I have all the old MM&FF's from that era, but I'm not going to go dig it up. If you do find it, just reference the issue and page and I'll go get it.


Thank you for the numbers (though I admit it was a bit of a rhetorical question, as I knew them already). My original point was that the move from the Vette LT1 to the F-body LT1 followed the same essential formula as the move from the Vette L98 to the F-body L98 - as far as HP goes. This was in deference to your statement...

To wit...

Using the numbers you provided, the L98 and LT1 both dropped in rated HP from the Vette to the F-body about 8%. Why they dropped might be different, but the result is the same. I use those numbers to back up my position that your statement above is false, or at least misleading. I will happily retract my position if it can be proven otherwise.

Also, I would ask that if anybody can provide LT1 vs L98 dyno data - from bone stock cars - that might refute this, I'd love to see it. I know what stock LT1's make for RWHP, but I've never seen a stock L98 on the dyno (be it Vette or F-body). Of course, to be relevant, they would both have to be A4's.

Move up to the LS1 era, and things change dramatically. While the ratings are still different, the actual HP is very close to the same.

Referring to the comment about the M6 that came out in 93...

As do a number of other things. However, that wasn't the point of contention.

 

The 'Ford couldn't believe GM would put a Corvette Motor in a Camaro ' quote I believe is in either Automobile magazine or Motor Trend in a first drive article. I'm not about to go into storage to dig it out, and I can't dig it out of Yahoo (wrong phrasing probally), but I remember reading it.

As for the 4.6, when the SN95 came out, it was believed the Lincoln quad cam engine would be the GT's next powerplant, not the sohc version. I remember that because I held out for it, believing it would be on the GT without a price increase.

Instead I bought & now drive a 97 Z28. Guess why!

 

I believe the point of your contention was..... that I made up the part about "Ford not expecting the Camaro to get the LT1".

As for the rest, I have no idea where that comes in.

 

That is not correct. I disagreed with this statement...

GM already had a history of putting the "Vette" engine in the F-body....reference the L98. I'm sure Ford figured that GM would also put the LT1 in the F-body soon after it was introduced. However, like the L98 before it, they likely believed (correctly) that it put out somewhat less power - by your numbers, about 8% for both the L98 and LT1.

 

Just conjecture on my part....so don't make look through my old mags.

There were stories and pictures of 5 liter GENII V8 prototypes running around back then. I'd bet Ford thought the F4 would have a 5.0 version of the LT1.

 

LOL. Ok.

 

Well the Mustang is a compromise much in the same respect as say a Camry. It really isn't the best at everything, but does alot of things well well. It's pretty fast, moderatly roomy for the class, handles well for the class, has looks almost any one could like, and has a price that is low enough almost anyone can afford. Notice, it really isn't the best at anything I mentioned, but it is near the top in it's class at everything.

The Camaro/firebird on the other hand is good at really one thing, performance. It is the fastest best handling car for the buck. It doesn't try to have the most interior space or ergonmics, it's styling is like it or hate it, for it's price class it's expensive (see the almost $25K sticker on my Y87 ). In other words, the F-body's main selling point is it's really fast and caters to the enthusiast (I have never heard someone say they bought one because it rode nice or had a cute interior. The Mustang on the otherhand has many arguments that can be made for buying one because it caters to people who want a "sporty" nice looking car who's priority is anything but all out performance.

Is it bad that the F-body was designed for such a smaller market segemnt...I don't know, but I think the 4th gen could have been much more succesful if GM wanted.

As for the 4.6 up to 98...it pure farce that Ford didn;t up the power ratings on the car from 220HP after GM released the 200HP 3800 Series II V6. I mean it really has to suck worrying about getting the smackdown laid on you in a V8 Mustang by a V6 Camaro..several of which have come close to breaking 14's nearly stock.

 

But now that the Mustang is the fastest, best handling, best looking car in its class, is it less "compromised" ?

 

The mustang was slamming the fbodies early on when the 5.0 went fuel injection over carb. Sure performance in the fbody was far from lacking, but till they started to hit the l98, it was less driveable and had more of a personality.

The L98 was a jump foreward against the 5.0, but still... Then in 93 the lt1 fbody came out which was a great design. Improving on a lot of the problems of the 3rd gens, and then the mustang with it's new design just after had a similar situation - gain in weight, better looks, and some different characteristics. Both desperatly needed to update the looks...

The mustang is a compromise. IS that a bad thing? No. The mustang is something more people will want. A better price. Better ride. Decent performance. Some people dont want the power of the 5.7 Lt1 or Ls1. Some people want a better ride. Some hate the dashboard and windshield. Whatever floats your boat. The mustang was more set for anyone to like, and I think that's what made it do so well. Dont start on some of the details...

The "Shaker" Boss hood. I would think they'd redo the intake to have it RIGHT there for a killer ram air setup. No. It goes through the scoop to a pipe to the front headlight and back again. Stupid Stupid ford.

The engine- Why did they move to SOHC? I see no reason! The 5.0 outperformed it in stock form from 95 up till the newer years when they went DOHC, and even then, I'd take the 5.0 because there is an overwhelming plethera of mods for it. The SOHC and DOHC motors get worse gas milage then the Lt1 or Ls1 OR 5.0, and less power. I think it's a good idea, but poor execution.

The new cobra. 390hp. Great. 16/22mpg and $38,405 msrp.
The 2003 vette. 350hp Ls1. 19/28mpg and $43,895 msrp.

The z06 is $9000 more, sure, but still... I think the milage on the cobra is absolutly unexcusable. But thats my opinion. They could have done a LOT better by sticking the 5.4L truck series engine in there and giving it a little bit of a cam for petes sake.

The Mustang is alive compared to the fbody, sure. It's a compromise, a jack of all trades - master of none. It's kept it alive, and that is important.

Also - I think the fbody interior is better designed, my 95' 140,000 mile car has half the squeaks and rattles of a babied 98' convertible with 44,000... I think aside from that, all of my controls are right in reach, where the mustang you have to reach a little for the HVAC controls, or get the far right buttons on the cd player. Not to mention the footwell is tiny on the driver's side.

I think Ford did a great job designing a car, but they designed it for everyone, women, men, everyone. People that wanted spunk but a nice ride. I want performance and nothing else. So it was a 5.0L mustang or a Camaro.

 

Originally posted by Geoff Chadwick

The mustang is a compromise. IS that a bad thing? No. The mustang is something more people will want. A better price. Better ride. Decent performance. Some people dont want the power of the 5.7 Lt1 or Ls1. Some people want a better ride. Some hate the dashboard and windshield. Whatever floats your boat. The mustang was more set for anyone to like, and I think that's what made it do so well. Dont start on some of the details...

The "Shaker" Boss hood. I would think they'd redo the intake to have it RIGHT there for a killer ram air setup. No. It goes through the scoop to a pipe to the front headlight and back again. Stupid Stupid ford.

Is this any worse than the SS intake path? Air enters the hood near the base of the windshield, makes a 180° turn to the front of the hood and then a few more to get to the intake/air filter.

The engine- Why did they move to SOHC? I see no reason! The 5.0 outperformed it in stock form from 95 up till the newer years when they went DOHC, and even then, I'd take the 5.0 because there is an overwhelming plethera of mods for it. The SOHC and DOHC motors get worse gas milage then the Lt1 or Ls1 OR 5.0, and less power. I think it's a good idea, but poor execution.

The reason was that the 5.0L could not meet future emissions standards. Rather than spend tons of money to make it pass, they decided to develop a new OHC motor. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't most of the reason for the fuel economy difference due to the 6-speed in the F-body and the increase in weight of the SN95 over the FOX?

The Mustang is alive compared to the fbody, sure. It's a compromise, a jack of all trades - master of none. It's kept it alive, and that is important.

Hypothetically speaking, if I assumed the rear seats of an F-body were unusuable and considered it a two seat car, would it be a "compromised" car compared to the corvette?

It was slower, heavier, didn't handle as well, was higher, roomier, less expensive and at least in the earlier years, was sold to far more people. It was also designed to be more appealing to women. Would it be a Compromise car? Would it be a jack of all trades, master of none?

 

Too true. The 98+ were better in that regard in the fbodies. But Ford could have done a much better job. The main reason the Lt1's ram air was so bad is that the intake was on the front of the engine, where the 4.6L has the intake on the side. They could have, at the least, used less piping. It is a longer intake then the SS by quite a bit.

The 6spd with it's CAGS was the reason. In that sense, if you took a t56 and dropped 3rd gear, you'd get the same result in a 5spd. They dont want you using 2 and 3. So drop 3rd and get a cags to do 1 to the new 3rd gear that was 4th.

The weight is an issue. But the 95's 5.0 was rated at 17/25 and the 96 4.6 was rated 17/24 from the numbers I saw. A smaller displacement engine should get higher milage for most normal streetable N/A new cars. Also SOHC and DOHC motors are naturally more efficient then pushrods when done correctly. Ford must have not done something right. The Lt1 and Ls1 have met emissions, but consistantly got higher gas milage AND more power while doing it. Ford sacked power, displacement, and went to a naturally more efficient valvetrain design, and got less milage. Logic says something went wrong in the design.

Actually, in a sense, yes it would. However you could use the same arguement to compare a million cars. The idea was to compare cars in the price range. Mustangs and Camaros were always in the came price range, but the camaro in recent times excelled at performance- not comfort.

The cobra I compare to the vette because the cobra is creeping into the vette's price range.

Also, must not forget, the Camaro in earlier years at times WAS faster then the vette with certain options. It may not have handled well, but I remember reading some numbers that despite Chevy's attempts to keep the vette always faster, they failed. And when a Lt1 Fbody ran against an Lt1 vette, the price compared to performance and handling was an odd situation. The vette outhandled and outperformed, but not by much...

You're a mustang owner, and you prefer your mustang. I prefer my Camaro. Technically both cars are a compromise, but if you look at it, the SN95 Mustangs stats are pretty level across the board, and that was it's strength. It had a bit of everything. The camaro would be a compromise compared to the vette, but I personally consider the idea of comparing two cars with a $20,000 price difference or nearly twice that of one cars value a bit excessive..

Compared to it's competitor, the mustang, the 4th gen Camaro is NOT well rounded, and we all know it. I'd rather go on a long trip in my fiancee's mustang then my camaro, and I've done both. It's more comfortable in the long haul. But for more power, we take my car.

 

The first car I bought on my own (without parental help) was a new 1995 purple Z28. I had fallen in love with the looks and just had to have one. I paid $23800 and got T-Tops, upgraded speakers, CD player, etc. I drove it for 3 years and had a few annoying mechanical problems: starter coil went bad in the first year, distributor bad in the 3rd year, constantly had fogs light dying, and the compressor was starting to make an annoying noise. Despite these problems, I loved the car but felt I needed to trade it off for something new since I used it as a daily driver and needed something reliable.

I traded it for a new '99 Mercury Cougar. Cool little car, but wrecked it one winter while trying to get to work (amazing how I drove the Camaro for 3 years in ice and snow and never wrecked it yet somehow fly off the road in a FWD car ). Anyway, you know how it is, after a wreck a car is never the same. Paint job was horrible so I decided to trade the Cougar off for something else.

At this point, I had really missed the power of the Camaro. So I started looking at them again. I price a few out and with similar options as my 95 they were $26/27k now (in 2000)!. I saw a used SS at a dealership and decided to take it for a test drive. I was amazed at how uncomfortable it was. I couldn't see the hood, couldn't see well out the back, was sitting way low in the seat and the car felt like it weighed a million tons. Having driven the Cougar for that 1-1/2 years, I had totally forgotten the annoying qualities of the Camaro.

I then decided to take a look at the Mustangs. I test drove a GT and really enjoyed it. It had a great sound, I sat upright and could see all around me, and had plenty of power. I bought one new for $22,800 fully loaded. Several thousand less than a Z28.

The point of this story is, if GM wants to bring back the Camaro and Firebird they will HAVE to make them more amiable to the daily driver. 99% percent of all buyers are NOT racing their cars on a track. I think most people who are in the market for these sort of vehicles just want a RWD V8 with good power, nice exhaust note, attractive styling, fun to drive and not a mechanical nightmare. Like it or not, the Mustang fits that bill to a "T" which cannot be said of the Camaro and Firebird.

Hopefully the Camaro and Firebird will resurface later this decade but in order for them to be successful they will need to be more Mustang-like.

I miss my Camaro still and I'm praying that GM will bring them back. I am not a "GM vs. Ford" guy. I'm more of American vs. Import. I absolutely despise Honda, Toyota, etc. and this whole "ricer" vehicle fad that's going on right now. I'm all for more American RWD V8 muscle-cars on the market.

 

A bold claim, unless you want to rely on the technicality of which cars are still in production. Quicker most likely goes to the new Cobra (except of course on hot summer days ). Best handling? Are you ignoring the Nissan 350Z and Infiniti G35 coupe? Best looking... well in my opinion the FBody has it beat.

 

formula79, so how would this apply to the current Cobra and Mach 1? What do they lack in performance?

And the cobra isn't closer to the vette's price as someone put it. Just look at what a fully loaded SS or Ws6 T/A costs since the Cobra comes fully loaded. You'd find them similar.

 

The irony here is that the new Mustang is becoming more Camaro-like. Visibility will likely be worse, HP going up, and if it is anything like the concept, it will also have low seating and poor headroom. While I like the looks, I wonder how it will fare in the marketplace if it turns out to be too 'Camaro-like'