ford guy for a day
05-19-2005, 02:35 PM
#46
Experienced GTcars Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Pittsburg, CA
Posts: 1,757
Rep Power: 752 
Originally Posted by red9450
Now I know that this is a camaro site, and I'm the black sheep of the group, but ya'll talk like the mustang has nothing goin for it. I mean, there's a reason that the mustang is still in production. Greater appeal across the board. Amazing aftermarket, and as far as slow, the 99-up GTs are as fast as an LT1, and the cobras and mach 1s are pretty close to your average SS speed. The only period that the mustangs lacked was 94-98 with the SN-95 body, but as you see that problem has been solved 
. And that was really only the GTs. The cobras were rated at 305hp, and performed along the lines of the Zs for those years. The only reason that the Camaro aftermarket's as big as it is: because they still use the 350. Great engine, as the LS1 has proven. Sorry for the rant, I know that no one wants to hear this, but I felt I must put up a small fight. 
. And that was really only the GTs. The cobras were rated at 305hp, and performed along the lines of the Zs for those years. The only reason that the Camaro aftermarket's as big as it is: because they still use the 350. Great engine, as the LS1 has proven. Sorry for the rant, I know that no one wants to hear this, but I felt I must put up a small fight. 
05-19-2005, 02:44 PM
#48
GTcars - Post God !
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Saraland AL
Posts: 15,868
Rep Power: 1053
"First: 87-93 lx and GTs would whoop up on the same year camaro, trans-am, AND vette."
that is a farce I have raced many with a v6 andlost once they guy had a bottle MY uncle was one of the engineers on the mustang and he said not one of the engineers would ride in one because ford wanted it cheap, and designed it for a 6 cylinder they added the v8 because of enthusiasts. I grew up in the middle of the big 3 with relatives working for each and most were car nuts building race cars, your a ford guy you can't help it, but the ford needed upgrades to be competitive with stock cars from gm
that is a farce I have raced many with a v6 andlost once they guy had a bottle MY uncle was one of the engineers on the mustang and he said not one of the engineers would ride in one because ford wanted it cheap, and designed it for a 6 cylinder they added the v8 because of enthusiasts. I grew up in the middle of the big 3 with relatives working for each and most were car nuts building race cars, your a ford guy you can't help it, but the ford needed upgrades to be competitive with stock cars from gm
05-19-2005, 02:45 PM
#49
Experienced GTcars Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Pittsburg, CA
Posts: 1,757
Rep Power: 752
Originally Posted by red9450
There is too much wrong with all of your statements to go through this, but i'll try, because i have nothing else ot do. lol
First: 87-93 lx and GTs would whoop up on the same year camaro, trans-am, AND vette.
So I wouldn't say that The mustang was always behind.
First: 87-93 lx and GTs would whoop up on the same year camaro, trans-am, AND vette.
So I wouldn't say that The mustang was always behind.
Originally Posted by red9450
The problem with comparing a Z-28 and GT, and Then Cobra to SS price tag wise is that The SS is little more than some basic suspension, badges, appearance, and a minor tweak or two. The cobra has a completely different engine, and IRS appearance and so on. Hence price tag. so The "basic" z, is almost the same engine wise as the SS, meissentation. And if you want to compare Aftermarket, compare a Saleen S-351 to berger. Both limited production, where-as the cobra was made by the thousands.
NCamaro94- "cobra was aftermarket from SVT. just like the new gt 500 is aftermarket from shelby." Incorrect. SVT is a division of ford that makes high performance in mass quantities. The new Cobra will be produced by them as well. There is no aftermarket involved.
Slvrv6camaro- No cobra R came with forced induction, it was 385hp N/A. No V-8 stangs came with turbochargers, and a supercharger like ford uses is a positive displacement supercharger which is the same as adding cubic inches. Anyone on this board using forced induction doesn't feel bad when they run into a car that is N/A and they blow their doors off, do they? No. most people, if they don't already have some sort of forced induction, would love to get it, and ford did just that. Gave people what they wanted from the factory; 400hp, all forged internals, a 6spd. and handling to go with it. and for those that complain that it is still unfair the cobra R proved that the power potential was there naturally aspirated, or in mass production form the Mach 1 is available.
69-z28---- Ford is way behind. that statement couldn't be further from the truth. Chevy still uses pushrods(which i love working with, but still very dated technology) Ford has the same technology that the "amazing" s2000 uses. nearly 100hp per liter, by using overhead cams, variable valve timing, and an engine that is nearly a liter smaller than the 350.
NCamaro94- "cobra was aftermarket from SVT. just like the new gt 500 is aftermarket from shelby." Incorrect. SVT is a division of ford that makes high performance in mass quantities. The new Cobra will be produced by them as well. There is no aftermarket involved.
Slvrv6camaro- No cobra R came with forced induction, it was 385hp N/A. No V-8 stangs came with turbochargers, and a supercharger like ford uses is a positive displacement supercharger which is the same as adding cubic inches. Anyone on this board using forced induction doesn't feel bad when they run into a car that is N/A and they blow their doors off, do they? No. most people, if they don't already have some sort of forced induction, would love to get it, and ford did just that. Gave people what they wanted from the factory; 400hp, all forged internals, a 6spd. and handling to go with it. and for those that complain that it is still unfair the cobra R proved that the power potential was there naturally aspirated, or in mass production form the Mach 1 is available.
69-z28---- Ford is way behind. that statement couldn't be further from the truth. Chevy still uses pushrods(which i love working with, but still very dated technology) Ford has the same technology that the "amazing" s2000 uses. nearly 100hp per liter, by using overhead cams, variable valve timing, and an engine that is nearly a liter smaller than the 350.
, however pushrods still work and as long as theyre significantly cheaper to build for performance usage thats what ill stick with.
Originally Posted by red9450
Rockford fosgate fan- your statement can be said as this as well- 1987 lx can run with a 1992 z28 or Vette, or a 1993 cobra can run with a 1997 z28, or a 1999 GT can run with a 1997 z28. You just took the furthest of the two extremes, and I'm trying to put it into perspective that they arent that far apart. Granted the LS1 was one hell of an engine, but, before the introduction of the LS1, ford for the most part had no problem keeping up, and when the ls1 did debut, the 5 liter aftermarket was so big that most of the cars out there that people put some money into were up to speed anyway. I agree that ford has always had appeal for those reasons, one of the reasons I bought mine.
As far as some peoples opinion of just plain not liking them, I can respect that, and have no recourse for that. (END OF RANT)
As far as some peoples opinion of just plain not liking them, I can respect that, and have no recourse for that. (END OF RANT)
05-19-2005, 03:00 PM
#51
Resident Mustang Guy
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NEPA
Posts: 541
Rep Power: 710
Originally Posted by archemedes
"First: 87-93 lx and GTs would whoop up on the same year camaro, trans-am, AND vette."
that is a farce I have raced many with a v6 andlost once they guy had a bottle MY uncle was one of the engineers on the mustang and he said not one of the engineers would ride in one because ford wanted it cheap, and designed it for a 6 cylinder they added the v8 because of enthusiasts. I grew up in the middle of the big 3 with relatives working for each and most were car nuts building race cars, your a ford guy you can't help it, but the ford needed upgrades to be competitive with stock cars from gm
that is a farce I have raced many with a v6 andlost once they guy had a bottle MY uncle was one of the engineers on the mustang and he said not one of the engineers would ride in one because ford wanted it cheap, and designed it for a 6 cylinder they added the v8 because of enthusiasts. I grew up in the middle of the big 3 with relatives working for each and most were car nuts building race cars, your a ford guy you can't help it, but the ford needed upgrades to be competitive with stock cars from gm
1988 Ford Mustang GT-6.4sec. 0-60, and 15.00 in the quarter.
and since all of these cars came with the same basic powertrain, the times would be relatively close. and If weight becomes an issue, the lx was a few hundred pounds lighter and ran a few tenths faster in the quarter, but I just wanted to compare apples to apples.
So maybe your relatives at the plant were getting some fumes or something.
05-19-2005, 03:05 PM
#53
Experienced GTcars Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Pittsburg, CA
Posts: 1,757
Rep Power: 752
Originally Posted by red9450
Ummmmmmm everyone.
:banghead: 5.7 liter, right? thats 350 cubes.
:banghead: 5.7 liter, right? thats 350 cubes.
05-19-2005, 03:09 PM
#55
Experienced GTcars Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Pittsburg, CA
Posts: 1,757
Rep Power: 752
Originally Posted by red9450
Hardly- 1988 Chevy camaro IROC-Z 7.0 sec. 0-60, and 15.50 in the quarter.
1988 Ford Mustang GT-6.4sec. 0-60, and 15.00 in the quarter.
and since all of these cars came with the same basic powertrain, the times would be relatively close. and If weight becomes an issue, the lx was a few hundred pounds lighter and ran a few tenths faster in the quarter, but I just wanted to compare apples to apples.
So maybe your relatives at the plant were getting some fumes or something.
1988 Ford Mustang GT-6.4sec. 0-60, and 15.00 in the quarter.
and since all of these cars came with the same basic powertrain, the times would be relatively close. and If weight becomes an issue, the lx was a few hundred pounds lighter and ran a few tenths faster in the quarter, but I just wanted to compare apples to apples.
So maybe your relatives at the plant were getting some fumes or something.
1990 stang LX 6.4 0-60 and a 14.9 1/4 mile
05-19-2005, 03:10 PM
#56
Resident Mustang Guy
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NEPA
Posts: 541
Rep Power: 710
Originally Posted by JesasaurusRex
So a 302 and a 305 are 5.0L are you telling me they have the same amount of cubes :banghead:
05-19-2005, 03:11 PM
#57
Resident Mustang Guy
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NEPA
Posts: 541
Rep Power: 710
Originally Posted by JesasaurusRex
1990 camaro 5.8 0-60 and a 14.4 1/4 mile
1990 stang LX 6.4 0-60 and a 14.9 1/4 mile
1990 stang LX 6.4 0-60 and a 14.9 1/4 mile
and where did we pull these stats from may I ask? Are we running a 1993 LT1 engine in there? lol
05-19-2005, 03:14 PM
#58
Experienced GTcars Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Pittsburg, CA
Posts: 1,757
Rep Power: 752
Originally Posted by red9450
HAHA. ur funny. yes they are both considered 5.0 and those 3 cubes is a difference that neither car would notice. There are slight variables in the measuring if engine displacement in liters, but your LS1 is still a 350, and still a 5.7. No way around that one.
and i donno how theres no way around it its 346cis and not 350cis.
05-19-2005, 03:14 PM
#59
Experienced GTcars Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Pittsburg, CA
Posts: 1,757
Rep Power: 752
Originally Posted by red9450
and where did we pull these stats from may I ask? Are we running a 1993 LT1 engine in there? lol
05-19-2005, 03:21 PM
#60
Resident Mustang Guy
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NEPA
Posts: 541
Rep Power: 710
1 Word-hopeless. your hopeless. Agree to disagree. I am done with my replies to you. This will go no where.
And as far as your stats go, I only looked at a few, and take the 1999 to 2001 cobra. They is more than half a second difference between the two, and they are mechanically identical, yet there is .6 sec. of a difference. The problem is that the times are entered by people. very inaccurate.
And as far as your stats go, I only looked at a few, and take the 1999 to 2001 cobra. They is more than half a second difference between the two, and they are mechanically identical, yet there is .6 sec. of a difference. The problem is that the times are entered by people. very inaccurate.