox 5.0 was light and built a huge following fast, the GN never had the numbers. It all hit a wall when Ford went modular (a bad joke 2,3 or 4 valve). Once GM rolled out the LT1, it was a compete and total blowout. So like the yarn says about 6 years of parity over a 50 year complete route. Heck Mopar was more competitive (and better looking) for most of the time.

Dodge was in the game till the end of the B and A (and big block Cs)body into the very late 70s, and back at it with the LX of 2006 (brief stint with the little red pickup and the Shelby Dakota). Like I said really to my mind it was not the Mustang it really was the Mopars that were forces to be reckoned with. Every 383, 400, 440 could be made fast for cheap, every 340 and 360 could be made fast for cheap, they all came with a great 727 auto and most with and 8 and 3/4 rear not like the 8 and 1/4 bango was actually OK... ugly, not a third member, but OK, and light.

1974 - 76 Duster 360 smog motor with safety bumpers an auto and mild 3.55 still could pull down mid 14s. The 4 speed 3.91s were pretty brutal to go against stock.http://www.forabodiesonly.com/mopar/...ad-test.85146/



I was working in CA at a custom TBolt shop and going to some crazy liberal college that will remain unmentioned. At least the girls were liberal

So there are some "normal" Mustangs that to my mind offered reasobable turn key performace:
1970 to 1973 Mustang 351 4V Clevland, any body / trans
1985 to 1992? 5.0 manual notch
2013 to 2015? 5.0 non-IRS (personal preference here)
2018 GT PP1 A10

So 20% of the Mustangs produced offered reasonable performance for the money. Reasonable platform to build on. Vs ANY F Body with a V8 with any body config with any trans. OK I'll admit the Poncho 301 with or without turbo maybe inferior to the 302 W... OK you got me there. ouch. Then I'd have to bring up the 256 cid 119 HP Windsor of the same time frame.

[oldman]

Originally Posted by GotSSmoked

I love boosted SS’, how much power is it making and what’s it run?

I thought you might like this:
https://www.ebay.com/i/332531343399?chn=ps
I really wanted this with my stroker:

https://www.musclecarcentral.com/196...p/emb-4114.htm

I guess I have to sacrifice though.

Well gotta go my supercharger is calling me.