[Jastone]

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

Car Craft may 1992

92' loaded GT vs 1992 Z28 1LE g92
225hp 230hp
5spd manual 5spd manual

0-60: 6.25 6.51
1/4: 14.72@91. 15.03@91.

so the 5.0 was quicker than the fastest 305 money could buy and thats not even a lightweight LX. And the price difference....the 1LE was s stripper $18300 similarly optioned the GT would have been $15,500 and LX maybe $14k.

havent been able to find a 350TPI vs 5.0 h2h yet but i'l keep looking

Link? I can’t seem to find an online version.

[oldman]

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

the Camaro was pay to play as well...you paid more when you bought the car.

For Ford you want a the GT40 stuff you gotta buy the Cobra, you don't want the SOHC, you gotta buy the Cobra, don't want the 302 2 bbl Windsor, you gotta buy the CJ. Not so with GM and to lesser extent Ma Mopar. I don't remember the prices of a 92 Cobra v F body, but clearly the LT1 4th gen were about the same price:

http://www.motortrend.com/news/1993-...ra-comparison/

So I forget, the thread is so long some Mustang guy complains that I can't use the 85, I do know the 93 was a blow out SS vs GT, as it was a blowout SS vs Cobra. So what year do I need again? Too funny. I found an 1987 here:
Yep the LX notch (lightest with optional gear) is faster 14.6 vs 14.9 for the "slow 5.0 Fbody". Wow blowout there.... not. We all know if the Mustang were a GT Convertible even with the 5 speed, it would have been substantially slower, and any auto Ford anything would be a complete blowout right? So is this the year, don't want to get Mustang guys all mad at me that clearly with the right option the Mustang is arguable faster than the 5.0 manual Fbody. Wow, over 50 years. GM was slacking in 87, unless of course it was a Mustang GT auto vs a 350 IROC which would a complete rape or any other of the many combinations, nope a notch LX, manual with 3.08 was shown to be faster by .3 vs a manual 5.0 FBody, yep complete dominance.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by FastCarFanBoy

Car Craft may 1992

92' loaded GT vs 1992 Z28 1LE g92
225hp 230hp
5spd manual 5spd manual

0-60: 6.25 6.51
1/4: 14.72@91. 15.03@91.

so the 5.0 was quicker than the fastest 305 money could buy and thats not even a lightweight LX. And the price difference....the 1LE was s stripper $18300 similarly optioned the GT would have been $15,500 and LX maybe $14k.

havent been able to find a 350TPI vs 5.0 h2h yet but i'l keep looking

And the next year the Z28 became a 275 hp low 14 sec car. The Mustang GT however stayed the same, got slower in 94, slower again in 96, finally got back into the 14s in 99 and then took until 05 to get into the 13s.

[FastCarFanBoy]

Originally Posted by kttxz06

Nicely done. Quite the difference. I remember in HS my buddies Z scolded my other buddies 5.0. But, it was obvious driver advantage if those were the recorded stock numbers. I remember the 5.0 being fast, but on my butt dyno, the Z seemed to come on stronger. It was Manual vs Auto tho. But, that was freaking 20 years ago. Alot of weed and acid has done damage to my memory. haha.

yours and mine both and its been almost 30yrs for me

[FastCarFanBoy]

Originally Posted by Jastone

Link? I can’t seem to find an online version.

you're gonna love this... https://www.ebay.com/itm/1992-CAMARO...-/382333941922

[2012 IngotSilver 5.0]

Originally Posted by hotlap

No. You’re missing the point ... Focusing on now, not 1964, the gen6 Camaro has separated itself significantly as a true “sports car”.

Originally Posted by hotlap

Agree. Chevy and Ford have different aims ...

First you say the Camaro is a "true" sports car, then you finally admit that Chevy and Ford have different aims.

Does the word "duplicitous" mean anything to you?

For perfecting the art of speaking out of both sides of your mouth, I award you first member of my ignore list.

Congratulations!

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Truth. If I told you how many times I sat in a bar and listened to people tell me about their 10 sec cars and their cars with 750 hp to the wheels your head would spin.

Yup, happens to me at car shows. I'm pretty knowledgeable on car stats, etc., and when I hear "my car does this", "my car makes that" I'm sorely tempted to correct them with real numbers. Sometimes I do, most times I just walk away.

I wasn't on the car scene when these cars hit the streets. But my buddies and I did start buying them and racing them in the 90s.

Those were my times! Back in the day, I had a new '82 GT, '83 GT, '85 GT, '93 LX 5.0, etc. (see att'd pic). Stock for stock, my real world experience was that the Camaros handled better but I was always able to take them in acceleration runs without much problem. Your mileage may vary ...

I think the magazines give us a pretty official indication of what these cars can do and how they compare to each other. Without that then we'd have everyone making wild claims everywhere none of which would be even close to the truth.

[Zeke.Malvo]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

No you're not waiting on any quotes. That argument was a long time ago. And you're just trying to deflect off this conversation because you have nothing to back yourself up with. You just now confronted me on official testing and said that there are no regulating authorities. So what do you go by to determine a car's stock performance? Or were you talking out your ass again?

I love how you continue to deflect with coming up with the quotes LOL I love it

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[FastCarFanBoy]

Originally Posted by oldman

For Ford you want a the GT40 stuff you gotta buy the Cobra, you don't want the SOHC, you gotta buy the Cobra, don't want the 302 2 bbl Windsor, you gotta buy the CJ. Not so with GM and to lesser extent Ma Mopar. I don't remember the prices of a 92 Cobra v F body, but clearly the LT1 4th gen were about the same price:

http://www.motortrend.com/news/1993-...ra-comparison/

So I forget, the thread is so long some Mustang guy complains that I can't use the 85, I do know the 93 was a blow out SS vs GT, as it was a blowout SS vs Cobra. So what year do I need again? Too funny. I found an 1987 here:
Yep the LX notch (lightest with optional gear) is faster 14.6 vs 14.9 for the "slow 5.0 Fbody". Wow blowout there.... not. We all know if the Mustang were a GT Convertible even with the 5 speed, it would have been substantially slower, and any auto Ford anything would be a complete blowout right? So is this the year, don't want to get Mustang guys all mad at me that clearly with the right option the Mustang is arguable faster than the 5.0 manual Fbody. Wow, over 50 years. GM was slacking in 87, unless of course it was a Mustang GT auto vs a 350 IROC which would a complete rape or any other of the many combinations, nope a notch LX, manual with 3.08 was shown to be faster by .3 vs a manual 5.0 FBody, yep complete dominance.

sorta like the complete dominance of the LT1 Z28 vs the Cobra .4 in the 1/4 .2mph in the slalom(slower slalom than a 92GT) and .1g in lat accel.

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by Zeke.Malvo

I love how you continue to deflect with coming up with the quotes LOL I love it

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

That discussion was a week ago pal. You haven't been on this forum sine last Monday. And you just came back on here yesterday challenging what I said. Then a little after midnight you challenged what I said about "official tests". And now all of a sudden instead of explaining yourself you wanna go back to a conversation from last Monday? Which you conveniently brought up right after talking out your ass about official testing. And I'm the one deflecting?

For the record we already discussed that conversation you're trying to deflect to. Those threads got shut down and/or posts got deleted. And a lot of them are on other forums, in YT comments, FB pages/groups, etc. I and several other members all saw those same comments. kttxz06 even made a video on YT which in less than an hour had several posts from M6G guys all claiming that the GT would beat ZL1s. Like I said, this was all discussed a week ago after which you disappeared. So why you wanna bring it all back up now all of a sudden is because you talked out your ass about official testing and need something to take attention away. So I'm going to do you a favor and end it for you. You have no way to back up your comments and you talked out your ass and that's that. So now you have an out. Quit before you continue to embarrass yourself. Be gone.

[Zeke.Malvo]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

That discussion was a week ago pal. You haven't been on this forum sine last Monday. And you just came back on here yesterday challenging what I said. Then a little after midnight you challenged what I said about "official tests". And now all of a sudden instead of explaining yourself you wanna go back to a conversation from last Monday? Which you conveniently brought up right after talking out your ass about official testing. And I'm the one deflecting?

I didn't speak out of my ass, that was you. You spew a lot of misinformation, and I corrected you multiple times now.

I've been waiting for the reply but you continue to sidestep it.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[oldman]

Originally Posted by hotlap

Agree. Chevy and Ford have different aims. It seems clear to me that as Corvette goes mid-engine after hypercars, Camaro is moving up in both cost and performance.

I've heard about mid-engine Vette since the 60s.. Ain't buying it, literally.

[oldman]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

And the next year the Z28 became a 275 hp low 14 sec car. The Mustang GT however stayed the same, got slower in 94, slower again in 96, finally got back into the 14s in 99 and then took until 05 to get into the 13s.

Also note same SPEED in the 1/4 meaning all of the supposed GT's advantage was at the launch, sure the 1le was very tight so there was not a whole lot of weight transfer. We all know which one would blow which in the road course right?

[oldman]

Originally Posted by Jastone

Link? I can’t seem to find an online version.

http://www.mopar1.us/times.html
I went here to just get an average for 1985 to 1993, before this and after this we know the Camaro destroyed the Mustang. I did not include the Firebirds, got the low 14 second turbo TA off set by a convertible behemoth. LOL

Average Camaro did a 15.07
Average Mustang did a 14.91


the fastest F Body was the turbo at 14.2, the fastest V8 was IROC 5.8 at 14.4
The fastest Mustang was a gt 87 at 14.4

Nutshell it was a drivers race, the Mustang was generally faster vs all IROCS / Z/28 et. But it better be a manual Mustang.

[oldman]

Originally Posted by 2012 IngotSilver 5.0

Stock for stock, my real world experience was that the Camaros handled better

Even modded the 4 link Mustang sucked. It all goes down to design. In the 80 GM wanted and aimed for: good looking, solid feel, and enough performance but below the Vette, good handling once again below the vette, less flex = weight. To do so the FBody was lower, wider and features a 3 link with panhard rod. This caused MAJOR design issues with the exhaust: hump in passenger side to warm the GF's toes, single exhaust, even this single was crimped at the hop over the axle. With an initial target HP of sub 200 hp, who cared right? GM put money into handling, braking, highschool looks packages,
When it came to a street fight, probably want an LX,
When it came to a hot date, or the road race it was IROC

bads, for some reason GM not push the Dana 44, this forever limited engine trans combos and gear selection, sure the 9 bolt rear was strong enough with 2.7 but once it was pushed over 3.4s its strength was iffy even stock auto. Hence GM could NOT offer a 5.8 manual and the Firehark went to the Dana 44 (also service replacement for all the broken 9 bolts). The 10 bolt sucked even worst and GM decided to go with it for 93 up!
Why did GM not put the Dana 44 in? dunno, but there would be no discussion now as the 5.8 TPI 5 speed Dana 44 3.73 would be dominant all the way to the LT1. My guess is GM looked at the production numbers and the people that were buying highschool packaged IROCs with 350 would order the auto anyway. Maybe there was fear that the 3 link IROC with a proper 5 speed and Dana 44 would cut into Vette or GN sales? Dunno, point is GM could have done it with off the shelf parts and chose not to. Probably because when pushed came to shove, 350 IROC owners were more interested in the tall spoiler and the pretty blue paint.




Ford, basically said no mas, we going to put NOTHING into the Fairmont chassis, but hey it is light and cheap, it ain't EVER going to handle, but lets face it, how many people drive tail out down the back country road. Benefits and I HIGHLY thought they were foreseen, were:
1) light means fast in the 1/4 and at the local street fight
2) light Fairmont means cheap
3) no panhard rod means dual exhaust is easy peasy and sounds good, no body will say a 5.0 fox did not sound good
4) Fairmont means upright driving position, females can see out of the car and feel safe while traveling
5) The 4 link tends to squat (way better for stop light through down, while the 3 link tends to lift the chassis at the trans tailshaft (way better for turn exit autocross)

The bads: the Mustang is even now, with IRS not considered a true spots car. 30 years of bad rear end behavior is hard to overcome.