I see people refer to the Mustang as a "compromised" car all the time around here. I guess I wonder what exactly everyone means...sometimes it seems like the Mustang is made out to be a minivan with a running horse...

I see them as different means of accomplishing the same goal with their own strengths and weaknesses. So without turning this into some kind of Us Vs. Them thread , help me out here...

Seating - It does have a higher seating position. While it does affect the center of gravity, I don't think sitting a little higher has a significant impact. Does this affect percieved performance more than actual performance? Is the seating height similar in the GTO? Other cars considered great handlers?

Front Suspension - It uses front struts instead of the SLA setup on the F-Body. Typically this is an inferior setup, but BMW has been getting accolades for handling with cars using struts, so how much of a compromise is it?

Rear suspension - Not sure exactly how it compares. Both are solid axle, so in my mind, both are a similar 'compromise' in performance (not drag racing) applications.

Weight - Significantly lighter in most iterations. (The 2003 Cobra is rather portly, however). The Mustang drives like a far lighter car - feels more nimble and tossable at slower, real world speeds (but the ultimate handling limits are lower).

Size - Similar wheelbase with far shorter overhangs. Slightly smaller interior in a far smaller exterior. I don't get the same sense of "wasted mass" that I got with the Camaro. Being able to see the expanse of hood and hood scoop (yes, it's "Scam Air" - Fake) reminds me of older Muscle Cars, which is made possible by the seating, and angle of the hood. The doors are shorter than the Camaro and the stepover is smaller, which helps getting in and out.

Aerodynamics/Appearance - While not as sleek, I don't think the differences are as great as the appearance. I don't know how the numbers compare - just that the Camaro is not nearly as slick as it looks. The scoops (even if they are fake) do in my eyes give the car a more muscular look than say, an LS1 base Z28. Of course, looks are subjective and the Camaro Z28 is sleeker looking, if more plain.

Engine - More clear here. Not underpowered, but needs more gusto. Clearly outgunned in most cases. The Mach1 is a going to be around for a couple of years, so there is help here. The Camaro 6-speed trans is more for economy than performance, but it does work wonderfully and I do miss that extra gear.

In my own opinion, I see several "compromises" in owning a Camaro, many of which do not actually make it a better performing car, but may have had a significant impact on sales - something to consider in designing a successful 5th Gen. I owned a Camaro and I liked it a lot , but I see parts that could turn off people who weren't hell bent on performance.


My perceptions may be a little off kilter, since the Bullitt is supposed to handle much better than the GT, has a few more ponies, is lowered, has better seats and smoothed out styling... I've never driven a GT so I don't know how significant the differences are.

 

I understand your point, but then again saying front struts on a Stang are fine because BMW is successful using them is a reach...I think you and I will both agree there's a difference between a BMW and a Mustang.

I'm glad you brought up fake scoops. For all the moaning that the Trans Am/WS6 looks "overdone" I think the Mustang GT is equally as gaudy with a large fake hood scoop and large fake brake cooling ducts. Why not make those brake ducts behind the doors functional? It'd be much less tacky and how much more expensive could it really be to do?

I'm not a Mustang hater or anything but the one area I've always seen as being a bit of a compromise was the GT's horsepower. It's very tame, for people who want the panache of having a V8 but in reality is no more powerful than today's stout V6's. Sure it's a winning formula as far as sales go but purely from an enthusiast's standpoint it is sacrificing performance for sales. It would have been much worse if there is no upcoming Mach 1...the jump from 260 HP to 390 HP and an extra 10-15 thousand is too much for the person who wants more than what the GT delivers but doesn't have the cash to buy a Cobra. Mach 1 is positioned very well both in horsepower and price and I think it will be a good seller.

 

Most of your "distinctions" fall down to a matter of opinion. For me, a Z28 was the equivilent of a Corvette with all of the right compromises. I needed cargo space and extra ground clearance -and the fact the Z28 was about half the price didn't hurt either.

As far as "compromises," I've been able to drive a Cadillac DeVille far harder than a Mustang GT on one particular winding road. The general untidiness of Mustang's chassis and steering is something I find disconcerting.

On the other hand, an SS Camaro is so easy to drive quickly, and the limits so high, that I actually enjoy the extra "drama" provided by my Z28. Throw in the comfort and economy of open-road cruising, and the Z28 is a car without any driving "compromises," at least in my opinion.

 

I believe someone started using the word "compromised" and then started applying their own opinions to what was compromised. Here are my some of my views
On engine output: I was going through my Motor Trend archives and I was reading the issue that introduced the new '94 Mustang and it stated that Ford engineers surveyed Mustang owners on what they wanted changed and what they wanted improved. Most owners stated that they were happy with the current prowertrain and its power output. So Ford stuck with a virtually unchanged powertrain for '94 new Mustang. But the new car was heavier and wasn't quite as fast as the outgoing Mustang.
However the new '93 Camaro was already out for a year with its 275hp LT-1. I don't understand what took Ford so long to react to obvious power differences in their rival. And then when Ford finally boosted output to 260hp the F-bodies were using the underrated 305hp LS1. It seems Ford was always a step behind, but Mustangs were selling good so I guess it didn't matter to them.
When the '94 Mustang came out I thought it was horrible looking, to soft. It looked like a touring car instead of a muscle car. Ford has done a good job with the changes and updates to the Mustang I like how the new ones look now, Even though the fake scoops are a turn off.
I am a "GM enthusiast" and probably will always be even though we are going through some dark times.
This post is my opinion and only covers a small area. I don't feel the word Mustang was "compromised" is appropiate for what the Mustang is.

 

Basically, Ford was cought flatfooted by the LT1. The SN95 was a little heavier than the Fox bodied Mustang, and it's lowered hood line required a more restrictive intake on the 5.0 motor. Both of these hurt performance.

But this is what really set Ford behind. Eventhough rampant rumors about an LT1 Z/28 had been circulating for a couple of years before '93...... Ford just DID NOT believe that GM would actually go and put a Vette motor in the Camaro without watering it down.

By the time the LT1was released....it was too late for Ford to alter it's Mustang drivetrain plan.


It was a simple miscalculation that would take several years to overcome.

 

I think it may have to do with the power output. The Ls-1's are just brutal. The cobra's were always good but the Lt-1's and Ls-1's were putting a hurting on the 5.0 and 4.6 Sohc GT's. People perceived the mustang to be more "tame" hence more compromised (powerwise).

Then there's some points that you have mentioned; more upright seating, not as steep windshield that allowed for better visibility, etc..

It's more of a peoples car and people took that as being more compromised. The f-bods were people cars too (till halfway through the 4th gen)and i doubt people here look at them as being compromised.

I think it all waters down to your own definition of "compromised". I certainly don't think my 94 GT falls under that category. A look at the gas mileage figures, the small back seats, and the fact that i can't drive it half the year here in MN among other things can attest to that.

 

Do you really believe this sort of stuff? Are you serious when you post it? We all have our opinions, but that's a pretty wild one.

Got a question....how "watered down" was the L98 in the F-body compared to the L98 in the Vette? Once you have that answer, kindly compare how "watered down" the LT1 in the F-body was compared to the LT1 in the Vette. Let's see if there was much difference.

Ford originally intended to have the 4.6 ready for the 94 Mustang, but it wasn't, and didn't show up for 2 more years (for better or for worse).

The only thing that might have "surprised" Ford was how good the LS1 ended up being. Had there been no LS1, there likely would have been no blown 4.6 in the new Cobra. That, of course, is only speculation on my part.

BTW...all street cars are compromises. Some more than others.

 

I don't think the Mustang is compromised. It's a performance car, and that means your not going to have some of the features found on other vehicles. As far as comparing it to the F-bod's, the F-bods had the upper hand until 2002, when they ceased to exist and Ford bumped the Cobra to 390 hp.

 

This came directly from a Ford representative, discussing the SN95/F4 horsepower gap, during an interview in the mid-nineties.

The L98 offered in the 3rd gen F-body (more accurately called B2L) had a number of differences to it's Corvette brother. It had a slightly milder cam,more restrictive exhaust and iron heads (as opposed to the Vettes aluminum). Most importantly however was the fact that no manual tranny was offered with this motor in the F-car. On the contrary the F-bod LT1 was the same as the C4's, initially...the only difference being exhaust. I believe in '94 or '95 the F-car LT1 reverted to 2 bolt mains while the Corvette retained 4 bolt mains.

Any other questions?


[/B][/QUOTE]

 

Couple of tidbits I want to bring up here.

1st, the 1993 LT1 wasn't much faster than the L98 Z28 from the year before. In fact, the L98 had more torque and the 3rd gen was slightly lighter than the '93 Z28 LT1. The LT1's strength was it came with a 6 speed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the L98 come with an automatic only?

2nd, throughout the 90s, Ford's Mustang was playing catchup with the F-bodies in the performance race. However, the roles were reversed in the 1980s (except 1981). Every single year, from 1982 till the 1992, 5 speed Mustangs were laying down the hurt to 5 speed Camaros. The mandatory automatic w/ the L98 Camaros (again correct me if you find something that says otherwise), weren't any faster than the 5.0 Mustangs till the final couple of years of the 3rd gen, and then just barely. The 94 Mustang was heavier with the same engine, and 4.6 engine a few years later was slower still.

As far as Mustang being "compromised", although it's purely a matter of opinion, this class of cars is historically compromised. The 1st & 2nd gens were based on Novas. Old Mustangs were Falcon then Maverick based. Chryslers pony cars had alot in common with both it's compacts then it's midsized cars.

In the 3rd gen, GM chose to start off with the Monza/Vega set up & develop a unique chassis from there, where Ford chose to take a lightweight chassis (just as all pony cars have traditionally done) and make a sporty car out of it.

So while it can be opinioned that Mustang is a "compromised" car, the same person who says that must also admit that the f-body (3rd & 4th gen), while purpose built, is definately NOT sticking with it's tradition, and also must admit that Camaro has lost it's way from it's original purpose and layout.

 

Z284ever,

You have my backup. I've read the same stuff somewhere, and remember that It did come from within Ford Motor Company.


One of the things I found amusing was that once the LT1 came out, a lot of Mustang owners had this "enjoy your two years at the top. Just wait till we get our OHC" mentality. Then Ford came out with the '96 mod motor and the GT's got slower and the Cobras were trounced by the Ram-Air F-bods. Ouch.

Still, the Mustang is a hell of a performance car for the money. Especially in the last couple of years.

 

Correct. The 350 could not be had with a manual, only the 305 (and yes, the 305 was available in Z28 form). The special Heritage edition was slated to have a ZF M6, but remember it got axed. And I'm not sure about the available gearing, but I'm sure it didn't help the Zs performance any.

 

Yessir.

Which "Ford Representative"? What interview? Where can this be verified? Simply put - I think it is made up bologna, and will continue to think so until you provide something other than what you posted. No offense.

Ok. What was the rated HP of each?

Ok, but what does that have to do with the engines?

Once again, kindly provided the ratings for each. Or, failing that, representative dyno numbers would be even better.

Thanks.

Funny, I never heard that. Guess I just didn't listen to the right people, huh? In fact, back when the LT1 came out in the F-body (1993), I don't remember any talk in "Ford circles" about the coming of the 4.6 SOHC cars. I sure don't remember it on the internet - which was a bare fraction of what it is now. I also have plenty of magazines from that era, and don't remember it there, either.

So just where did all these Ford owners talk about this back in 1993? Bars?

LOL. Ya. What was the best that your stock LT1 ever ran? My stock 98 went 13.6 @ 104 at Atco in 1999. What about you? Funny, I hardly remember being "owned".

guionM...nice post, as usual. I always look forward to reading what you have to say.

 

Can't remember his name off the top of my head...but I believe it was an interview in "FFand MM magazine". If I have an extra 2-3 hours, I'll dig through my old magazines.


Depending on year and options....Camaro-220-240hp...Corvette-230-250hp.




It has to do with acceleration.



Initially...'93 Z/28-275 hp '93 Corvette-300hp.

You're Welcome!






. [/B][/QUOTE]

 

"Just wait till we get our OHC" 4.6's? Lol, stangers were screaming for the 351 pushrod and were dissapointed and some angered with the introduction of the 4.6L. Initially, the die-hard stangers were not looking forward to a smaller displacement OHC so i doubt many had this "wait till we get out OHC" mentality. Infact, go to Stangnet and post a poll on which they'd like better in the current and upcoming mustang; a 4.6L OHC or a 5.8L pushrod. Votes would come out in favor of the 5.8L.

Yes, the GT's got slower and were a joke next to the Lt-1's, but i don't agree with the Ram-Air f-bods 'trouncing" the 4.6L Dohc Cobra's. That is a myth. They were equal with both of them capable of high 13's.