I have some old copies of Motor Trend and Road & Track handy.

In the 1998-99 model year, MT tested 5 F-bodies:

M6 Camaro Z28 13.7@102.5
M6 Camaro Z28/SS 13.6@106.5
M6 Firebird Formula 13.8@102.9
M6 TransAm 13.4@107.3
M6 Firehawk (99) 13.6@105.6

Then in 2000 R&T tested two convertibles

M6 WS6 TransAm 14.0@102.8
A4 Camaro Z28 14.0@101.6

Now in 2004, R&T tested the new Mustang
M5 Mustang GT 13.9@101.4

First of all, the MT numbers are pretty variable, especially in trap speed. Secondly, if you just compare the R&T numbers, the 2000 F-bodies were a little faster than the new Mustang, but not a huge amount. Remember that these are all stock cars without a lid, catback, etc.

The Mustang has two advantages. It runs on 87 octane and it (according to the articles) has a smooth idle. I don't care about a slightly lumpy idle, but a lot of people do.

I might rather have an LS2 in my Mustang, but I still think that the new 2005 Mustang sounds like a great car, and I'm glad to see it out there. I hope it sells well.

 

Yet in the very same breath, some will condem the GTO for being slow and lacking the power to be taken seriously. Put up the GTO's numbers, and still we will get "the GTO is slow" and "GM doesnt make the fbodies" so that must mean that Mustang is teh r0x0r!!!111!
The problem is that not many have been able to get a better time then a good mid 13 out of the car, to where the Fbodies could hit low 13's with a good driver, and even break 12's.
Forget 87 octane. I dont buy a sports car for the octane raiting of the car.
Remeber, its not only the Camaro that Ford will have to worry about, but the hemi coupes that will be coming. And unlike GM who has yet to say word-one, DCX's coupes are coming, thats for sure.
How come we dont see any 02 Fbodies so we can have teh most recent performance numbers? There were changes to the fbodies from 99 to 02.

Is the performance of the Mustang good? Yes, better then it used to be. Is it an Fbody killer? Not nearly.
Will the Mustang sell like hot cakes? Not only am I hoping for it, but I am counting on it.

 

AA4 Camaro Z28 14.0@101.6
M5 Mustang GT 13.9@101.4

That’s an auto vert Z28 vs. manual hardtop GT?

I know that a lot of people aren’t just interested in horse power numbers and 1/4 mile times, but that’s still embarrassing. How can a mustang enthusiast be proud of something like that? I know all the girls (or feminine guys) that like mustangs because they are "pretty" don’t mind being slower than somebody in a 7 year old camaro, but if I was a mustang enthusiast I would be pissed. I know if a camaro comes out in 2007 and is only as fast as a 2000 GT, I will be highly upset.

 

Which has nothing to do with my point.

It's nice to save a bit of money. Maybe you don't care. I do.

What does that have to do with this?

Because I was looking for '98 - '99 models. My recollection is that many of them were about the same as the Mustang. There have been statements to the contrary recently.


There was no claim made that it is an Fbody killer. It will make Ford a lot more money than the '01 - '02 Camaro made for GM.

 

This also misses the point.

Relating this to masculinity and femininity is a bit silly. Maybe obsessive or not obsessive.

Oh well, like I can talk, since I started this thread.

 

Oh, I didn't know there was a point to the thread. I just thought you were throwing something out there to discuss. I'll read it again. Ok...Your opinion was that the new mustang is a "great car". I stated my reasons why I don't think it is such a "great car". I don't think I missed the point by that much.

Not trying to start anything. Just defending my mustang bashing post on a camaro board.

 

1. With Mustang's percentage of buyers being men hovering around 55% for all Mustangs and about 65% for all V8s (Cobras run something like 90%), that still means more men bought Mustangs than ALL the people who bought F-bodies by a number that is measure in the 10 thousands place. This blows apart & sinks your "girls and feminine guys are Mustng's only buyers" position.

2. My own experience is that driver ability can throw a stoplight or freeway grand prix if 2 cars are within half a second of each other in the quarter, or 0-60. I have personally both beaten an LS1 Camaro in my LT1 Camaro and been beaten by a Bullit Mustang. Point is that something that close in performance to your car is nothing to sneeze at, and most certainly isn't embarrasing.

3. Mustang buyers are into aftermarket and add ons, not off the showroom performance. There is at least 4 Magazines, 3 famous aftermarket tuners, and no fewer than 10 aftermarket companies that specialize in Mustangs. The new Mustang just won a SEMA award as the most aftermarket friendly car for 2005. This is something Camaro (ESPECIALLY the 4th gen) quite bluntly isn't.


I've owned both Mustangs and Camaros, and by far Mustangs are easier to modify, and personalize. Younger people also are into personalizing and customizing their cars. Sure, most all of them are ricers, but Mustang has been accepted by this group because like those FWD ricers, and performance cars of the past, there is pleny of options available to make your ride as quick or as much of a head turner as you want for relatively modest money.

If the next Camaro doesn't adopt this idea, it's likely to fall into the same fate as the 4th gen. As you may remember, hard core performance enthusiasts alone were not enough to keep Camaro alive.

 

There are more shops for the Gen III motor than Modular Mustangs. The 4th GEN/ GEN III market is stronger than the 5.0 Mustang market was at the same point in time. It took a lot longer for the Mustnag EFI market to blossom but when it did...Well you can see now. Pick a city and then find who has more shops that specialize in mod motors or gen III. The wth Gen camaro with the LSX motors has so many people making parts for it.

 

But they're (Mustangs) doing those times with what, 70 fewer cubes and 30 fewer HP?

We all know the LS1 cars were underrated (some even put at the wheels what they were rated for at the flywheel, from what I understand). So you figure the LS1 was good for 330 at the flywheel, the new Mustang with a smaller engine is rated for 300 HP.

That gives the F-Body a 30 HP advantage (rough guesstimate) and a 1.1L displacement advantage to boot.

I'm sorry, I have to give Ford credit where they deserve it. They're getting good performance out of a car with a ~289 cu in. engine. And it runs on 87 octane to boot, that's like icing on the cake.

 

I agree, the new Mustang is a great performance buy for the $. They did an excellent job.

With what GM has on the shelves, it wouldn't be very difficult at all to make an F-body that'll dust off a GT. Hopefully the packaging will address those 'usability' concerns and the F-body will make a real come back.

 

...And it would have been even better if they'd spent the extra $300/unit for an IRS.

...or another $200-300/unit for stability control.



Sadly, the 5-speed Tremec transmission doesn't have enough torque capacity for all those "F-body dusting" mods the Mustang fans dream of. Out of the box, the 2005 'Stang is a visual stunne but hardly a reason for a F4 LS-1 owner to trade.

 

IRS would have been neat for some, not-so-neat for others.

What is indisputable is that it would have added nearly 100 lbs of weight and slowed the car down even more.

Even more potential fodder.

 

I agree with everything else you said, but I don't think this statistic really proves your point. It says who BOUGHT the car (which I guess technically is what was stated), but it doesn't and can't take into account who the car was bought for, or who drives it. I know the majority of 16y.o. girls don't buy their own cars, and for insurance reasons usually one of their parents names is on the title. So I bet the 55% number is not accurate for who actually drives the car or who the car was bought for. I wouldn't be suprised if the 65% for the V8s and the 90% for the cobras are more accurate percentages when it comes to drivers though.

 

It may be 57.7 less cubic inches inside, but its bigger, heavier, and not any more fuel efficient on the outside. Couple that with the extra parts, extra cost, less torque and less horsepower, and I'm certainly not interested in the direction they took those motors. Bump the compression down, lose a handful of horses but run on 87 if we need to go that route. However, I also greatly dislike the cubes, bore size, block material, 4 bolt head design, piston slap, girly rod bolts, and re-sleeve cost in the LS1, so maybe it just takes alot to impress me.

Atleast Ford has an awesome looking car out selling like hotcakes, and GM has its thumb up its ***. There was a time not too long ago when Camaros could sell like mustangs and win at stoplights, I guess its too hard to envision now. But Saturn sure is cool Ok needed to get that one out I guess, pretty bitter after the latest news about it still not having a chassis, or possibly coming out as a niche car. I dont have time for GM's ****ups anymore, I build better cars cheaper anyway.

 

FWIW, my buddy pulled a 13.67@103.04 in is new GTO the first time out.

Slow?