IZ28

Well, theres a post to disregard.

Z284ever

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.

IZ28

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.

redzed

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.

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.

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.

IZ28

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.

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.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

IZ28

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??

Darth Xed

ROFL!!!

ProudPony

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

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

ProudPony

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!

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-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.

ProudPony

Hey, good enough.
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 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

IZ28

Yup. 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.

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

redzed

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.

IZ28

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.