I personally was never a fan of F-bodies. I dunno why really, just never liked them. Not the old ones, and not the new ones. I would take a comparable (year/generation) Mustang over an F-body any day. Maybe it's because the Mustang was always set up right: just enough of everything to make an excellent car. F-bodies have always been faster, but Mustangs have better balance.
Call me the antichrist, but I don't play the brand loyalty card. I like what I like, and that's it. My one friend has a 1990 Mustang GT and a 97 Cobra convertible, and my other friend had a 1998 firebird and before that an 88 camaro with a 350 (he now has a 1994 Mustang GT - ironic, huh?). I've ridden in all of them, and I've always liked the Mustangs more.
personal taste is cool,I fig. that if you're goin gto get a muscle car, get the fastest you can.
I like the Dodge Magnums with the V8 Hemi (can't wait till Dodge goes nuts with the SRT-10
), but if I could I'd own a GTO right now... Just not in the cards for now.
<a href="http://www.canada.ca"><img src="http://img63.exs.cx/img63/6743/ca.gif" alt="Canada.ca" border="0"></a> <a href="http://www.truthout.org">All the News that's not fit to broadcast at CNN, FOX, NBC, ABC or CBS</a>
<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/kmikl/personal_pic.jpg">
I've been reading a lot lately of the negative effects of smoking, drinking,
overeating, and casual sex... I have decided to give up reading.
Brown eye wrote:I personally was never a fan of F-bodies. I dunno why really, just never liked them. Not the old ones, and not the new ones. I would take a comparable (year/generation) Mustang over an F-body any day. Maybe it's because the Mustang was always set up right: just enough of everything to make an excellent car. F-bodies have always been faster, but Mustangs have better balance.
Call me the antichrist, but I don't play the brand loyalty card. I like what I like, and that's it. My one friend has a 1990 Mustang GT and a 97 Cobra convertible, and my other friend had a 1998 firebird and before that an 88 camaro with a 350 (he now has a 1994 Mustang GT - ironic, huh?). I've ridden in all of them, and I've always liked the Mustangs more.
I like both cars. I have owned 3 F-bodies over the years and I enjoyed them for different reasons. I have only owned 2 Mustangs in that period, but have had my current one since 1997. The Mustangs are easier to modify due to the aftermarket and better electronics and rear, the F-body in recent years got the benefit of the Corvette and made leaps and bounds in the drivetrain and were generally fun vehicles even with their quirks. I do miss the t-tops on nice days.
EastCoastBeast II wrote:better electronics???
Um.....ok...?
The EEC IV is the most adaptable computer that was made by either GM or Ford, and that is a fact. There have been people run well into the 8's with stock EEC IV electronics on a Fox body Mustang.
sappyL61 wrote:scott9050 wrote:EastCoastBeast II wrote:better electronics???
Um.....ok...?
The EEC IV is the most adaptable computer that was made by either GM or Ford, and that is a fact. There have been people run well into the 8's with stock EEC IV electronics on a Fox body Mustang.
doesnt mean its better
Actually it does, and it is widely accepted in the industry that it is better. If you do not know the facts I will not try to educate you on something that has been known for a number of years. I simply do not have the time or energy to argue with children.
Quote:
The EEC architecture is widely accepted as the best mass produced engine management system around.
http://www.eec-tuner.com/faqs.htm
Quote:
The GM MAF engine management computer isn’t as adaptable as Ford’s. Although it will accept larger MAFs, you can’t go up and down more than one injector size with reflashing the computer.
http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/24549/
Do a search on the corral in the EEC tech forum. There is a ton of information and resources on the 1989-1993 Ford EEC-IV architecture and why it is better and more adaptable than the electronics of the F-body.
The EEC-IV is one of the most adaptable and plentiful electronics systems out there, along with the '80's Chrysler FWD electronics, but it' s just plain, ugly!!!
I know that that doesn't matter, but the GM and Chrysler electronics have always looked more neatly oragnized and better thought out. But as far as adaptability, the EEC-IV is still superior.
As far as cars, Camaro vs. Mustang, I LOVE the new Mustang, as well as any from 64.5-73. (especially the 67-70) Any Mustang from 74-04 unless it's a 77 King Cobra, or an 03 Mach-1, or an LX 5.0 notchback, forget it. They're ugly, and the Fox-body chassis doesn't impress me much. BUT, I've always loved the F-body's. 67-73 Camaro, 74-81 FB/TA, 82-92 either one, and 93-02 either one. I remeber when alot of people were upset when the Camaro went to the Chrysler LHS headlights in 1998, and I was among them, but now I like them even better, because that means an LS1 may be lurking under the hood.
Currently #4 in Ecotec Forced Induction horsepower ratings. 505.8 WHP 414WTQ!!!
Currently 3rd quickest Ecotec on the .org - 10.949 @ 131.50 MPH!!!
my uncle steve owns a speed shop in houston(houston performance) he says that the mustang ecu's are a little more hit or miss as opposed to the ecu the ls1's use
.. so ..meh
oh, he's a mustang nut....but he has respect for the ls1's
Ok... so eek4 is more adaptable.... one small(big) problem... its less REliable... which, to some of us, is more importent. To top that off with fords blatent attempt to make cars return to the dealer with cryptic naming stratgies, nonsensical wiring patterns, and overall unreliablity. EEK-V, thats a much more respectable system... but 4 is just ewwww...
Don't believe me? Ask someone trained to work on fords, trust me. I have 3 Ford-FACT/ASE Ford Certified instructors at my school, and I've worked on the electronics plenty myself... they suck in general comparison to any other system, GM, Honda, VW, Nissan, name it. It was fords largest freakin flaw in the early-mid 90's...
Heres a question for you... what do you do if you are driving down the road and the car turns off? Pull your spare ignition control unit out of the glovebox and plug it in. EEK-IV superior? Blah.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe Im just pissed, pissed that my freinds are spineless, What else would you
call abandoment some night, when you're in a fight, and they could make things right?
Spineless. I miss some of my old friends, the ones who you could count on,
bet a huge amount on, the fact that they'd always have your back... Its like a kick in
the sack, just knowing, you've got nothing to fall back on. @!#$ this, Im done.
scott9050 wrote:sappyL61 wrote:scott9050 wrote:EastCoastBeast II wrote:better electronics???
Um.....ok...?
The EEC IV is the most adaptable computer that was made by either GM or Ford, and that is a fact. There have been people run well into the 8's with stock EEC IV electronics on a Fox body Mustang.
doesnt mean its better
Actually it does, and it is widely accepted in the industry that it is better. If you do not know the facts I will not try to educate you on something that has been known for a number of years. I simply do not have the time or energy to argue with children.
That comment wasn't child like at all now was it?
sappyL61 wrote:my bad about the time on the z28
my friend had a ragged out one that ran 14's
so ford has a 300hp v8 gm has 400,500hp v8s now
05gtos are faster than the 05 mustang also
only reason they arent reflashed yet is because companies are working on the ls2 computer
i can guarantee you, if ford made 7l v8's for the mustang, it would make just as much or more power than chevy's. 7l is just retarded to make 500hp.....
Again, ford has to use 3 valve heads, dohc or sohc motors to compete with GM's "out-dated" push rod tech. How come ford truck engins can't out do GM "out-dated" push rod tech. ford has always been known to offer it seems like 20 or 30 differents engins and GM can still build more power. Fact. As for sh@tstain over Camaro, I would take any Camaro, any day.
I swear, as loud as you are, you should be doing at least 200 mph.
Oh and one more thing, the "base model v-8 Camaro still has more hp & tq than a new gt and they have been dead for 3 years now. ford is still playing catchup.
I swear, as loud as you are, you should be doing at least 200 mph.
02z24sc wrote:Again, ford has to use 3 valve heads, dohc or sohc motors to compete with GM's "out-dated" push rod tech.
There is no "had" to it. Ford simply went with a different family of engines while GM decided to update their pushrod lineup. Ford also managed to make within 15 hp of the new LS-2 with the 5.4 back in 2000. They also have a 400 hp 5.0 modular for sale in the FRPP catalog with less displacement than the lineup of GM engines. Which GM engine makes 400 hp with 5.0 liters of displacement or less again?
Quote:
How come ford truck engins can't out do GM "out-dated" push rod tech.
Ford manages to be the leader in truck sales year after year. How come GM has managed to be in 3rd place as far as most powerful Pickup each year? With the supercharged Harley Davidson model coming out again GM is again relegated to 3rd place behind Dodge and Ford. Their response was the patheticically underpowered and heavy Silverado SS, a total failure sales and power wise.
Quote:
ford has always been known to offer it seems like 20 or 30 differents engins and GM can still build more power.
Since when has there been 30 different engines in a model lineup? Which car does GM have that out powers the 550 HP GT (underrated)? You said GM has more power, right? And what excuses will you have with the 465+ HP Cobra?
Quote:
Fact.
Only in your mind.
Quote:
As for sh@tstain over Camaro, I would take any Camaro, any day.
That is certainly your choice, but you are in the minority as if you weren't you would still have a car on the showroom floor.
02z24sc wrote:Oh and one more thing, the "base model v-8 Camaro still has more hp & tq than a new gt and they have been dead for 3 years now. ford is still playing catchup.
The 00 Cobra R had 385 hp Naturally aspirated. Which Camaro was that which was stronger again? Oh wait, there wasn't one. A weak attempt to discredit the modular engine family and the new GT. I guess it's a good thing that millions of people do not agree
with you. So how much horsepower does the '05 Camaro have? Of wait, you haven't had a new car in 3 years. Looks like Ford won both the horsepower battle and the war. By the way, there was only one model of V-8 in the F-twins versus 3 for the Mustang. Ford is definetly not playing "catchup" they passed the mark 5 years ago. This is the same ricer syndrome I heard when the '03 Cobra came out, the GT being used as a basis of comparison for the LS-1 and a cry of "foul" when the Cobra was compared. It matters not at all if the base model GT is not as fast as LS-1 owners think it should be because the car is newer, it would be akin to me telling you that your supercharged Cavalier sucks because my 15 year old AOD Mustang would stomp a mudhole in it's ass for about 1/3 the price you paid for your car. That type of reasoning does not fly well in the real world.
1.a cobra -R is barely a production car...
Care to compare it to the ZL1?....wait, you don't want any of that.....
2. considering the cost, chevy has the vette to compete with the cobra-r..oh, and compete they do... oh, the vette doesn't need a supercharger to make 385 hp either....=)
3. ...if you would like to compare the new mustangs to something, compare them to the GTO's...oh wait, they don't really compare as the GTO eats the new stangs alive!!!
You said GM has more power, right? And what excuses will you have with the 465+ HP Cobra?
See response #1....
stock vs stock, the F-body has been stomping the hell out of mustangs since long before i was born....
Model Year Mustang Camaro
1979 140 170
1980 119 170
1981 120 170
1982 157 165
1983 175 190
1984 175 190
1985 210 215
1986 200 215
1987 225 225
1988 225 230
1989 225 240
1990 225 245
1991 225 245
1992 215 245
1993 235 275
1994 240 275
1995 240 275
1996 305 305
1997 305 305
1998 305 320
1999 320 320
2000 260 320
2001 320 325
2002 260 325
2003 390
These are the highest HP models available for the year
'No Mustang Cobra in '00 or '02
'96-02 Camaros show Z28/SS HP
No Camaro/Firebird after 2002
oh, there's some evidence, if you want it....
ps....ls1 and ls2's have made over 400 hp on just a cam install....
..but yea, ford makes better motors..................somehow....
EastCoastBeast II wrote:1.a cobra -R is barely a production car...
Care to compare it to the ZL1?....wait, you don't want any of that.....
Cobra R was actually offered for production, the ZL-1 was not, end of story.
Quote:
2. considering the cost, chevy has the vette to compete with the cobra-r..oh, and compete they do... oh, the vette doesn't need a supercharger to make 385 hp either....=)
Cobra R was naturally aspirated
price was not the discussed issue, it was said that Ford could not build an engine to compare with any of the current GM offerings which I simply pointed out as not true.
Quote:
3. ...if you would like to compare the new mustangs to something, compare them to the GTO's...oh wait, they don't really compare as the GTO eats the new stangs alive!!!
At a cost of at least 7 grand more I would hope it could outrun a GT. Add a grand to the GT and goodbye Goat though (uh oh, there comes that ricer tendency
)
Quote:
stock vs stock, the F-body has been stomping the hell out of mustangs since long before i was born....
Care to try and back that up? The 1982 Mustang GT (the car that restarted the Horsepower wars) was faster than the F-body, the 175 hp GT in 83 outran the 190 hp version of the F-body, the 5.0 Mustang in 5spd 3.08 LX form was faster than the F-body until 1991 when the F-body finally caught up. In 1993 the Cobra was every bit as fast as the typical LT-1. In 1996 and 1997 the Cobra was again as fast or faster than the F-body (fastest confirmed stock trap speed 106 in mineshaft air, Bob Cosby ran low 13's at 104+). The 00 Cobra R as mentioned trapped 113 with a 385 HP naturally aspirated 5.4, The '01 Cobra could trap 13.3's at 105.5 stock which in the real world was just behind the LS-1's with a non Evan Smith driver and we all know about the '03-'04's. So where is this total domination again? Certainly you can look at the pathetic power output of the GT from 1994-1998, but that is not the issue here either.
The hostility here amazes me as I have owned both cars and as I have owned something like 35 G.M. vehicles over the years, I certainly have no biases, but I will point them out. So far in this thread I have had someone try to argue with me that the EEC-IV computer was not the best mass produced engine management made for adaptability, and with no facts to back up that claim, that every sh!tstang sucks and that the Mustang can not hold a candle in any way, shape or form to the long dead F-body. I have also been told that Ford can not produce an engine that compete with a current G.M. lineup (something I dispelled as the myth it is), and now I am being told "well the GTO will kill it". The whole thing is entirely comical and I do have to thank you guys for a good laugh as you take the internet way too seriously
EastCoastBeast II wrote:Model Year Mustang Camaro
1979 140 170
1980 119 170
1981 120 170
1982 157 165
1983 175 190
1984 175 190
1985 210 215
1986 200 215
1987 225 225
1988 225 230
1989 225 240
1990 225 245
1991 225 245
1992 215 245
1993 235 275
1994 240 275
1995 240 275
1996 305 305
1997 305 305
1998 305 320
1999 320 320
2000 260 320
2001 320 325
2002 260 325
2003 390
These are the highest HP models available for the year
'No Mustang Cobra in '00 or '02
'96-02 Camaros show Z28/SS HP
No Camaro/Firebird after 2002
oh, there's some evidence, if you want it....
ps....ls1 and ls2's have made over 400 hp on just a cam install....
..but yea, ford makes better motors..................somehow....
Too bad several of the nummbers on that sheet are wrong, the 1992 Mustang still made 225 hp and 300 lb/ft torque, the 1993 was downgraded on paper but had tighter sealing hypereutectic pistons and dyno's the same or slightly higher than earlier years. The 235 rating was for the Cobra and it was underrated. Your F-body numbers are off as well such as the 285 hp bump in the LT-1 and the 190 hp rating in the 1986 Firebird line with the peanut cam , but I digress. Ever hear of gearing? Pre 1991 F-twins versus a well geared LX notch of the same year Mustang would lose. 1991 and 1992 was a drivers race. How do I know? I was driving these cars back then, were you?
I would also like for you to point out where I ever said anyone had a better
engine (a motor is electric). I looked and could find nothing of the sort, nor have I ever thought in that way. The 5.0 Modular is making that 400 hp without a cam with less displacement, a point I was making to the gentleman who said Ford could not do it, so please do not try to twist things into something I did not say. I could go on and on all night, but what is the point? The only one I can come up with is that some people are so biased that they are going to make assumptions based on that bias that are totally off base and far from reality. You are certainly entitled to your opinions no matter how off they might be
Ok thats weird no one has mentioned the 2007 Camaro... Why is that? What you dont think it wont come out? Just because they havent came out with one in 3 years doesnt mean they wont. Just wait and see.
*95 Z28 M6* *Free mods* *160 t-stat*New LT1 Crate motor 357*Edelbrock Headers*3" Flowmaster cat back* !CAT
The cobra motor was a hoax when it first came out to compete against the LT-1 Camaro's. Ford lied and then was sued for there BS. Fact is ford constantly over rates there engins and GM underrates. FACT. And that cobra-r was fords answere to the 1st ZO6. And it failed miserably considering the mustang was "street/race car" from ford and the ZO6 was an everyday car. And then GM the next year up the hp. And now it seems like the only way ford can compete is by dohc and supercharging. If they were so good, how come there gas milage sucks, yet a ZO6 gets close to 30mpg. ford can only dream of efficiency. All around engin design goes to GM since the 60's. Oh and yes the ZL-1 was a production car. Just very rare and expensive.
I swear, as loud as you are, you should be doing at least 200 mph.
