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/M...d/7269/vs.html for a year to year comparison or http://camaro.crolink.cz/ruzne/hotro...cvsmustang.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.

IZ28

[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.

redzed

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IZ28
[B]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.

IZ28

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.

IZ28

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.

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.

ReznorZ28

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 ***, but seeing those pics, it looks just like ***.... 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.

ProudPony

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 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" 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 , and FWD. The new-for '82 K-cars (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?!?!
(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. And that article is 17 years old!!!

guionM

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.

IZ28

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