http://www.sportscarforums.com/gallery/data/500/medium/rt1988camarovsmustangp1_small.jpghttp://www.sportscarforums.com/gallery/data/500/medium/rt1988camarovsmustangp2_small.jpg
http://www.sportscarforums.com/gallery/data/500/medium/rt1988camarovsmustangp3_small.jpghttp://www.sportscarforums.com/gallery/data/500/medium/rt1988camarovsmustangp4_small.jpg
http://www.sportscarforums.com/gallery/data/500/medium/rt1988camarovsmustangp5_small.jpghttp://www.sportscarforums.com/gallery/data/500/medium/rt1988camarovsmustangp6_small.jpg
http://www.sportscarforums.com/gallery/data/500/medium/rt1988camarovsmustangp7_small.jpghttp://www.sportscarforums.com/gallery/data/500/medium/rt1988camarovsmustangp8_small.jpg
http://www.sportscarforums.com/gallery/data/500/medium/rt1988camarovsmustangp9_small.jpghttp://www.sportscarforums.com/gallery/data/500/medium/rt1988camarovsmustangp10_small.jpg
http://www.sportscarforums.com/gallery/data/500/medium/rt1988camarovsmustangp11_small.jpghttp://www.sportscarforums.com/gallery/data/500/medium/rt1988camarovsmustangp12_small.jpg
http://www.sportscarforums.com/gallery/data/500/medium/rt1988camarovsmustangp13_small.jpghttp://www.sportscarforums.com/gallery/data/500/medium/rt1988camarovsmustangp14_small.jpg
http://www.sportscarforums.com/gallery/data/500/medium/rt1988camarovsmustangp15_small.jpg

you did that all by yourself?? I mean the scanning?? Great job dude On a different note They are some early and mid 80s Corvettes available here in Germany for 3500 euros Looks very tempting may be next yr i will be able to pool up the money what sort advice do you have?

Definitely the Camaro. The Mustang looks so boring and... European. I mean, it looks like 1993 a Sierra.
The camaro looks even cooler than I though. I'm afraid I prefer the looks of this one to the 1969 Camaro! The interior is not as nice as the Mustang though, but I like the trunk/back seat lay out of teh Camaro. If you're crative, you could probably get it registered as a van thanks to that - which reduces the price with god knows how many percent.

Ford doesn't have any 5.0 Litre V8 in its new production car line up right??

The 5.7 L small block Chevy pumps out 355 bhp these days while the 6.0 L pumps out around 400 bhp. What are the corresponding numbers for Ford?

The 5.4 L Ford V8 pushes out 500 bhp in supercharged version while around 360 bhp in NA version right??

The Horse Power gain from 230 bhp to 355 bhp is extremely impressive considering that the push rod V8 had to meet the ever tightening emission norms

Is the 4.6 L in the Mustang GT a DOHC or a push rod??

you did that all by yourself?? I mean the scanning?? Great job dudeI can't take credit for something I didn't do, found them on another forum and thought it would make an interesting comparison for here.

On a different note They are some early and mid 80s Corvettes available here in Germany for 3500 euros Looks very tempting may be next yr i will be able to pool up the money what sort advice do you have?I'd love to make another thread actually, I'll see what I can do.

Definitely the Camaro. The Mustang looks so boring and... European. I mean, it looks like 1993 a Sierra.
The camaro looks even cooler than I though. I'm afraid I prefer the looks of this one to the 1969 Camaro! The interior is not as nice as the Mustang though, but I like the trunk/back seat lay out of teh Camaro. If you're crative, you could probably get it registered as a van thanks to that - which reduces the price with god knows how many percent.I agree that the Camaro takes it on the looks.

Ford doesn't have any 5.0 Litre V8 in its new production car line up right??Not in a production car, but they offer the excellent Cammer crate engine which can be 5.0L, and the 4V 4.6 in the Cobra does well as a 5.0 stroker.

The 5.7 L small block Chevy pumps out 355 bhp these days while the 6.0 L pumps out around 400 bhp. What are the corresponding numbers for Ford?Ford doesn't offer any production gasoline engines above that displacement so it's somewhat hard to make a comparison.

The 5.4 L Ford V8 pushes out 500 bhp in supercharged version while around 360 bhp in NA version right??It gets confusing. Ford offers the naturally aspirated 5.4 in 2V and 3V configurations for the E and F series cars, engines designed for more torque so it's hard to compare to the forced induction 4V engine.


Is the 4.6 L in the Mustang GT a DOHC or a push rod??It's a single overhead cam if I remember correctly, but I'm not Ford engine expert. Slow will tell us if I'm wrong.

What engine did the last F-150 SVT Lightning had? the 5.4 L right?

What engine did the last F-150 SVT Lightning had? the 5.4 L right?Yeah, a 5.4 liter Triton V8 with eight tons of torque!

Lots of problems with that article.

While I admit the IROC-Z (other than being the quintessential mullet car), was a nice ride, it was in no way competitive with the LX in a straight line, which was the big "Hoopla" back in 1988.

The flaw in this article is that the heavier GT with firmer suspension pulls off a superior 1/4 mile time than the LX? Not to mention the speed density cars were slightly quicker than their MAF counterparts.

The LX was capable of high 14 second runs at this time. It seems to me that these individuals dont know how to drive, but I will of course be fair and say the same about the IROC too, I have seen factory, in fact, I have seen worse than factory examples (still stock) pull off better times than those posted.

I'm currently moving and just sat down to take a break, so when I get back I will attempt to bring up some articles to show you guys in great detail why its slightly flawed.

Oh and yes the 4.6 GT engine (1996-2004) is a SOHC 2valve per cylinder engine. The S197 4.6 is a 3 valve SOHC engine.

The mustang just doesn't look that great. IMO it was probably the worst looking mustang ever.

The mustang just doesn't look that great. IMO it was probably the worst looking mustang ever.The 1980 Mustang takes that prize for me, closely followed by the 1985 and 1992. But all cars lookd bad in in tha period of time, but in 2020 they will be totally classic and legendary.

I don't know..the Camaro looks awesom, nad has slightly better numbers, although I'm a Ford guy...



Bah..Camaro it is, it has great performance, styling, and I just like it better than the Stang.

"The camaro's design looks more the result of wind tunnel work" my ass. If the design is based on wind tunnel work, why would the headlights be hidden inside a terrible draggy, uh, hole... duct-thinge?

Accleration wise they appear to be equal, but if you look at the braking, its like comparing a Porsche and a Minivan! Thats why i choose the camaro!

I have to go with the Camaro. The Mustangs of this generation look horrible. The Camaro isn't a princess but its still a major improvement. It also seem that the performance is evenly matched for most of it but the 5.7 compared to the GT has slightly better low down acceleration. The interior looks slightly better to but they seem to be on even ground here too.

I've just check out the price.. didn't check out any of the performance.. I pick IROC-Z. Looks better and more muscular IMO.

There is quite a few of these Iroc's around my area.

They look damn cool, Not my favourite looking Mustang though.


This thread reminds me of that Iroc Z-89 member that Slow continually owned.

I always liked the body style of the iroc z. My dad still drives one, but his is getting a 500hp 383 stroker at the moment. I also really like the camaro injection system. It is very easy to retro fit to a hot rod engine. I am usein one of these injection systems for my 57 chevy pickup project

I have always thought that the fox bodied mustangs looked horrible, and they do not stand up to the destructive tendencies of the mullet crowd. This explains Slow's comment

I always liked the body style of the iroc z. My dad still drives one, but his is getting a 500hp 383 stroker at the moment. I also really like the camaro injection system. It is very easy to retro fit to a hot rod engine. I am usein one of these injection systems for my 57 chevy pickup project

I have always thought that the fox bodied mustangs looked horrible, and they do not stand up to the destructive tendencies of the mullet crowd. This explains Slow's comment

The Mustang and Camaro had very similar drivelines with the exception of the Mustang having a much better rear end (the 8.8"). Both cars are directly proportional to each other as far as wear and tear goes, so I fail to see why the 3rd Gen Fbody would be more tolerant to mullet abuse.

The opinions on appearance are solely based on the individual. The Fox chassis of this year is still far easier to work on than its Fbody counterpart, and the Mustangs weight advantage made it a clear winner over the Camaro. The bulk of Camaros sold were of the RS or Z28 variety and were easy Mustang food, especially the LX 5spd 5.0's.

The thing that cracks me up about that article is the 88 LX 5spds were notoriously faster than other years, easilly seeing mid to high 14's with absolutely nothing done to them. The AOD models were plagued with pathetic shifting, and quite frankly are absolute crap transmissions in factory form, prone to slipping and failure. The HO 5.0 is the exact same in either model, in which the LX has a severe weight advantage
especially when packaged with minimal options. We're looking at 3000lbs even for a 5.0 LX with bare options. With 225hp, and 300ft-lbs. The 2.73 rear gear is absolutely horrible. Ford should have been slapped for that. While it returned 25+mpg (in my 86 GT I had) it drastically affected acceleration hampering the cars real desire to bake the tires through the first two gears.

The 3.27 gear was optimal.

Back in the mid 80's to 90-92, a LOT of Z28 owners would find themselves baffled that at one light they could pull away from and smoke a LX 5.0, remain even with most GT's with the GT slightly pulling ahead, and get absolutely walked away from by a different stock LX.

The 3.27 equipped 5.0 5spd LX's, were kings of the road in their category. The difference is so drastic due to the absolutely crappy way the AOD shifts, and where its shift points are located. The GM counterpart was far superior in that respect meaning the gap between a Auto and Manual Maro/Bird wasnt as noticeable as the Mustangs lineup.

In short a 5spd, bare bones, 3.27 LX is a mid to high 14 second car. I have personally pulled a 14.9@93 in my GT when it was stock. Swapping the rear axle to 3.73's and installing a BBK 70mm Power+ tb, BBK Cold air, and mac cat-back was netting me 14 flats. The gears were the most effective by far.

The appeal of the Mustang to many, at least from my association with owner groups/clubs, is that the Mustang doesnt try to be anything more than a Muscular sedan, yet succeeds at so much more. The FOX to me is one of the most attractive Mustangs ever made based on its very "sleeper" look. The Camaro effectively looks like it was made to hug corners, and be "fast". When you look as "hot" as people thought the Camaro was back in the 80's, and get walked away from hard by a stock sedan, people take notice. To me there is nothing more attractive than a hot street LX Coupe. The Camaro to me looks like it was trying to be more than it really turned out to be regarding the 3rd Gen. Yeah it handled better, I will give it that, but ever so marginally.

Cool comparo anyways Bossesjoe. =D>

Lots of problems with that article.

While I admit the IROC-Z (other than being the quintessential mullet car), was a nice ride, it was in no way competitive with the LX in a straight line, which was the big "Hoopla" back in 1988.

The flaw in this article is that the heavier GT with firmer suspension pulls off a superior 1/4 mile time than the LX? Not to mention the speed density cars were slightly quicker than their MAF counterparts.

The LX was capable of high 14 second runs at this time. It seems to me that these individuals dont know how to drive, but I will of course be fair and say the same about the IROC too, I have seen factory, in fact, I have seen worse than factory examples (still stock) pull off better times than those posted.

I'm currently moving and just sat down to take a break, so when I get back I will attempt to bring up some articles to show you guys in great detail why its slightly flawed.

Oh and yes the 4.6 GT engine (1996-2004) is a SOHC 2valve per cylinder engine. The S197 4.6 is a 3 valve SOHC engine.

If you look at the stats you'll see that the LX had a 4-speed auto and 2.73 rear gears. That's why it was slower than the GT which had the 5-speed and 3.08 rear gears.

Those times for the Mustang are way off. I had a 85 GT (210hp) 5-speed w/3.08 gears that ran 14.8 bone stock.

The fastest 5.0 Mustang was the LX coupe with no options (no AC, PW, PL, CC and base radio). These car would run high 13's, low 14's second 1/4 miles.

The slowest 5.0 Mustang was the heavy ass GT vert with an auto and 2.73 gears with all the options. These cars would run high 15's, low 16's in the quarter.

Every streetracer knew (in the 80's) that if you wanted to win on the street, you got the Mustang LX 5.0L.

The 3.27 equipped 5.0 5spd LX's, were kings of the road in their category. The difference is so drastic due to the absolutely crappy way the AOD shifts, and where its shift points are located. The GM counterpart was far superior in that respect meaning the gap between a Auto and Manual Maro/Bird wasnt as noticeable as the Mustangs lineup.

The 3.27 gears were only available with the 5.0 automatics.

Accleration wise they appear to be equal, but if you look at the braking, its like comparing a Porsche and a Minivan! Thats why i choose the camaro!

That's because the Camaro had 4-wheel disk brakes. The Mustang had the front disk,rear drum setup.

If you look at the stats you'll see that the LX had a 4-speed auto and 2.73 rear gears. That's why it was slower than the GT which had the 5-speed and 3.08 rear gears.

I know that. I was making a point thats its a crappy comparison.


Those times for the Mustang are way off. I had a 85 GT (210hp) 5-speed w/3.08 gears that ran 14.8 bone stock.

Which is approximately right, considering the 85 weighed slightly less a 90 GT, in which I ran 14.9.


The fastest 5.0 Mustang was the LX coupe with no options (no AC, PW, PL, CC and base radio). These car would run high 13's, low 14's second 1/4 miles.

Seen one punch 14.2 but I have never seen one hit a high 13 without slicks or better rubber out back.

The slowest 5.0 Mustang was the heavy ass GT vert with an auto and 2.73 gears with all the options. These cars would run high 15's, low 16's in the quarter.

Not to mention they are easilly the most "floppy" of all Fox's. SC's are a must.


Every streetracer knew (in the 80's) that if you wanted to win on the street, you got the Mustang LX 5.0L.

The 3.27 gears were only available with the 5.0 automatics.

I will have to look into that as I believe all three axle options were available in either manual or auto. Mine came with the 2.73's.

That picture that Slow posted I think looks better then any IROC-Z, especially with the hood. This coming from a Chevy guy is quite a statement.

I don't know to many specifics about these cars, after all I was born in 1988. Personally though my choice would be the Mustang. Not only is it a great sleeper like Slow pointed out, but it has huge potential to be turned into a straight line car. Everyone I know with an IROC-Z all have issues with that car and the cramped engine bay. I still love the IROC, and it's the car to buy if you're planning on autocrossing or something of that nature. Still, the mustang embodies the spirit of a ponycar almost perfectly by being cheap, easily to work on, and fast as anything else in a straight line.

From what Slow has said this sounds like the mag compared the wrong cars. got to go with thee 'stang

Uhh the Camaro looks a ton better than the foxbody

I can honestly say I think the 3rd gen looks horrible.

This is just a classic case of differences of opinion when it comes to looks.

I know...thats why there are different cars. I have a question about the engines in the GT and LX. What is different from those than my 95? Cuz im a little sad that they make more power.

I know...thats why there are different cars. I have a question about the engines in the GT and LX. What is different from those than my 95? Cuz im a little sad that they make more power.

The 95 GT has a host of differences.

Hypereutectic Pistons
Lower Intake manifold to clear lower SN95 hood
Intake elbow
Accessory drive system
Intake Tubing

etc. etc. etc.

It really does go on and on, but not so much as to the internal components other than the pistons. Truthfully your car should be right at the 225hp mark as well regardless of what the factory claim is. I do know that for some reason Ford changed their horsepower rating technique again in that timeframe. Don't sweat it, your car is just a little bit heavier than a fully loaded GT, which is why you're slower. Unless you have mods of course.

I'm afraid I prefer the looks of this one to the 1969 Camaro! You just lost the rest of your credibility! lol


Ford doesn't offer any production gasoline engines above that displacement so it's somewhat hard to make a comparison.
What about the V10?

Every streetracer knew (in the 80's) that if you wanted to win on the street, you got the Mustang LX 5.0L.
How old are you? I was a street racer in the 80's. My car was pretty unbeatable by anything without massive forced induction or a lot of nitrous. And it sure as hell wasn't a Mustang.

What about the V10?I forgot about the 6.8! Then again you can't blame me, the only Ford engines I know well are the ones I got to work on and the 6.8 is all new for 2006.

How old are you? I was a street racer in the 80's. My car was pretty unbeatable by anything without massive forced induction or a lot of nitrous. And it sure as hell wasn't a Mustang.

It sure could have been a Mustang too Monkey. He's talkin factory performance off the lot, the LX was untouchable by the likes of the Fbody. The GN's however were another story, but the GN was more expensive, not made in large numbers, and turbo tweaking wasnt as efficient as it is today.

Come on buddy credit where credit is due. I mean if you were rollin around in a mountain motor Nova or something, I mean come on. Duh nobody could hang with you, but right off the showroom floor the acceleration King in the ponycar class wasnt anything GM made, it was a little Ford LX Coupe.

You have to admit that the 5.0 all of a sudden had this enormous aftermarket.

I mean just because of the Fox 5.0 we have 2 series dedicated to Ford racing, brought on by that specific car.

NMRA and FFW. Pro 5.0 cars with solely Ford based powertrains are hitting the low 6's.

Do Chevy fans have so much love for their vehicles that they have for instance a Chevy Series? I really don't know, I'm just curious.

Nowadays it would be foolish, and ignorant to count out a 5.0 at any event, especially when individuals like Mike Murrillo, and John Urist have street going 8 second fireballs. Thats when you will get walked on, and that would suck if you were in a position to let it hurt your feelings.

Nothing personal at all Monkey, just making a point.

Actually ford has been making V10 trucks for sometime now, I believe late 90's. Like slow said, I think the Fox gen was the most sexiest of them all ;)
IMO nothing looks more hot than an LX with meaty drag welds in the rear and some 15x5 up front;) I think ford stop making pushrod motors.

Come on buddy credit where credit is due.

Do Chevy fans have so much love for their vehicles that they have for instance a Chevy Series? I really don't know, I'm just curious.

You're damn right the 5.0 was a great car. I happen to have more respect for that car than most cars made in the 80's. A dead stock looking LX was nothing to laugh at. My point was made about the fact that 'street racers', real, die hard, build it till it can't be built no more, street racers didn't use the 80's Mustangs as donors until well into the 90's. When the prices of old muscles cars started going up into the stratosphere everyone started grabbing beat up 80's Mustangs and guess what they found out? They're great platforms for tricked out street cars. I never put the Mustang down (even though I hate Fords! lol) except for the fact that I think they ruined the car by retroing it so much. I think the same thing about the new Camaro.

I know that there are Super Chevy Sundays every weekend somewhere in the US. I know that at any drag strip (sanctoned event or not) you'll see at least a 3:1 ratio of Chevy to Ford. Chevy is the preferred car for Super Gas and Super Comp. But remember, a lot of that has to do with the fact that Chevy engines are cheaper to build and repair than Fords.

You're damn right the 5.0 was a great car. I happen to have more respect for that car than most cars made in the 80's. A dead stock looking LX was nothing to laugh at. My point was made about the fact that 'street racers', real, die hard, build it till it can't be built no more, street racers didn't use the 80's Mustangs as donors until well into the 90's. When the prices of old muscles cars started going up into the stratosphere everyone started grabbing beat up 80's Mustangs and guess what they found out? They're great platforms for tricked out street cars. I never put the Mustang down (even though I hate Fords! lol) except for the fact that I think they ruined the car by retroing it so much. I think the same thing about the new Camaro.

I know that there are Super Chevy Sundays every weekend somewhere in the US. I know that at any drag strip (sanctoned event or not) you'll see at least a 3:1 ratio of Chevy to Ford. Chevy is the preferred car for Super Gas and Super Comp. But remember, a lot of that has to do with the fact that Chevy engines are cheaper to build and repair than Fords.

The reason you see more Chevys isnt because of the motor, at least not in my opinion. Its that Chevys made far more great cars. You will see Novas, Chevelles, Camaros, Firebirds, Trans-Ams, Vettes, El Caminos, etc. The lil ol Mustang has to fend for itself typically. That says a lot.

The reason you see more Chevys isnt because of the motor, at least not in my opinion. Its that Chevys made far more great cars. You will see Novas, Chevelles, Camaros, Firebirds, Trans-Ams, Vettes, El Caminos, etc. The lil ol Mustang has to fend for itself typically. That says a lot.
Yes, you're right, the Mustang does have a fight on it's hands but there are a lot mroe Fords that most people forget about... the Fairlane, Comet, Galaxie, Thunderbird. Most of the Chevys that are at the tracks are Camaros, Malibus, and Corvettes. The sad fact though Slow, is that there is simply a larger fan base for GM classic cars than Ford... :( Just be proud that you're part of a proud minority! lol

Yes, you're right, the Mustang does have a fight on it's hands but there are a lot mroe Fords that most people forget about... the Fairlane, Comet, Galaxie, Thunderbird. Most of the Chevys that are at the tracks are Camaros, Malibus, and Corvettes. The sad fact though Slow, is that there is simply a larger fan base for GM classic cars than Ford... :( Just be proud that you're part of a proud minority! lol

Indeed I am, but like i said it is more based on the commonality of classic GM vehicles compared to older Fords at the track, simply because more were made. The thunderbird is a decent car, but nowhere near as performance oriented as the GM cars i listed. I havent seen a fairlane at the track in a LONG time, same with the Galaxie or Falcons. They just dont come out. Torinos are rare as heck to find as well. Whens the last time you saw a Bobcat? They're all awesome cars, but severely outnumbered by the sheer production of GM variants. In fact I see more Mopars than I do any other variation of Ford than the Mustang, which says a LOT right there.

I strongly feel based on what I have experienced personally that there was simply more GM products produced, hence, tons of them left, than the Ford Counterparts.

Phil(Bossesjoe) just do yourself a favor and stay with the Iroc-Z otherwise any parts you try for a the 5.0 I will snatch off of you. Haha this summer I might have spare cash to buy some goodies. I'll have to sit down and shop with you over winter break. Hope your grandpa gets better too.