|
|
|
|
|
Go back and vote on this image.
|
Picture
Information
|
| URL:
http://riceornot.ricecop.com/?auto=31383 |
|
| Comments: 24 (Read/Post) Favorites: 0 (View) |
Submitted
on: 03-23-2004
|
 View Stats |
Category:
Vehicle Misc |
|
|
Description:
Proof that Camaro > Mustang :D |
Showing page: 1 of 2
[ 1 2 ]
 |
| #2 |
3-23-2004 @ 01:33:37 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
When it comes to performance, Mustangs have been blowing pretty hard for many years now. The 1996 was a new low for them, though...I still don't buy the idea that the 4.6 is superior to the 302.
|
|
| #3 |
3-23-2004 @ 01:40:01 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
Stock-for-stock, the current 4.6 SOHC engines are putting out more power than the 5.0s ever did. The aftermarket, admittedly, hasn't caught up yet and the prices are still up there. Ford has just more-or-less continued their tradition of producing under-tuned stock engines, and they should probably have gone up in displacement rather than down.
|
|
| #4 |
3-23-2004 @ 01:48:43 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#3, Gross vs. Net horsepower ratings are hard to compare, but I'm guessing that Boss 302s made a bit more than 260 horsepower.
And I'm not saying the 4.6 isn't more powerful stock...but the 5 liter was pretty weak stock, too. What made the 5 liter so great, though, was it's potential. Around $1,000 gets a 5 liter Mustang in the 12s (I've figured the cost before based on the specs of real cars), and plenty can be done with the suspension and brakes, too.
|
|
| #5 |
3-23-2004 @ 01:49:02 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#3, Of course, it's possible to get the current 3.8 to make about as much power as a stock GT with the usual bolt-ons and a cam swap, so that should tell you something right there. :-p
|
|
| #6 |
3-23-2004 @ 01:49:41 PM |
| Posted By : ImRaptor |
Reply | Edit | Del |
Mustang may not be as fast, but Ford could give Chevy some lessons how to market to people. Maybe if they had a while ago, the Camaro would still be made today.
|
|
| #7 |
3-23-2004 @ 01:53:46 PM |
| Posted By : ImRaptor |
Reply | Edit | Del |
Not to mention the cost difference between the Mustang GT and the Camaro Z28. They turned the cars into pretty much different levels of cars. For instance, here a new Camaro Z28 cost just over $34,000 while a Mustang GT was about $8000 less. $8000 can buy a pretty nice super charger. Or hell, even a big block swap.
|
|
| #8 |
3-23-2004 @ 01:53:54 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#4, You're picking a rare exemplar of 5.0 performance. I was comparing the 5.0 Fox-bodies, which are exceedingly popular for hotrodding, to the stock 4.6. And yes, the aftermarket is vastly cheaper for the 5.0, especially if you're interested in NA power for the drag strip. Stock, though, the 4.6 sucks no more than the 5.0s they were using throughout the 80s.
As an overall platform goes, I think the SN95s are generally better than their Fox-body ancestors. The chassis is more rigid overall (although admittedly heavier), and they are easier to modify in some aspects (brakes!) since most everything is available for the 5-lug spindles, and most Foxes did not have those.
|
|
| #9 |
3-23-2004 @ 01:55:36 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#6, I think that the falloff of 6-cyl. sales is what killed the Camaro. If you look at the Mustang, as an example, sales numbers remain high because people keep buying the base models. For some reason, the 3.8L F-bodies ceased to be an appealing option to some people.
|
|
| #10 |
3-23-2004 @ 01:58:32 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#8, My mention of the Boss 302 is a response to your saying "the current 4.6 SOHC engines are putting out more power than the 5.0s ever did." I just think the 4.6 is an inferior design...for one thing, I think that the Mustang should retain an OHV engine.
I also belive the SN95 is superior, which is why if I bought a Mustang I'd search out a '94 or a '95 GT. That way, you get the SN95 platform and the 5 liter.
|
|
| #11 |
3-23-2004 @ 01:59:08 PM |
| Posted By : ImRaptor |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#9, And I can't actually think of any real attempt that Chevy made, here anyway, at advertising or trying to see to the public. Where as Ford actualy advertised and pushed the Mustang GT. When is the last time you saw a Camaro ad on TV?
|
|
| #12 |
3-23-2004 @ 02:00:20 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#7, Here Z/28s started for ~$21,000, and went up to around $30,000, depending on the options.
|
|
| #13 |
3-23-2004 @ 02:02:59 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#11, The last one I remember seeing was the one with the two kids identifying the different cars that passed their house by listening to the exhaust notes. And hell, that was in the mid '90s.
|
|
| #14 |
3-23-2004 @ 02:05:52 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#10, I meant "ever" in the context of common, mass-production 5.0s; the Boss 302 in many ways strikes me as an exception (for one thing, the heads were totally different than anything they'd ever used on 5.0s before), so it didn't occur to me.
The 4.6 is basically a case of when bean-counters strike; the whole idea of the modular engine program is to allow common parts to be used through Ford's whole engine family. I'm not entirely sure that it's an inferior design overall, either--they are reputed to be reasonably durable. It will still be a while before the 4.6 aftermarket catches up to the 5.0's, but it is still possible (although expensive) to extract pretty good power from 4.6s with stock-cored heads--an accomplishment, since most 5.0 buildups typically just junk the E7TE heads that most of the 5.0 HOs came with. I'm rather curious how streetable your typical 300hp 5.0 is.
'94-'95, sadly, had the worst of the 5.0 engines in some regards. Cast internals.
|
|
| #15 |
3-23-2004 @ 02:10:54 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#14, I've still heard of people getting good power out of them, though (the '94-'95). In fact, the 12 second Mustang I used to figure the pricing was a '94, IIRC. Then again, I've heard of people getting good power out of the 4.6. I guess in a perfect world, I'd have an earlier 5 liter engine in an SN95. Or just buy an LT1 Camaro for the same money.
I'm rather curious how streetable your typical 300hp 5.0 is.
Ask stang392, he claims his makes close to that.
[Edited by Skid on 3-23-2004 @ 02:14:04 PM]
|
|
| #16 |
3-23-2004 @ 02:13:11 PM |
| Posted By : Lemming |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#15, Yeah, you can still get good power out of the later 5.0s, they just may not be able to take quite as much abuse in the long run.
And he also has commented about its occasional inability to hold an idle.
|
|
| #17 |
3-23-2004 @ 02:16:08 PM |
| Posted By : Skid |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#16, Well the Volvo has trouble holding an idle too, but it isn't "tricked-out". :P
|
|
| #18 |
3-23-2004 @ 02:30:28 PM |
| Posted By : ImRaptor |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#12, Should have specified, prices on the cars I stated are in CDN. $21000USD at the time was about $30000CDN
|
|
| #19 |
3-23-2004 @ 02:50:47 PM |
| Posted By : LordFlux |
Reply | Edit | Del |
#7, I paid $31,170 (tax, tag, title) for my SS with every option the dealership offered me, except 12-disc changer and chrome wheels.
|
Showing page: 1 of 2
[ 1 2 ]
Login to leave a comment
|
|
|
|
|
