Maybe we ought to seperate some some facts from perceptions.

FACTS:

While both Mustang and Camaro have old outdated chassis'...the Camaro's is better. The F-car's SLA front suspension is thoeretically better than the Mustang's Macpherson struts.

The Camaro's torque arm with panhard rod live rear axle works better than the Mustang's 4 link rear axle.

From my perspective, the GENIII cam in block engine seems to be a much more elegant solution than Ford's Mod motor.

As far as I can tell that just about sums it up regarding facts. Point to any of those and tell me..."that's why Camaro is less compromised"....and you'll get a sympathetic ear.


PERCEPTIONS:

For the life of me....I cannot understand how people say: Camaro has greater mass, greater overall length, greater overhangs, less visibilty.....therefore, it is a less compromised performance car.

THAT IS JUST SILLY....there is no other way to put it.

It's one thing to have a subjective preference for the styling of one car or another.....but to say that performance sapping features (both for the car and driver), somehow make your car more performance oriented and "less compromised" is ridiculous!


That's my story and I'm stickn' to it.

 

PS

Did everyone stop watching the Super Bowl or something?

 

Odd how Ford waited till the F-body was outta production to make them. It would have been much easier and cheaper for GM to slap an LS6 in an F-body then it was for Ford to make the new Supercharged Cobra

 

you didn't answer your question formula79.

 

not everyone cares about performance,handling,if they did there wouldnt be a 6 cyl car or the standard suspension,1le and ss upgrades...what everyone doesnt like about the camaro the mustang has over it the isnt any squeeks or rattles in a mustang it has a trunk not a hatchback,not being able to see the hood and all the glass with all that said the mustang kinda slides its way into a sports sedan class w/o the extra 2 doors

 

Let's not get carried away with wishful thinking. You and everyone else would have liked to see an Ls-6 under the hood of an f-bod. However, you know very well that the chances of an Ls-6 showing up in a 4th gen SS or z28 would be next to none. After the lack of investment on GM's part on the 4th gens; you think they'd actually consider an ls-6 for a car they didn't even plan on keeping in production? not likely.

What does the cost of the S/c 4.6L have to do with this? .

 

I commend everyone for keeping this thread from an "us v. them" smackdown. The facts have been laid out pretty well and with decent accuracy. Kudos to all.

Now, please allow me to interject a subject that is missing from the engine/power discussion here...
I know this is hard for the average car guy - especially the performance enthusist - to swallow, but you must understand something...
For years (and even now to a point) Ford did not necessarily want to be on top in the power game with it's factory offerings - period .

We (here in this forum) have made our own set of impromptu rules in this comparo we're doing, and I feel that one of these rules is to compare "factory-available equipment" to "factory-available equipment". This is a good rule in general, and keeps things on a level playing field. But the Mustang wasn't managed or developed with this rule in mind - as maybe the Camaro was. Allow me to elaborate because there seems to be confusion about why Ford "allowed(?)" GM to run amuck over the Mustang with the LT1/LS1 engine packages. In my own words... it was actually a very unique strategy that ended up paying BIG dividends. It's like this... would you rather win a battle or two, or would you rather win the WAR?

Ford took a unique approach to the Mustang back in the mid-80's - largely when it went to EFI. The idea was to offer a "good" performer, at a very economical price, and with appeal to the masses. Noting it's heritage for drag racing and Trans-Am racing, the performance model was going to be designed as a base platform from which to START building whatever kind of car the owner wanted it to end up being. In other words, "sell a base performance unit to a guy, and let him personalize it to fit his needs INSTEAD of 'the factory trying to offer him exactly what they think he wants".

Ford concentrated on offering a potent 5.0 HO with a bullet-proof bottom and internals, a good 5-spd and traction-lok unit capable of taking some pounding. The basic 5.0 and even the later 4.6's are a BREEZE to work on - imagine a car designed to be worked on/modded - hood space, inner fender clearance, radiator to fan clearance, etc. Ford ALSO developed the SVO division (now SVT) and began selling factory-developed and race-team proven parts for the 5.0 set-up. You could get everything from 5.0 race-blocks with higher nickel content, to roller tappet/rocker kits, to custom cams, to oil pans with windage trays, to high-volume oil pumps, etc. etc. - all from FORD, GUARANTEED TO FIT, bolt-on and perform for your 5.0. They went into the 5-spd with beefier bearings, clutch kits, etc. They offered over 9 different ring & pinion sets for the 7.5" and 8.8" rears. They offered suspension mods. You name it.

Ford then went so far as to support aftermarket companies like Holley, Edelbrock, and others in developing parts for the 5.0 - unheard of before then. Ford went on to support groups like Roush, Saleen, Kenny Brown, Steeda, and others in developing "tuner" cars to go beyond the factory offering of performance, satisfying those who "wanted more than the basic 5.0", but didn't want to turn their own wrenches to get it.
Afer all, why add the extra cost/complexity to the manufacturing line of adding all the unique HiPo parts?!?!
It would make all model iterations absorb more line/tooling costs, add cost/complexity to assembly management/supplies, and most buyers didn't want it anyhow. It was a unique idea, really.

It has taken some time, but the mod-motor has finally started catching on performance-wise. You don't jump from an engine that has 27 years of production (302 from 1968-1995) and aftermarket development, into a brand new from the ground-up design without losing some ground in the aftermarket. And BTW, that was the biggest cry-and-pout subject I recall over the intro of the 4.6 . "If I buy a '96 GT with the 4.6, I won't have any bolt-on goodies for it..." was THE comment heard in 1996.

So people, please understand this... the Camaro had the upper hand from the fatory by design - both of Ford and GM. GM wanted the faster production car - and they got it (to be sure! )- thereby winning that "battle". Ford wanted a "fast" car, but one that the buyer could take to whatever performance level they wanted - and they got it(to be sure! ) But Ford's committment to the aftermarket and to the backyard mechanic helped them to "win the war", by offering mass appeal and economy to the public AND offering performance to those wanting more.

AND BTW, WHO on this board hasn't modified their cars in any way?!?!
The performance enthusiast usually LOVES to turn wrenches and work on their cars. So by catering to those folks, Ford got the double-whammy. I think it was a gamble that could have killed the Mustang had it not worked out, but as it ended up, bending the rules and picking the right battles to fight won the overall war for the Mustang. So many of you comment on how you like "sleepers" that don't appear fast, but are lethally quick, right? How many of you LT1 drivers have pulled up beside an '89 LX 5.0 and wondered if it was on giggle gas, had a 347 in it, or a Vortech huffing 9psi? Or is it just a plain ol' 5.slow? One way to find out...

Compromised... yes. IMO every car has compromises. The Camaro and Mustang both are chock-full of compromises. But we as individuals - each with certain unique needs - have to weight those needs against what the car can do... and make our decision. Kinda like life, eh?

Proud.

 

There could have easily been an LS6 in an F-body, buch easier than it was for Ford to make the Supercharged Cobra. If the F-body ever got any investment it was in Powertrain which is arguably GM's strong suit. They put the LS1 in the car and they knew it was gonna be cancelled...tehy gave it teh upgraded LS1 in 2000 and they knew it would eb cancelled. GM didn't lay down when it came to F-body performance. An LS6 would almost be bolt in for an F-body and not much more expensive than an LS1. There are one of two reasons for them waiting untill the Fbody was gone to bring out teh Supercharged Cobra..Either they didn't wanna get in a HP war with a superior GM Powetrain, or they were so far behind in engine development that it took them that long

As for the current Cobra, they MSRP $40K now which is much close to Corvette than your average F-body, though some of the final commemorative additions got up there. But just for arguments sake oen could say that Ford had to eliminate alot of the compromises that it made with regular Mustangs to make an all out performance version, such as affordablity, ride quality for better handling, reliability. Not to mention how heavy the Cobra is.

 

I have a question for you...is your car a V6?

 

I would just like to get the facts straight on the L98 horsepower numbers.

The L98 debuted in the '85 vette at 230 hp. In '87 the engine went to a roller cam and HP jumped up 5hp to 235 in the vette, while the engine debuted in the Fbody for the first time that year at 230. In either '88 or '89 the dual cat setup became available in the f-body which then evened it up with the vette at 235hp. In 1990, the L98 went to speed density, ditching the MAF, and that's where the jump to 245 hp came.

Starting in '88 the vette L98s got aluminum heads, which offered no real performance advantage since the ports and chambers were the same. Still there was a weight reduction and a certain few vettes got a 5 hp boost, though the details on that seem to evade me at the moment. So basically it was 245 hp in both cars, with a few vettes having a 250hp designation.

So GM did not significantly underrate the L98 in the Fbodies. Lets remember that the only reason the L98 ever got into the F-bodies was because the 305TPI cars were getting their butts kicked by the '86 GT in terms of acceleration (though the curves were a different game altogether).

But whoever mentioned the automatic only L98 f-bodies were correct. GM claimed the t5 was too weak to handle the L98, which in terms of warranty claims was probably true to an extent. But by not offering the manual tranny with the L98 it made the F-body a couple of tenths slower than the vette, an effective underrating if not an actual one.

Sorry to stray off topic but its important if we're going to debate that we at least start with correct assumptions.

 

The CE T/As had the LS6, they just weren't advertised.

I'm not sure about the SS, but I know the LS6 went into the CEs.

 

How so? I have never heard this...

 

Maybe CE T/A is a little misleading. I know the GMMG cars sold here were equipped like that, I assumed all the CE T/As were so equipped.

 

Not true, the GMMG cars were all dealer prepped. GMMG had a contract with a few dealers (Berger, Earnhardt, etc.) to prepare the cars. The CE cars were stock LS1s from the factory, GMMG had to add the LS6 to those and the ZL1 cars they built.

 

why,yes it is.but still,what does the mach 1 and cobra lack in performance?