Mustang Concept, first pictures

Here ya go:
http://www.autoweek.com/search/search_display.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=carnews&content_code=06651606&Search_Type=STD&Search_ID=789901&record=10

interesting...I have to see one in person to make a final call..

Never liked the way they looked much, but I think I dislike that 1 the most. There better be an 07 F-Body for the 06 model year, our 40th Anniversary. If there was a new, revised 5th Gen competing with that thing it would be more of the same for the M*****g. GM where are you??

That's it? :confused: That's the car that is supposed to set the world on fire? Pretty darn uninspiring from those shots. I want to see one in person.

I really hope thats not the final version. To me its a little... :barf:

I like the current design much much more.

Looks pretty cool, I'd like to see the fastback/hardtop.

That looks weak. I am not impressed with those shots at all.

On second look, it looks like a photoshop.

Besides which, why would a pre-production car be posed on a wet beach like that, completely uncovered?

The top looks digital.

Fake!

Gm?? Hello??!!!
Okay, the new Mustang can compete with the new GTO and Solstice.:rolleyes:

:barf:

I don't think those shots are of the actual Mustang, though. It doesn't seem realistic that someone would take an un-covered pre-production car to the beach to go surfing.

Originally posted by Pentatonic
. It doesn't seem realistic that someone would take an un-covered pre-production car to the beach to go surfing.

You mean the guy in the shorts holding a "California Car Duster" is not a chassis engineer.

It looks ugly, and says that they want to be like 280hp range?
Maybe in NAIAS they will show it, like it says
And GM Shows a Camaro concept?
:rolleyes:

I'm not sure why everyone is surprised, that car looks almost exactly like the sketches that have floated around over the past months.

Like others have said, I'm going to hold off judgment till I see one in person. I can already tell that the retro styling will make its shelf life short. Just my $.02.

:barf: :dead:

Looks pretty good. I bet the coupe is sharp. I'm sure opinions will change when we see it for real...just like the GTO.

I'm still wondering about why its on the beach. Spy shots are usually disguised cars on the ROADS sicne that's where they all exist. They don't pose at the beach with the owner! It looks awesome I think it still is suspicious. You can see how it matches all the proportions of the Lincoln LS and looks like all the concept drawings in the past few months. It seems like the real deal at least.

To tell the truth, I think that looks sweet. I like the retro look. A fastback version would be badass.

Actually i am willing to bet that that shot came from Ford. It happens often that an automaker will leak a shot early to see how the public reacts. Notice it isn't watermarked by any of the know spy shot photographers such as Brenda Priddy company.

The back is.... OK

The side looks a lot like the current stang,


And the front, from what I can see ... is a horrible rendiition on the 64 1/2 - 66 Mustang! Ugh.

the butt is HUGE, the nose is too angled (almost a cross between a 60's mustang and a 70s-80s BMW) and the side? It looks big and bulbous, not sleek and fast. a 280hp v8 and a 400hp v8. What about a 350hp v8 and then whatever GM does next? Comon. The Nissan altima is faster then the new GT mustangs now, and I hear a new honda accord with 280HP is on the way...

Also I'd like to note that the "retros" in recent history:

Prowler
PT Cruiser
New Beetle
Ford Thunderbird
SSR truck

I notice the prowler, PT cruiser, and beetle sold well. Who designed some of those cars, and the SSR? How well did the "new" thunderbird do? Last I knew, it was a flop.

Ford's retro department isnt quite on target...

A 2007 40th anniv' Camaro with the new Ls2, whatever it will be, would kick the snot out of it... Comon. The ls1's kick the snot out of the GT's now and the great ol 5.0's -- and I'm assuming the Ls2 will be nothing short of even more bad ass, considering they want to use it to slaughter the viper.

Originally posted by formula79
Actually i am willing to bet that that shot came from Ford. It happens often that an automaker will leak a shot early to see how the public reacts. Notice it isn't watermarked by any of the know spy shot photographers such as Brenda Priddy company.

That's what I've been thinking. Probably a shot to see what the opinion is. Just like with GTO, they now decided to tone down the nose (although I'm still surprised they're not putting up hood scoops).

As for the Mustang itself - I think it looks pretty cool. It isn't THAT retro, it's actually pretty modern, with many cues to the past.

Originally posted by Geoff Chadwick
. The Nissan altima is faster then the new GT mustangs now

And what rice board do you visit?


14.7 quarter mile versus 14.1. Yes, faster by a whole - 0.6 seconds. :confused:

I wasnt totally serious about the altima being faster then the mustang... but I've driven a new altima, and they are cartainly fun cars.

But I WAS serious in the idea that a 4 door sedan (rather nice size too) with a 6 cylinder engine keeps up to a "sports car v8"

And a N/A 6cyl at that.:D

Originally posted by Geoff Chadwick

How well did the "new" thunderbird do? Last I knew, it was a flop.


The T-bird, even though I personally have seen very few of them around Detroit, appears to be a success. They are selling just about every one they build. So unfortunately the retro trend isn't dead yet.


A 2007 40th anniv' Camaro with the new Ls2, whatever it will be, would kick the snot out of it... Comon. The ls1's kick the snot out of the GT's now and the great ol 5.0's -- and I'm assuming the Ls2 will be nothing short of even more bad ass, considering they want to use it to slaughter the viper.

:confused: No one knows what is coming in 5 years, how can you comment on the LS2 or its potential when you know nothing about it? A 2007 Camaro "would" kick the snot out of a Mustang? Guess what, I can be fairly sure there will be a Mustang in 2007. Camaro? There's only a handful of people who know its ultimate fate. If you don't like the looks of this new Mustang's styling that's fine, I'm not wild about it either. It looks too plain-jane for me, but whatever. Commenting on a car's performance, let alone a theoretical car's performance 5 years from now is pretty silly.

Not bad IMO. Let's see the fastback!

Originally posted by Geoff Chadwick
Also I'd like to note that the "retros" in recent history:

Prowler
PT Cruiser
New Beetle
Ford Thunderbird
SSR truck

I notice the prowler, PT cruiser, and beetle sold well. Who designed some of those cars, and the SSR? How well did the "new" thunderbird do? Last I knew, it was a flop.

Ford's retro department isnt quite on target...


As noted, T-Birds are still pretty new and going for a nice price, probably still above sticker. The cars you listed, particularly PT Cruiser and New Beetle, have seen a tremendous drop in sales after the initial, "novelty" surge. That's why their manufactures have big hopes on the Turbo GT Cruiser and New Beetle Convertible. These cars go along way to getting people into show rooms to buy other cars aswell. You also excluded the Mini Cooper, which will probably be met with similar success, then regression. Don't forget Ford's upcoming GT supercar, either.

This Mustang doesn't look like a huge departure from the direction they started moving in '99. It's a safe bet that the Mustang will continue to sell well regardless, and especially with no direct competitor. I think it will be a sharper car in coupe/fastback trim (and likely with faux hood scoops). I really don't know how you can slam Ford about it. Not that I'm saying this is completely the case, but an unoriginal, retro pony car is better than no pony car at all...

Originally posted by Geoff Chadwick
I wasn't totally serious about the altima being faster then the mustang... but I've driven a new altima, and they are cartainly fun cars.

But I WAS serious in the idea that a 4 door sedan (rather nice size too) with a 6 cylinder engine keeps up to a "sports car v8"

And a N/A 6cyl at that.:D

I don't know about Altimas, but I know of a certain 4 cyl sedan that can run with the Mustangs and some of the other V8s. ;) :D

Originally posted by jrp4uc
I don't know about Altimas, but I know of a certain 4 cyl sedan that can run with the Mustangs and some of the other V8s. ;) :D

Now that I think of it, make that two 4 cyl sedans. Forgot about Dodge's upcoming Super Neon.

The back end has to go. The one big tail light is the nastiest thing ever! :barf:

Or the DSM crowd.:D

Yes I know, there is no knowledge of a 5th gen camaro. Sadly though, whatever GM continues to work on, something worth while will come of it. I'm upset because they're still sticking that dumb engine in there. It's a nice motor, but a lower displacement engine SHOULD get better gas milage for testing then a larger displacement. I could understand if it werent normally aspirated... But the 4.6L mustang gets 24/17 rated vs 27/16 rated in the lt1. It should be better then that I would think. It should atleast be better then the lt1! But the motor gets less power and torque, as well as similar if not worse gas milage. For what? They should have atleast kept up with the 5.0 engine.

When they came out with the 5.0 engine, it was a slap in the face to GM. Even into the mid 90's against the Lt1's - the tried and true 5.0 engine held it's weight decently, and with the plethera of aftermarket parts it was more then worthwhile. Then they change so a SOHC 4.6 and a DOHC 4.6... And even now, I'm not impressed. But the cars are apparently more balanced then our cars. The ride is more comfortable (albeit I dont like the seats and the controls arent all within real easy reach) and it's more of a car to enjoy the ride vs go fast. But that's how most people want it these days.

Granted, the thunderbird is selling decently, and the beetles/pt cruisers (speaking of which - Isnt the PT cruiser almost identical in chassis to the 4 door neon??) are more of a fad - as will the SSR and whatever follows, but the sales of the PT cruisers and Beetles, fad or not, are really high. If Ford made more thunderbirds, would they all sell? Good question. But from almost everyone I know, some dont like the PT cruiser, some dont like the beetle, but most agree the prowler is cool, and the pt cruiser and beetle are atleast "nifty" but the thunderbird just looks funny. Like they tried to make it more retro then they should have. I'll agree it was something interesting, sure, but it just dosent have some of the appeal that the pt cruiser or beetle had. I would have thought if ford would go retro, the first to go would be the mustang...

Speaking of which, I still think it looks bulbous and really too big. Now that I think of it, the design is too simple and straight. The hood and trunk line right up and it looks strange. Let me see a fastback though, maybe my mood will change.

No one knows what is coming in 5 years, how can you comment on the LS2 or its potential when you know nothing about it?

I wouldn't say we know nothing. About the smallblock V8 we do know one thing. GM is getting ready to produce a GenIV V8. The LS1 is truly an amazing engine and is only now realizing it's full potential. That said, given the time and money invested into it, GM would not produce a new engine unless it had significant advantages over the LS1. I would argue that we can make a few assumptions here. It will be more powerful, more efficient, cheaper to produce, and weigh less. Maybe it won't have all those attributes over the LS1, but I'd argue you could expect most if not all.

IF a 5th gen came out it would be a good bet this engine would be used in that car. Redplanet tells us a 5th gen would have a V8 and be RWD.

Now...given the Mustang specs in the article it is not a great leap to argue that a 5th gen IF it existed could best a 4.6 V8 powered mustang. :cool:

:barf:

I like the back end, it's a nice change of pace, but the profile isn't that flattering.

Still, everyone who has seen the Mustang in person seems to be at the verge of wetting themselves when talking about it, so maybe the picture doesn't do it justice.

I'm going to have to wait to see it in person before I render a verdict.

BTW, those pictures were taken as press release pictures to accompany the concept's debut (except the one with the guy with the car brush). Someone seems to have got ahold of a couple & sent them in.

Then again, that someone could also have been a member of Ford. ;)

I think the Mustang in those pictures is a concept vehicle and not the actual next Mustang. Look at the picture - it looks as if there are no back seats or that hey have some cover over them. The front windshield seemed to me to be a little low and then there is that wing roll bar thing that reminds me of those Mustang I or II or III or whatever concepts from the sixties.

Originally posted by hotrodtodd74
I think the Mustang in those pictures is a concept vehicle and not the actual next Mustang. .

It is in fact the concept, which will appear in Detroit.

This thread has a shot of the "production" body renderings I found on another board. If these are legit, then the coupe might be pretty cool. I won't buy one, but I could at least respect the appearance which is something I cannot say about the current car

http://www.tennesspeed.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=48171

Originally posted by Chris 96 WS6
This thread has a shot of the "production" body renderings I found on another board. If these are legit, then the coupe might be pretty cool. I won't buy one, but I could at least respect the appearance which is something I cannot say about the current car

http://www.tennesspeed.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=48171

Just blew it up & took a look at it. Seems like it wasn't photoshopped, and looks real enough. :think:


More on the photo story (along with Brenda Priddy's copyright stampped all over this time):
http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=5571

I've got nothing against retro, and nothing against new/novel/cutting edge, but how come it is that the WORST of BOTH is what we're getting these days?! (New Beetle, TT, Thunderbird, now Mustang) WAY too many straight lines and constant-radius curves. Sterile. No soul. And that blunt front end, YUK.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chris 96 WS6
[B]

These body diagrams would indicated Mustang II front end styling, and an "opera window" in the fastback, reminiscent of the late '70s T-birds. Otherwise, the basic proportions are exactly the same as the current car. It's too bad they didn't do a "retro" version of the '79 Mustang. That car was the most simple and elegant of the 'Stangs, right down to the tidy dimensions and good packaging.

http://www.tennesspeed.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=48171

Is this really an improvement? If these images are legit, I would question whether the platform has been changed to DEW98, or even that of the AU Falcon. Since the wheelbase looks unchanged, perhaps the nasty rumors of the Fox platform being carried over are true.

Looks aside, I'm sorry to hear that the powertrain picture apparently hasn't changed. The 24valve 3.0liter is pretty weak by current V6 standards and really should have been upsized to 3.5liters to compete with Nissan's scorching VQ engines. Moreover, the Mustang GT deserves more than a SOHC 4.6. Ford's DOHC 5.0 "Cammer" crate engine should form the basis of both the GT and Cobra engines. It probably won't, though.

On the plus side, the tail lights in the photo of the convertible are pure Shelby GT350/500. I even like the chrome fuel filler cap mounted in the middle of the rear end. I always thought this feature was convenient, but it also serves as an indicator of the continued use of a REAR-MOUNTED FUEL TANK. (More evidence of a carried-over Fox platform - unless the Australian Falcon also has a rear mounted tank. Does anyone know for sure?)

looks pretty ugly from the back. yuck. no booty at all.

To me, it doesnt look all that different from the sides...It looks like it needs a little more overhang...something isnt right about it...:think:

Wheres a shot of the front of that car :confused: I want to get a preview of what will be in my rear-view mirror when I hop into a GTO one day :D

more overhang would definitly suck ass. i think they have the right idea on the sides, but they need to fix the front/back to be more apealing instead of appalling.

LOL yeah. That car needs to do good for GM to want to produce a new Camaro.

Took another look at those supposed body stampings. If the next Mustang is to be built off the LS platform, then I think those pics are the real thing. The pic has very little front overhang, yet alot of overhang in the rear...... just like Lincoln's LS. Also, the way the front wheel arch blends into the lower crease for the side scoops is identical to the concept car. It's also known that the new Mustang will have round lights behind a clear rectangular cover, and old style door handles is one of the small touches a couple of people who has seen it mentioned.

I'm now pretty certain it's genuine. :eek:


Check out this photoshop picture someone did based on the stampings (you'll have to scroll down a couple of posts, seem the link doesn't work): http://warnerrobert.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=001011

It's going to be hard to avoid getting one if that's it. Looks pretty good!

Originally posted by guionM
Check out this photoshop picture someone did based on the stampings (you'll have to scroll down a couple of posts, seem the link doesn't work): http://warnerrobert.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=001011

It's going to be hard to avoid getting one if that's it. Looks pretty good!

Yep, that's going to have no problem drawing in abandoned F-body buyers. Question is, how long will GM let this go on?

It's certainly very retro-oriented. I'm sure Ford has some good ideas for special editions along the lines of that touched up rendering.

Originally posted by guionM
Took another look at those supposed body stampings. If the next Mustang is to be built off the LS platform, then I think those pics are the real thing. The pic has very little front overhang, yet alot of overhang in the rear...... just like Lincoln's LS. Also, the way the front wheel arch blends into the lower crease for the side scoops is identical to the concept car. It's also known that the new Mustang will have round lights behind a clear rectangular cover, and old style door handles is one of the small touches a couple of people who has seen it mentioned.

I'm now pretty certain it's genuine. :eek:


Check out this photoshop picture someone did based on the stampings (you'll have to scroll down a couple of posts, seem the link doesn't work): http://warnerrobert.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=001011

It's going to be hard to avoid getting one if that's it. Looks pretty good! i like that one. :D

Look at this one:

http://warnerrobert.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=001012

He increased the wheelbase and shortened the rear overhang.

I don't think that I really like the front fascia....but the rest looks much nicer to me.

Nah, no overhangs make it look like a regular car too much. Styling that catches attention is a must for these kind of cars. I gotta say though, this car lacks innovation. There is practically no new in it and any new there is doesn't look too good. The entire car is a 60's M*****g. That might not be good, we need this car to succeed. Yo F**d, be more inventive in the design.

The convertible looks pretty good to me... except for the wheel surrounds looking a little too circular/regular. And it would need some protection from parking lot dings... sides have no protection, like the 350Z.

The coupe, if the artificial renderings are to be believed, looks very nice. I have been a fan of the earlier concept drawing that had been floating around of the blue fastback, and hoping that's the real 05 Stang. Looks like it might be and if so I believe it will be a success, despite being such a throwback to the Mustangs of the 1960's. It's a shame Ford can't seem to create many striking and genuinely new designs like they did with the current F150 and the Focus. But this is retro done right if it comes out the way the coupes have been drawn so far by the various volunteer photoshop geeks.

I really like the greenhouse and roofline of the coupe if that's how it really is. I don't mind the significant rear overhang, it looks natural since the old Mustangs had it too. I like the front end too, it looks mean and macho. I was worried the new Mustang was going to have en effeminate design tone like the new Tbird, but that does not appear to be the case. :)

That said, I still probably won't buy one! If my TA gets stolen/wrecked, I'm going after a new GTO. If not I'm saving for an 07 Camaro :D

Originally posted by Z284ever
Look at this one:

http://warnerrobert.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=001012

He increased the wheelbase and shortened the rear overhang.

I don't think that I really like the front fascia....but the rest looks much nicer to me.

The longer wheelbase, and blunter nose, makes thisphotoshopped car look alot tougher. To me, ultra-short front overhangs should define a car as rear-wheel-drive. BMW pretty much proved that point. I even like the smoother rear treatment, which unfortunately would probably create more rear lift. There again, it might be a good reason for a functional rear spoiler.

Overall, the real new Mustang is a great improvement on the current model. The only thing I don't like is the overly conservative fastback - why not extend it and give it a hatch. The '79-93 Mustangs were great looking cars in hatchback form, expecially before 1988 when T-tops were an option. I'm not a FOMOCO fan, but I still miss the days when a 5.0 could burn any IROC-Z, and when a GT was a real looker.

If the coupe looks as good as it appears it will, I bet that car sells like crazy. To me it looks to be a nice blend of old and new. GM...Hurry up with that Camaro please!!

Originally posted by redzed
but I still miss the days when a 5.0 could burn any IROC-Z, and when a GT was a real looker.

:rolleyes: L98 cars 87-92 beat plenty of 5.0's, they still do today from what I see. ;) I know of a few that could take early LT1 Auto's also, yes stock or really near stock too.

Originally posted by IZ28
:rolleyes: L98 cars 87-92 beat plenty of 5.0's, they still do today from what I see. ;) I know of a few that could take early LT1 Auto's also, yes stock or really near stock too.

I'm not about to contradict you. Not all 5.0s were created equal. When Ford downgraded the rating from 225hp to 205hp in 1992, I got the impression that this was reflective of a certain variability in outputs between individual cars.

The fact remains that L98 F3s were a bit heavy, but the motors were slightly torquier than the LT1. What's the effect of giving up 20lb/ft of torque for 30 more horsepower, especially with an automatic tranny?

In any case, I just miss the old 5.0 Mustangs. There was alot to be said for those cars.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by redzed
The fact remains that L98 F3s were a bit heavy, but the motors were slightly torquier than the LT1.

They had more TQ than the LT1 and the 5.0 and I think the early LS1's at 330-345 ft. lbs. depending on year. The best performing years for the 5.0 were 87 and 88 but the L98 got better year by year. When Speed Density was introduced to the M*****g, people that bought them actually went back to MAF because it made better power. Third Gens heavy?? Not really IMO, not as heavy as a 4th Gen or 2nd Gen. They are pretty close to 1sts. An unoptioned 87 IROC-Z 350 TPI is 3,341 lbs. That was lighter than the 350 GTA and even the Formula believe it or not. And a 5.0 5-Speed IROC has a 3,250 base weight.

In any case, I just miss the old 5.0 Mustangs. There was alot to be said for those cars.

Sure, like how they didn't handle as good as a Third Gen, brake like a Third, look as good as a Third ext. and int., sell like the Thirds, and so on. :D ;) The only thing they had going for them was ease of modding with good results and good power stock. But any SBC including the L98 has that even more over and TPI is the setup for low-mid RPM TQ and good HP, but its the TPI itself that is expensive. I'm seeing them more and more in cars from back in the day at car shows, 1 of the best, if not the best looking setup ever, especially when polished or chromed. :) :cool:

I lived and worked with 5.0 Mustangs for 11 years.

They warped brakes yearly, the front struts needed constant adjusting to avoid wearing out the front tire edges, before Ford went to one piece seals, they wore out around 120K miles, the power brake booster went out around 100K, and they could get squirrelly on turns that weren't glass smooth. But the engine & drive train were flawless, never ever overheated (very important when consistantly running high speed in SoCal's 110 degree summers), they were very fast and very fun to drive. And until Chevrolet brought back the 350 in Camaros, 5.0 Mustangs did outrun pretty much every same year Z28 or IROC.

Camaros tended to overheat under the same conditions (why CHP stuck with SS Mustangs). The 350 in the final 3rd gen Z28s do have more torque than the LS1, and did outrun 5.0s, but it took 48 more cubic inches to do it, and at the time, 5.0s got better fuel economy. ;)

Originally posted by redzed

On the plus side, the tail lights in the photo of the convertible are pure Shelby GT350/500. I even like the chrome fuel filler cap mounted in the middle of the rear end. I always thought this feature was convenient, but it also serves as an indicator of the continued use of a REAR-MOUNTED FUEL TANK. (More evidence of a carried-over Fox platform - unless the Australian Falcon also has a rear mounted tank. Does anyone know for sure?)

I'm sure it is just for show. Even if they WERE dumb enough to continue with a rear mounted gas tank, they would'nt be stupid enough to put the filler over the back bumper.

Originally posted by IZ28
[QUOTE]Originally posted by redzed
The fact remains that L98 F3s were a bit heavy, but the motors were slightly torquier than the LT1.

They had more TQ than the LT1 and the 5.0 and I think the early LS1's at 330-345 ft. lbs. depending on year. The best performing years for the 5.0 were 87 and 88 but the L98 got better year by year. When Speed Density was introduced to the M*****g, people that bought them actually went back to MAF because it made better power. Third Gens heavy?? Not really IMO, not as heavy as a 4th Gen or 2nd Gen. They are pretty close to 1sts. An unoptioned 87 IROC-Z 350 TPI is 3,341 lbs. That was lighter than the 350 GTA and even the Formula believe it or not. And a 5.0 5-Speed IROC has a 3,250 base weight.

In any case, I just miss the old 5.0 Mustangs. There was alot to be said for those cars.

Sure, like how they didn't handle as good as a Third Gen, brake like a Third, look as good as a Third ext. and int., sell like the Thirds, and so on. :D ;) The only thing they had going for them was ease of modding with good results and good power stock. But any SBC including the L98 has that even more over and TPI is the setup for low-mid RPM TQ and good HP, but its the TPI itself that is expensive. I'm seeing them more and more in cars from back in the day at car shows, 1 of the best, if not the best looking setup ever, especially when polished or chromed. :) :cool:

Pardon me, but I remember the old IROC-Z as being way more expensive than a V8 Mustang. Back in 1991 it took over $21,000 MSRP to buy a Camaro Z28 that could run with $14,000 Mustang LX 5.0 or a $16,000 GT. Considering inflation, my $25K+ Z28 was far less expensive than the comparable car of 10 years earlier. People said that LS-1 F-bodies were getting expensive, but performance oriented F3s were the real ripoffs "back in the day."
Throw in the bone shaking ride and creaky interior, and its a wonder that the F-body survived its third generation.

More to the point, GMs 1980s TPI systems weren't exactly perfect. I remember lots of clogged fuel injectors, which required expensive replacement. (Part of the problem with "varnish" in the injectors was cured by the higher levels of detergent in modern gasoline.) Alot of people felt that the early port fuel injection wasn't worth the hassle, preferring the 4 barrel carb. of a Monte Carlo SS. Maybe Fords had the same problems, but they weren't as roundly criticised.

My point is that the Mustang 5.0 was a great car in the late 80s/early 90s. The F4 changed the equation dramatically, and the 6-speed LT-1 combination literally put GM miles ahead of the Ford.

Originally posted by redzed
Pardon me, but I remember the old IROC-Z as being way more expensive than a V8 Mustang. Back in 1991 it took over $21,000 MSRP to buy a Camaro Z28 that could run with $14,000 Mustang LX 5.0 or a $16,000 GT. Considering inflation, my $25K+ Z28 was far less expensive than the comparable car of 10 years earlier. People said that LS-1 F-bodies were getting expensive, but performance oriented F3s were the real ripoffs "back in the day."
Throw in the bone shaking ride and creaky interior, and its a wonder that the F-body survived its third generation.

More to the point, GMs 1980s TPI systems weren't exactly perfect. I remember lots of clogged fuel injectors, which required expensive replacement. (Part of the problem with "varnish" in the injectors was cured by the higher levels of detergent in modern gasoline.) Alot of people felt that the early port fuel injection wasn't worth the hassle, preferring the 4 barrel carb. of a Monte Carlo SS. Maybe Fords had the same problems, but they weren't as roundly criticised.


When are Camaros cheaper though?? The Third Gen was a better overall car (as all Gens have been over the M*****g) and the price was worth it and people were willing to pay, the cars were plain flat out liked and desired. What is a wonder is how the 4th Gen got through. Oh wait, it didn't. Doh!! They could have put a 600HP engine in and still public wouldn't buy!! In 87 an L98 IROC-Z was around $16,000 with all the options, thats pretty good. The Thirds might have had a tough ride but when you have a no compromise suspension focused entirely on handling and G's what do you expect?? That leads to some int. sounds obvioulsly, and M*****gs have plenty of their own sounds also, except without the handling. ;) I am always around TGO and don't hear of many injector issues. Most are still running the originals with no probems. Considering how the SS devalued your Z28 and made it look like an RS, (or LX 5.0 of the F-Body) you got the ripoff of the 4th Gen, moreso than any1 could in the Third. The IROC-Z28 was the top model. And a near $35,000 SS?? Thats a ripoff, IMO.

:cool:

Originally posted by guionM
but it took 48 more cubic inches to do it, and at the time, 5.0s got better fuel economy.

The more ci. the better TQ and potential. :) Musclecars should have the biggest engines possible. What did 5.0's get for MPG?? I know L98's got 16/26. A dude on TGO with a stock L98 gets a little more than 30MPG with some PROM tuning. :D He's like the only 1 concerned about MPG. :D

wow,i'm surprised this thread lasted 4 pages before the usual mustang vs camaro BS started,and it's bench racing from the '80s no less!!let's just get all this crap out of the way
-5.0 ruled the streets in the '80s!
-oh yeah,well the IROC could out-handle and out-brake it!!
-oh yeah,well i know a guy who knows this guy who got better gas milege!!
-hatchbacks suck,those mustangs look like escorts!!
-how do you know what those mustangs look like,you guys only saw the taillights!
-whatever!!my Z28 could sometimes be one half of hundreth of a tick quicker to 60 and everyone knows you can feel that on the street!!
-f-bodies are for rednecks
-mustangs are for girls
-mustang has 4 wheels
-oh yeah,well GM was planning on putting 5 wheels on the camaro,so suck it!!
-with a supercharger,you can't touch me!
-oh yeah,put a turbo on that supercharger and do this other thing and tweak this whatever and see what happens!!HA!!
there,that should cover all the excuses.now,back to topic,i like the mustang concept,i can't wait to see the whole thing in january.

Well, theres a post to disregard.

Originally posted by guionM
[B]But the engine & drive train were flawless, 5.0s got

Gotta go with Guion on this one. I've driven every 5.0 Fox combo....from the original '82, with 2 barrel carb and 4 speed overdrive, to the '93 Cobra. I've also driven every 3rd gen Camaro too.

Those 80s to early 90s mustangs had a pretty horrible chassis and non-existant brakes.....but OH that motor! Such quick throttle response, such willingness to rev, such immediate low end torque.

Sure you might find the occassional G92 Camaro (LB9/M5 or L98/A4), that were pretty quick...I own one BTW.... but generally speaking, the 5.0 lead the pack.

Around 1990, I rented a '90 5 speed 5.0 GT for about a week. Pretty squirrely chassis.....but wow...what a blast. That car took abuse that I would never consider doing to my own car. Never a whimper out of it.

At the end of the week....I was surprised that there was enough car left for me to pull into the rental agency's parking lot.

I know the 5.0 was faster until the L98 came around, but that engine is all the cars had. Me I was never impressd with the 5.0 as much as others. I always liked the 350 TPI's feel, sound, look, and instant aggressive low-mid RPM TQ. More ci. usually means more fun. :D

Originally posted by IZ28
Considering how the SS devalued your Z28 and made it look like an RS, (or LX 5.0 of the F-Body) you got the ripoff of the 4th Gen, moreso than any1 could in the Third. The IROC-Z28 was the top model. And a near $35,000 SS?? Thats a ripoff, IMO.


So I got the Mustang "LX 5.0 of the F-body?" That was my goal - the most performance for the least amount of money. :p

My main point was that my LS1 Z28 was just over $25,000 loaded and the equivilent L98 of 1991 was pushing $21,000. Look at inflation over a decade, and the F4 Z28 had become the LX 5.0 of the Camaro line.:D

A Camaro has always been alot of car for little cash, but the L98 wasn't a very good value in its era. The RS fared even worse in terms of a performance/value comparison to a Mustang 5.0. To be fair, even the C4 Corvette ($33k+ in 1991) wasn't that much of a goer before the LT1 came in 1992.

I'm glad the F3 existed because it formed the conceptual basis for the F4. Heck, I even have an irrational admiration for the T/A GTA. It just amazes me how the deal sweetened even as the Camaro declined into oblivion.

With the F-body gone, I just hope Ford returns to the concept of the 1980's Mustang 5.0: unbeatable performance value.

To me a pretty ****** car with only a good engine isn't a great performance deal. They kept up with 5.0's or beat them, especially as the years went on and some are capable of running with LT1's. (I've know a few L98 dudes that have beat LT1's both being stock) Thats good to me and you get more performance in other areas. Yeah M*****gs are cheaper, and their gonna be. The dudes with 5.0's around here are always fixing something on the cars, even the engine. And the AOD's, forget about it. I've seen a few that have had their chassis destroyed and the body panels bent from around 10 sec. runs, even when they have reinforcements. They don't even have T-Tops, both cars could definetly use SFC's of course but come on. Thirds seem to run through anything you choose to put them through (and I've seen them be put through ALOT) and last for years and thousands and thousands of miles. And the engines are SBC's, which are reliable. The L98 Z28's and IROC's were a good value because they did so many things so good and weren't just another cheap F**d. :) ;) You gotta pay for a better car, TQ, looks, bigger engines with more potential, a nice rumble instead of a hollow sound, better overall performace, and an Auto trans that isn't complete **** and has good gearing.

Don't you know there's no point of arguing. The 3rd Generation F-bodies were the best looking, best value, most powerful and best overall F-bodies ever. Nothing else in the auto world even today holds a candle to them. You are stupid for thinking differently.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:rolleyes: ;)

Theres another.

I like how some wanna compare the Chevy 305 used in top F-Bodies for the 1st 5 years of the Third Gen to the F**d 302 which is more like a 350 with less ci. (actually its more close to the Chevy 302 in design) The 305 isn't really near any of them. The 302 was used for alot more years and put into any model. Of course it was faster until the 350 came back. The 350 5.7 is GM's performance engine, not the 305. The 305 was an emmissions engine with a little power. The 5.0 to F**d was kinda how the 350 was to Chevrolet. Both 5.0's are so different in specs that they just aren't even equal. The 305 wasn't a real performing car until the later 80's and early 90's 305 TPI 5-Speed G92's. And they still lost to 350's and 5.0's that knew what they were doing or that weren't heavily optioned.

But then again, engine choice is good. :) Gotta keep in mind that some don't want the fastest model.

Z284 you have a 305 correct??

Originally posted by Z28Wilson
Don't you know there's no point of arguing. The 3rd Generation F-bodies were the best looking, best value, most powerful and best overall F-bodies ever. Nothing else in the auto world even today holds a candle to them. You are stupid for thinking differently.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:rolleyes: ;)

ROFL!!! :cool:

Sorry this is late, but I have been fighting power outages from an ice storm for 5 days...

Originally posted by IZ28
The best performing years for the 5.0 were 87 and 88 but the L98 got better year by year. When Speed Density was introduced to the M*****g, people that bought them actually went back to MAF because it made better power.

IZ28, I gotta interject here. Not flaming or anything, cause I may have mis-read your statement, but I think you got it bass-ackwards... Speed-density was available first (in '86), then MAF came along later (in '89).

I think it can be categorically shown that the best "performance years" for the fox body were '89 thru '93. This is due to the introduction of the Mass-Air system and minor tweaks to the timing and valvetrain. The evidence is in the SSP sales figures and the actual 5.0 production figures for those years.

Ford had a typical 4 bbl carb on the '84, a TBI unit on a carb in '85, and went to full EFI in '86 using a speed-density system. There is NO DIFFERENCE between the '86 to '88 model engines in general. The speed-density EFI system is not flexible at all - it requires feeback from some 13 different sensors and calculates A/F ratio for injector timing at a slow rate. The opportunity for just 1 of 13 sensors to give erroneous readings is pretty good, and often lead to these cars idling rough, running rich or lean, or having the EEC-IV computer retard your timing too much - none of which would "kill" your performance, but could leave you at a "less-than-optimal" condition.

In late '88, California started getting Mass-Air equipped 5.0 SSP's. The reviews were great. In '89, the rest of the world got these cars. Mass-air reduced the number of active sensor from @13 down to @3, thereby reducing the number of possibly erroneous feeback signals, and increasing computation frequency. There is the actual mass-air sensor in the inlet tube, and the O2 sensors in the exhaust - that's about it as far as the computer is concerned. This made the system more flexible, meaning you could do light mods without needing to reflash the EPROM, and the cars could adjust to the environment better too, as in air-temp fluctuations, fuel octane, altitude, humidity, etc. Therefore, these cars just simply "performed" better and did so more consistently, whether you drove it in Anchorage, Denver, or Daytona Beach.

The MAF system, along with going to full blown roller valvetrains was key to the 5.0 living a long and healthy life. Roller tappets, roller rockers, and the availability of either B303 or E303 cams from Ford gave the "stock 5.0" either gobs of torque between 750 and 3000 rpm for AOD cars, or good torque with more free-revving HP for the Borg-Warner 5-spd cars.

The '89 is the most sought-after of the fox-bods. It offered the mass-air, but did not have the hinderance of air-bags - which is undefeatable in the EEC-IV BTW. The air bags were wired into the engine control system such that the computer is defunct unless a funtional air bag system is plugged in. For the '90-later cars, a computer swap to the '89 computer (or aftermarket) is required to defeat the air bag system - desireable for dedicated off-road applications like drag strip or road racing where stock equipment is required.

In closing I will say this, I have seen F3s beat fox-bods. I have also seen fox-bods beat F3s. Was any of them stock? I dunno. Was the L98 really a "car for the masses"? cost? weight? I don't take anything away from the Camaros - I LOVE the look of the F3 IROC cars with the door-letters, T-tops, alloys, rear spoiler, and louvers - the car just looks awesome IMO. Lord knows they handled like they were on rails, and some of them would definitely run. But likewise, don't bang too hard on the late versions of the fox-body Mustang. If the truth was known, the hard hits from those '89-'91 LX 5.0's is very likely what got the LT1 OK'd to go in your Camaros @ '92-'93. ;)
That's how the game is played between these two legends... it's called "one-upsmanship"!

Well at least that's how it used to be played anyways... :(

Peace,
Proud :cool:

Originally posted by guionM
I lived and worked with 5.0 Mustangs for 11 years.

They warped brakes yearly, the front struts needed constant adjusting to avoid wearing out the front tire edges, before Ford went to one piece seals, they wore out around 120K miles, the power brake booster went out around 100K, and they could get squirrelly on turns that weren't glass smooth. But the engine & drive train were flawless, never ever overheated (very important when consistantly running high speed in SoCal's 110 degree summers), they were very fast and very fun to drive. And until Chevrolet brought back the 350 in Camaros, 5.0 Mustangs did outrun pretty much every same year Z28 or IROC.

Camaros tended to overheat under the same conditions (why CHP stuck with SS Mustangs). The 350 in the final 3rd gen Z28s do have more torque than the LS1, and did outrun 5.0s, but it took 48 more cubic inches to do it, and at the time, 5.0s got better fuel economy. ;)

Well said. You pretty much covered all the bases there guionM.
All I could add is that I would have happily paid another $100 for the car if Ford had used some STEEL for the center console armrest and ashtray doors! Every friggin one of the armrest top latches and ashtray doors are broken by now - cheesy plastic chit!

As for fuel economy... My '89 LX 5.0 hatch has 178k miles and STILL gets 27-28 MPG with the AOD. My '91 SSP has a 5-spd and gets 30-31 MPG consistently. I run 87 octane in both - always. While these 5.0's don't compare to the LT1/LS1 in horsepower, it does hold pretty well for economy. Gotta give it to GM in the HP/economy category for the last 10 years... 28-30 MPG with 320+ HP is pretty d@mn good. Guys from the '60's and especially the '70's would have creamed their shorts for those numbers!

Yes I confused up the wording of what I meant to say there doh. 5.0's had alot of changes and they are difficult to keep up with especially for a Camaro guy, but a M*****g dude I talked to says 87-88 5.0's are the fastest stock because of the more aggressive speed density engine management while 89-93's went to mass air to allow for ease of adding mods like heads and cam and didn't put out as much power as before stock. This is why I said 87-88 were their best years. He admits L98's beat them more and more as the years went on too. They do have around 30-45 less TQ and 10-15 less HP than the 350 TPI's but F-Bodies weigh a little more. The thing is most 5.0 owners mod their cars, and then call them stock. They think gears, converter, pulleys, intake, chip, ram air, shift kit, and slicks means the car is stock because they've never changed cam or heads.

Originally posted by IZ28
Yes I confused up the wording of what I meant to say there doh. 5.0's had alot of changes and they are difficult to keep up with especially for a Camaro guy, but a M*****g dude I talked to says 87-88 5.0's are the fastest stock because of the more aggressive speed density engine management while 89-93's went to mass air to allow for ease of adding mods like heads and cam and didn't put out as much power as before stock. This is why I said 87-88 were their best years. He admits L98's beat them more and more as the years went on too. They do have around 30-45 less TQ and 10-15 less HP than the 350 TPI's but F-Bidies weigh a little more. The thing is most 5.0 owners mod their cars, and then call them stock. They think gears, converter, pulleys, intake, chip, ram air, shift kit, and slicks means the car is stock because they've never changed cam or heads.

Hey, good enough. :D
Maybe he knows something I don't, but I have seen just the opposite in my experiences. For speed density cars, the ambient air temp sensor can screw the pooch, the hygrometer is sensitive to damp air near dusk, and even more screwy when it's foggy or raining, and the air density sensors get dust on the leading edge and start running you a little lean because they are seeing "low" air density, etc.

The speed density system can also throw itself into a catch 22 when it's real cold... they get a little sooty because the computer is running the car too rich due to cold air temp and cold water temp, then because they are sooty and not reading correctly, the computer decides the exhaust is oxygen-poor and runs you too lean, but the air is still cold so now you are deprived of fuel and need more throttle to get the same amount of work out of the engine, so you mash the pedal down and the Throttle Position Sensor tells the computer to "give more gas", putting you back into the rich side again... and catch 22. This little game still goes on in my '86 EFI when it's cold out - like freezing or below. It lasts until the water temp comes up to speed and helps override the ambient air temp sensor. I spent hours and $ trying to figure out why it would sputter when just off idle in the cold... finally tied on a flying analyzer for a road test and watched the chaos of signals from all the sensors. My tech buddies said "live with it", so I did.

I failed to mention the "factory tuner" issue too. I think we all realize that there are freaks from the factory on both sides. I've seen them both. Everybody seems to recall the 5.0 LX doing 0-60 in 6.2 or 6.3... well in all honesty there were MANY 5.0 M5 cars that were very capable of 6.0 or less from 0-60, not just the occasional tuner. And almost all SSP cars (due to them being the lighter sedans?) were sub 6.0 second cars with no engine mods at all. Go here (http://www.sspmustang.org/FAQ.htm) and look at the first line of the second paragraph. I also have a link (at home, not w/ me) to an actual California Highway Patrol unit test sheet on a '90 SSP that was clocked repeatedly at 0-60 in 5.7 seconds --- loaded with gear! Totally unmodded car - warranties mean something to state accountants!

I do agree with you - many people think dropping taller gears and pulleys and a K&N in their car means it's still "stock" because they haven't altered the engine itself, but that's really not true or fair. Kinda like you are saying, if it's stock, it should be 100% stock. If you even enter the term "mods"... the sky is the limit.

Oh well, thanks for the good chat! Now back to the thread topic...
the "new" Muskrat... ;)

Proud

Yup. :D L98 1LE's and B4C's are known to put out some wacky numbers too at times. Some regular L98's also. I guess it just depends which 1 u get. If they were all 1 of the "few" that are better than the others then we'd be having more fun. :D

Anyway, like before, IMO F**d needs to do more work on this new M*****g before it is released and quick.

Originally posted by ProudPony
I failed to mention the "factory tuner" issue too. I think we all realize that there are freaks from the factory on both sides. I've seen them both. Everybody seems to recall the 5.0 LX doing 0-60 in 6.2 or 6.3... well in all honesty there were MANY 5.0 M5 cars that were very capable of 6.0 or less from 0-60, not just the occasional tuner. And almost all SSP cars (due to them being the lighter sedans?) were sub 6.0 second cars with no engine mods at all. Go here (http://www.sspmustang.org/FAQ.htm) and look at the first line of the second paragraph. I also have a link (at home, not w/ me) to an actual California Highway Patrol unit test sheet on a '90 SSP that was clocked repeatedly at 0-60 in 5.7 seconds --- loaded with gear! Totally unmodded car - warranties mean something to state accountants!


I don't remember factory stock C4 Vettes doing 0-60 in under 5.7 seconds, at least not until the LT1. The Mustang 5.0 was the musclecar of the late 80s, hands down. I just hope the 2005 Mustang is as good a performance value.

Tell that to Camaro L98 owners and TTA owners. :) ;)

5.0's were the cheap musclecar of the 80's, that happened to have a pretty good performing engine.

For all you guys who missed out on the 80s & don't understand the hype of the 5.0 Mustangs, go to http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Midfield/7269/vs.html for a year to year comparison or http://camaro.crolink.cz/ruzne/hotrodmag/1986irocvsmustang.php
or http://members.shaw.ca/JeffZ28/cvsm2.htm . 3 separate sources, similar theme. The Mustang was simply a performance steal.

Just to hit the highlights, Mustang LX, especially the 5.0 coupes (lighter than the GT's) were in fact cheaper & faster than the Z28..... especially after the 5.0's 87 power upgrade. IROC 350s came with an automatic only it's first couple of years. It wasn't till Chevy gave up, and brought back the 350, that Camaros were able to keep up....but you had to pay for it. Not just in fuel economy either.

Bottom line was you could spend the money and get a Camaro 350 IROC (roughly the same in price and stature as the SS is today) or you could get an LX , and you'd save more than enough money (easily $2-3000...they were below 10 grand till about 1990) to add a trick or 2 that would easily take down a 350 and still have time for a coke.

BTW, the 85 5.0 had a Holley 4 barrel (final year for them). The TBI was only on the automatics. The 85s are also the only 5.0s to have roller lifters, headers, the 4 barrel, and the Y pipes all together, so they are something of a collector's item.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by guionM
IROC 350s came with an automatic only it's first couple of years. It wasn't till Chevy gave up, and brought back the 350, that Camaros were able to keep up....but you had to pay for it. Not just in fuel economy either.

Bottom line was you could spend the money and get a Camaro 350 IROC (roughly the same in price and stature as the SS is today) or you could get an LX , and you'd save more than enough money (easily $2-3000...they were below 10 grand till about 1990) to add a trick or 2 that would easily take down a 350.

L98 F-Bodies only came with Autos unfortunatly for those who like to shift, not only in 87, but 87-92. I would have liked to see a stock for stock brand new L98 5-Speed and 5.0 5-Speed race. ;) If some of the Autos were winning and were making more power, the manual might have been even better. When the T-5 305 TPI and G92 were combined in the later years, they were able to get around .4-.5 tenths better than the Auto 305 TPI's. 5.0's might get better MPG, but to say 16/26 isn't good for an 80's 350 EFI would be stupid.

Originally posted by IZ28
[QUOTE]Originally posted by guionM
[B]
L98 F-Bodies only came with Autos unfortunatly for those who like to shift, not only in 87, but 87-92. I would have liked to see a stock for stock brand new L98 5-Speed and 5.0 5-Speed race. ;) If some of the Autos were winning and were making more power, the manual might have been even better.

The L98 put out too much torque for a 5-speed gearbox like the Borg-Warner T-5. That's precisely why the C4 Vette used the Doug Nash 4+3 and the 6-speed later on.

I know. I'm just saying if there was a manual option I don't think we would be discussing some of the things we are.

Originally posted by guionM
For all you guys who missed out on the 80s & don't understand the hype of the 5.0 Mustangs, go to http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Midfield/7269/vs.html for a year to year comparison or http://camaro.crolink.cz/ruzne/hotrodmag/1986irocvsmustang.php or http://members.shaw.ca/JeffZ28/cvsm2.htm. 3 separate sources, similar theme.

Guess what though, those numbers on those 2 sites are incredibly inaccurate to both cars by alot. I wouldn't rely on them at all. I've seen better tests and better results at the track myself. That article isn't comparing an L98 to the 5.0 either.

Originally posted by IZ28

Z284 you have a 305 correct??

That's correct, mine is an LB9/M5.

Here's another point I'd like to bring up. Cars like mine...a G92 LB9, M5, N10 exhaust and 3.45 gear were roughly comparable with 5.0 Mustangs. Essentially the same displacement, same transmission, etc.

Depending on production variations and driver, a car equipped like mine would do high 14s to low 15s....a 5.0 Mustang would be a solid high 14. Acceleration wise....they had performance parity.

The thing was that Mustang 5.0s just felt alot faster. Chalk it up to a freer revving bore/stroke ratio or whatever....but when you mashed the gas pedal, those things would just go...like they had no flywheel or something.

Im going to wait to see it in person before passing any real judgement... but I thought when I saw the sketches that it looked bad ass, but seeing those pics, it looks just like ass.... the car looks too thick, from top to bottom.. the back end looks too large too... I dont know... I just dont like it. But when some official pics come out, we will see.

Originally posted by guionM
For all you guys who missed out on the 80s & don't understand the hype of the 5.0 Mustangs, go to http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Midfield/7269/vs.html for a year to year comparison or http://camaro.crolink.cz/ruzne/hotrodmag/1986irocvsmustang.php
or http://members.shaw.ca/JeffZ28/cvsm2.htm . 3 separate sources, similar theme. The Mustang was simply a performance steal.


Nice links guionM. I especially liked the comparo-article HotRod did on the two cars in '85.
Did anybody catch the one-liner at the bottom of page 2 in that article?
On this page (http://camaro.crolink.cz/ruzne/show.php?href=hotrodmag/1986irocvsmustang2.jpg&alt=1986+Chevrolet+IROC+Camaro+Z28+vs.+Ford+Mustan g+5.0L+GT+/+2) near the bottom of the first column, HotRod Magazine confidently claims that both the Mustang and Camaro will go to FWD in 1989/90!

Quote - "Both of these cars should be around through '89, when they will make the plunge to all-new front-wheel-drive cars."

For our readers who are not old enough to remember those "wonderful":rolleyes: days of the mid-eighties, FWD WAS EVERYTHING. Lee Iacocca took over an ailing (almost broke) Chrysler Corp. in 1980, and brought them back from the brink of death to being very profitable, almost solely on the premise of boxy, economical cars that were somewhat roomy, reliable:rolleyes: , and FWD. The new-for '82 K-cars (http://www.allpar.com/eek/k/k.html) (Aries and Reliant - also see Lutz' comment on the K-cars on this page) were actually great sales hits, but FWD was the real deal. This was a "buzz-word" that people related (wrongly, IMO) to some "new-technology" in automobiles. An advertised "big benefit" was improved traction in slick conditions - like this would mean something to northerners?!?! :D
(BTW - Iacocca exited Chrysler in '92 with the company making resounding profits, and about to introduce it's next newest automotive breakthrough technology - the "cab-forward design". This auto-fad was also a big hit for them in through the early '90s. Today we critique overhang on the F4s and new Mustang proto, and we credit BMW with their "front-wheel-at-the-bumper designs, but much of this hype is direct fallout from the cab-forward designs of Chrysler in the early '90's. The Chrysler Concorde, Dodge Intrepid and Eagle Vision all came out in '92 with revolutionary cab-forward design.)

Anyhow, I can remember all the bally-hoo about FWD back then, and I recall the rumor mills claiming Camaro and Mustang would be FWD cars - in fact, the cost analysis for Mustang's conversion to FWD was alot of what got Ford looking to simply sell-off the model to Mazda to be built on one of their FWD platforms. Thank heavens Ford listened to the buyers and left it RWD and V8 powered! I can't speak for the history of the F-bods, but would love to know what made GM hold-off on converting the Camaro to FWD? It seems like GM went headstrong forward with converting everything else to FWD, as did Chrysler, Ford, Nissan, and most others offering any kind of I4 or V6-powered midsized coupes in the late '80s thru the '90's.

As we've all said before in here, the RWD car (especially V8-powered w/ Sticks) are rare in the states these days - that article offers just a slight reflection of why we are seeing what we are these days. :eek: And that article is 17 years old!!! :eek:

Chrysler's Turbo intercooled FWD Daytona was (for a FWD 80's car) hella quick. It was a good car for Chrysler, but even though it was competitive in acceleration, the real action was at Ford and Chevrolet dealers.

Z28, you are right about Mustangs seeming pretty explosive off the line. As much as the engine, I think it was the cars light weight. My 85 LX weight less than 3200lbs and the 92 & 93's I drove couldn't have been any more (all were special service coupes). Off the line the whole car vibrated like it was blasting off, so that probally added to the effect of feeling like you were in a rocket.

You're also right in that those things revved very easily. Without aftermarket help they couldn't stop very well, but they could sure go.

Originally posted by Z284ever
That's correct, mine is an LB9/M5.

Here's another point I'd like to bring up. Cars like mine...a G92 LB9, M5, N10 exhaust and 3.45 gear were roughly comparable with 5.0 Mustangs. Essentially the same displacement, same transmission, etc.

Depending on production variations and driver, a car equipped like mine would do high 14s to low 15s....a 5.0 Mustang would be a solid high 14. Acceleration wise....they had performance parity.

The thing was that Mustang 5.0s just felt alot faster. Chalk it up to a freer revving bore/stroke ratio or whatever....but when you mashed the gas pedal, those things would just go...like they had no flywheel or something.

I feel that way about the L98. :) :D You really can't compare the 305 to the 302 though, they are 2 different things.