[oldman]

Originally Posted by MaxxRPM

I don't care what hero runs the magazines posted back then. I'm in my early fifties and was right in the middle of it all in the eighties/nineties. On the street, the Fox 5 speeds could take ANY Camaro/Firebird stock if you were a decent driver. The Fox automatics sucked. That stopped in 93 with the LT1. I get a kick out of you people arguing about it when some of you weren't even driving back then and only have old magazine hero runs to go by.

This is so general but I would agree that the average 5 speed Fox preferable in a notch could take on the average 5 speed 305 FBody. I don't think we can qualify "stock" the average Ford buildup: remove air damper, bump timing, off-road pipe and a set of Potenzas was a whole lot easier to do than the FBody, which had a super complicated Y pipe cat or dual cat nightmare on the passenger side. A set of shorties for the 5.0 could be done in a few hours for a few bills, for the FBody it was a lift, 2 guys a day and $1000 bucks.

[2012 IngotSilver 5.0]

Originally Posted by oldman

I can't agree with this more ...

Cool.

I like the fact C&D measures humidity, barometric pressure, and temperature, and then uses proprietary empirical correction factors (adjust all results to dry air at 14.7 psi, 60 degrees Fahrenheit).

Originally Posted by hotlap

The conclusion from the print article. Bottom line, the PP2 is going to have to run better than the GT350 non-R. And the PP1 is another example of Ford’s standard - “good enough”. The suckers will buy it anyway.

You missed the point. It's not about "good enough", it's about what owners want as an overall package so Ford can sell cars, support the model, and stay profitable. Getting the last .01g on a skidpad or a couple of miles an hour on a road course has never been a guarantee that a car will sell.

Mustangs having been around uninterrupted since 1964, I think that says a lot about their use of a successful business practice. Has literally nothing to do with anyone being "suckers" ...

Originally Posted by MaxxRPM

I don't care what hero runs the magazines posted back then. I'm in my early fifties and was right in the middle of it all in the eighties/nineties. On the street, the Fox 5 speeds could take ANY Camaro/Firebird stock if you were a decent driver ...

I was there also. The Fox did put up a good fight, but things like factory gearing (2.73's vs. 3.08's), total options (i.e, "weight) have to be taken into account and could alter some of those outcomes.

[FastCarFanBoy]

Originally Posted by oldman

Actually with the light weight Fox, the 5.0 just achieved parity with what Mopar and Chevy had from the 60s. With market support, the lighter chassis is probably the way to go fast for cheap. I really think the world class t5 really helped here it was a light, strong good shifting trans. So for drag racing, and for street fighting the Fox was the better chassis: light, many built with a good 5 speed, good 8.8 diff in terms of strength and light too.

But please anybody that ever raced a Windsor anything using what the car left the showroom in terms of an OEM block, crank and heads, even tossing in the very late production, limited GT 40 stuff, the Windsor came up 50 to 100 HP short vs any other comparable SB from any other OEM, mod for mod (OK not the 301 for Pontiac). It comes down to the engine does not care who made it, it is breathing and engine size, the 5.0 had the worst of both period.


https://www.americanmuscle.com/cylin...-upgrades.html

The "stroker" 331 was aftermarket, for a SBC, I could do 400 cid OEM right from a wrecked station wagon, and yes the same 2bbl station wagon could supply heads that breathed both stock and with some mild work better than even the GT40 stuff. That pretty sad if you think about it, a 1972 Chevy had 98 cid more, and better heads than a late limited production GT40.

http://www.allfordmustangs.com//Detailed/630.shtml

Ford you gotta pay to play, and even then you might not be playing with much. GT40 head Cobra production was about 5000 a year, while EVERY Z/28, IROC et all got a decent head and an easy build engine. Yep the F body was heavier and had a FAR weaker rear end, this led to a mass exodus to the Fox body cheap, light and had a good 5 speed with 8.8 diff out back.
Once again my point is made from 1967 when the Camaro hit the scenes, one had to pay to play with the Ford just to have parity with what was rolling out of other OEM. Rough parity for a few years (with a major handling short coming), and then it was a blowout again all the way to 2018. That is 50 years of a solid spanking, with a brief break to get a new swish.



My older bro, till he got drafted for Nam, was full into the Windsor, we did the 289 piston swap side (some strange for pin offset deal), 351 valves and or swap the whole head, stroker cranks etc all, it was "fast" about as fast as the family grocery getter 340 Duster with purple shaft and headers




Ouch, you must have watched Joe Dirt

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

[1295/SS]

Originally Posted by newmoon

My stroked 86 GT ran very low 11s NA, and on 100-shot went 10:30s. There was no competition from a Camaro unless it was full race setup. The 5.0s were so easy to mod and made ridiculous gains. Modified GNs were running mid 11s. Camaros were few and far between, they were too busy cruising with their mullet haircuts, and hip hop blasting.

Oh the irony. Did you have your baseball cap on backwards leaning low towards the passenger seat playing "Ice Ice Baby" non stop? Mustangs wanted no part of the turbo buicks on the street back then.

[1295/SS]

Originally Posted by MaxxRPM

I don't care what hero runs the magazines posted back then. I'm in my early fifties and was right in the middle of it all in the eighties/nineties. On the street, the Fox 5 speeds could take ANY Camaro/Firebird stock if you were a decent driver. The Fox automatics sucked. That stopped in 93 with the LT1. I get a kick out of you people arguing about it when some of you weren't even driving back then and only have old magazine hero runs to go by.

Sorry, I had them all. The fox wasn't touching the 5.7's on the street. They always blamed traction.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by 2012 IngotSilver 5.0

You missed the point. It's not about "good enough", it's about what owners want as an overall package so Ford can sell cars, support the model, and stay profitable. Getting the last .01g on a skidpad or a couple of miles an hour on a road course has never been a guarantee that a car will sell.

Mustangs having been around uninterrupted since 1964, I think that says a lot about their use of a successful business practice. Has literally nothing to do with anyone being "suckers" ...

No. You’re missing the point. This wasn’t one of the low buck, no profit fleet/rental Mustangs that make up 1/3 of production. This was a Performance Package 1 with MagneRide, Michelin PS4S tires, 6-piston Brembos, dual-mode exhaust, k-brace, stiffer springs, thicker sway bars, “unique chassis tuning” and Torsten LSD. Cost $49,670.

Also from the print article.

When I asked our handling guru Kim Reynolds what he thought about the two cars after lapping them, he looked first at the Camaro then disparagingly glanced at the Mustang and said, “There’s about 4,000 years of evolution separating the two.”
...
Ever since the Mustang went with an independent rear end, the GTs haven’t been set up properly. ... I had high hopes the combination of the 2018 refresh, the new Performance Pack giddies, and MagneRide would fix things. Nope. The car rolls over on itself and seems to not only understeer but also to try and oversteer at the same time. Like the front and back aren’t actually connected.

The right parts are there, they just don’t work together well and you all accept it. Shit, the 2016 2SS ran nearly 1 second faster for Motor Trend than this PP1.

Focusing on now, not 1964, the gen6 Camaro has separated itself significantly as a true “sports car”.

[SSfriendly]

Originally Posted by hotlap

No. You’re missing the point. This wasn’t one of the low buck, no profit fleet/rental Mustangs that make up 1/3 of production. This was a Performance Package 1 with MagneRide, Michelin PS4S tires, 6-piston Brembos, dual-mode exhaust, k-brace, stiffer springs, thicker sway bars, “unique chassis tuning” and Torsten LSD. Cost $49,670.

Also from the print article.The right parts are there, they just don’t work together well and you all accept it. Shit, the 2016 2SS ran nearly 1 second faster for Motor Trend than this PP1.

Focusing on now, not 1964, the gen6 Camaro has separated itself significantly as a true “sports car”.

The right part, you mean except for stiffer shocks, bigger swaybars and wider tires?

The parts work quite well for what they were intended.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by oldman

Correct, for 50 years it was pay to play, and even then one could hope for was rough parity. Still would love a 1965 Shelby though....

I'm not faulting Ford, the vast majority of Mustang buyers want an image, many of them women. The male to female ratio is roughly inverse between the Mustang and Camaro. One is a man's car, one is a more universal appeal ride that can be optioned with comparable performance at a cost. Not faulting it, just saying the average beer budget Joe Smoe for most of this 50 year rivalry, is gonna pick the FBody given the budget.

Well things are kind of hinky now, because when the gen 4 left, there were many years of Mustang production and these cars are finding themselves in all forms of racing. Heck that last road race I went to there was a don't know the year but the last 5.0 OHV chassis with a Cobra IRS, hammer bang for huge negative camber for / aft offering some serious beat down. The young man was a Honda intake manifold design engineer out of A&M. The setup was awesome and cheap, he traded his live axle to a drag race guy for the Cobra IRS.... what a deal! Heck if the car was not so ugly, I would do the same. 5.0 OHV, Cobra IRS, cheap light, dominant.

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.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by SSfriendly

The right part, you mean except for stiffer shocks, bigger swaybars and wider tires?

The parts work quite well for what they were intended.

The PP1 has bigger sway bars, PP4S tires and was equipped with MagneRide for this test. It was a mess that 30mm of tire wasn’t going to make up.

“There’s about 4,000 years of evolution separating the two.”

[Zeke.Malvo]

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

My BP is perfect. And you didn't answer my question. I asked you how you would know how a car performs since there isn't a regulating authority. How do you know what a Mustang or Camaro can do in the quarter mile? Do you just take someone's word?

Although I do have answers, I'm still waiting for my reply back from you regarding finding these quotes on this board where you alleged the Mustang nut huggers came in here posting the 5.0 would stomp on the camaro. Still waiting on those quotes.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[BlaqWhole]

Originally Posted by 2012 IngotSilver 5.0

I'm a long time Ford fanatic and have been driving/racing new GT's since 1982, and I agree with you 100%.

Car & Driver has been my go-to journal for consistent, reliable test results. They normalize for weather, altitude, amount of fuel, etc.:
https://www.caranddriver.com/feature...-c-d-test-cars

I take "private" drag test results with a serious grain of salt, as my years on the quarter mile track taught me a couple of things:

• the only people who lie more than drag racers are fishermen ("It was THIS big!")
• what some people consider as "stock" varies as much as what ice cream people prefer

I remember one guy explaining to me how is car was "stock", only to look inside and find the only thing remaining of the interior was the instrument panel and the driver's seat.

lol

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. I've heard radical stories from Camaro guys, Mustang guys, and everything in between.

Originally Posted by MaxxRPM

I don't care what hero runs the magazines posted back then. I'm in my early fifties and was right in the middle of it all in the eighties/nineties. On the street, the Fox 5 speeds could take ANY Camaro/Firebird stock if you were a decent driver. The Fox automatics sucked. That stopped in 93 with the LT1. I get a kick out of you people arguing about it when some of you weren't even driving back then and only have old magazine hero runs to go by.

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. We had Fox bodies, 3rd Gen F-Body Camaros, etc. Some of us even had Eagle Talons and 3000 GTs. Those of us who had the 350 TPI Camaros were unbeatable back then. Unless the GTs had forced induction, a stroker kit, or a top end kit, they could not beat us. My cousin and I both had a 350 TPI IROC and I was the only one who beat him and vice versa. There was one GT that we knew of in the area that had 4.10 gears and he was a beast off the line but we never got a chance to race him. That would have been interesting.

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.

Originally Posted by Zeke.Malvo

Although I do have answers, I'm still waiting for my reply back from you regarding finding these quotes on this board where you alleged the Mustang nut huggers came in here posting the 5.0 would stomp on the camaro. Still waiting on those quotes.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

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?

[FastCarFanBoy]

Originally Posted by oldman

This is so general but I would agree that the average 5 speed Fox preferable in a notch could take on the average 5 speed 305 FBody. I don't think we can qualify "stock" the average Ford buildup: remove air damper, bump timing, off-road pipe and a set of Potenzas was a whole lot easier to do than the FBody, which had a super complicated Y pipe cat or dual cat nightmare on the passenger side. A set of shorties for the 5.0 could be done in a few hours for a few bills, for the FBody it was a lift, 2 guys a day and $1000 bucks.

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

[1295/SS]

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

Posts one comparo............Considers it gospel.

[kttxz06]

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

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.