|
Ford VS Chevy........again?!?
Yeah, I know it's been done more times than most porn starletts, but reading another post made me think of it....so there.
I've said it somewhere in amother post that the Mustang is without a shadow of a doubt the best performing, all around muscle car. Look at what the Mustang has to contend with. Camaro's, Firebird's, Corvette's, Viper's, and now all the imports. All of the "Muscle Cars" produced seem to be compared to the Mustang, or at least designed after it. There is nothing wrong with the aforementioned cars, but come on, give us 'Stangers a break. We just bought them, we didn't make them.(If we did I'm sure the 429 would still be around!) Anyway, later guys. |
Quote:
If you read lots of Fords quotes to magazines, it seems there implying that there a buttload of more power for Ford Vehciles coming up. I'm proud of my Mustang, and my decision to buy it. I feel it is a good quality automobile, while it may not be the fastest thing around, you'd be surprised what they can do stock. And with a little here and there, you'd be really surprised. As for Camaro's and Firebirds, I dont care to much for the Camaro (mainly because of its styling, and I have a genitically encoded attraction to Fords). But I'm sorry to hear that there going the way of the Dinosaur. I really like the FireBird. If the Mustangs werent around, I'd might be driving a red LS-1 Trans-Am, possibly with the WS6 package. I wanna hear and see more about Dodge Charger thats supposed to be out soon. I think its good to see more Domestic Muscle cars making it to the scene. Seems to me like the battle between Ford and Chevy is starting to wind down, its becoming the battle of Domestic Vs Import. Who knows, on the streets at least, it seems that Fords enemy may become an allie in the battle of the Imports. http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/biggrin.gif ------------------ 64 1/2 "D" code Red Mustang Coupe. 289, C4, 3:1 rear gear. Mallory duel point. Ported & Polished 65 heads shaved .01 with 351 windsor valves, 11:1 comp, 1.7:1 sled rockers, blue wolverine lumpy cam, modified autolite 4100 Hipo 4 barrel. GT Apperance pkg. Period white wall tires. And to many others to list 2000 Perf Red Mustang GT. 5spd. BBK Underdrive pulleys, Flotech off-road H pipe. Hurst T-Handle 64 1/2 red 6cyl coupe. Auto. project car. Mods, Rust, rust, and more rust |
I didn't mean to sound that way Merc, it just come out wrong I guess. I totally agree with you about the new 'Stangs. I REALLY wanted to buy the Bullitt, but oh well.
I know that my car isn't the fastest on the streets, but I would race anyone just for the fun of it. Ford, Chevy, Mopar, or any other brand. I would also own a plethora of cars, from all kinds of makes. I have no problems with any of them or the people that own them. Oh crap, I lost my train of thought. Oh well, maybe I'll remember it later. |
I agree with Mercury on most of what he said. I myself am more partial to "ERA" cars. I love old hotrods, love the muscle cars of the 60's and early 70's whether they are gm, ford, or mopar. My personal preference is Ford but that is just because my father always had a ford. The most important thing he impressed upon me was that it didn't matter if it was ford or chevy or anything else as long as it was American made. I have also noticed that the auto scene is turning more into a domestic vs import scene. If I couldn't own a ford I would own a 60's camaro or chevelle. Mmmmmmmm, or a roadrunner.
Anyway, I really hope Ford decides to offer some more horsepower soon. Even if I couldn't afford it, it would be nice to see. |
I was reading a book on Mustangs that i got from the library a couple of days ago, and if you think about it, ford has ALWAYS led performance. From the first race of Ford vs. whatever_gm_guy, Ford won with his 500cid V-twin. Shortly thereafter, ford insisted that his engineers made an affordible V-8, and they delivered, the ford flat head V-8 ruled for decades, and ANY hotrod built worth ANYTHING used one. After that there was the thunderbird during the 50's, which had little competition until the late 50's/early 60's when the Corvette first came out, and it was a piece of sh1t! Then began the era that we all know, in 1964.5 ford released the Mustang, an INSTANT hit. If you look at the competition, specifically the camaro, they are designed after the mustang, hell, the rear of a camaro (guy at my school recently got one, i first saw it from behind and thought it was a stang) it looks JUST like the stang, the tail lights and rear badging. The mustang has run the current era, and killed the camaro up until 94, when GM finally figured out that their business was going down the tubes and juiced up the camaro. Throughout the 90's, the camaro killed the mustang, but GM also makes VERY LITTLE profit off of it, like other cars that they make, and its just a shallow attmept to get buyers. I hope that ford doesn't try to make the mustang much faster, as that would increase the price, and just hold out till the camaro is gone. Even when GM does replace the camaro, they can't keep up this practice of selling cars so cheap and with such disgusting quality.
|
IMHO, the only muscle cars are American made. A muscle car also MUST have 8 cylinders and seat four. Two seaters with lots of power like the Corvette and Viper are sports cars. Imports are just sport compacts.
I'm surprise that no one bit on my comment that V6 Mustangs and Camaros are "real" Mustangs and Camaros. There, I said it again. http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/biggrin.gif |
dinomite, first Corvette was 1953. First T-Bird was 1955.
As a side note, the Chevrolet brothers made their claim to fame racing Model T Fords, LOL. It's true. Rev ------------------ '66 Coupe, 306, 300 HP, C-4, 13.97 e.t., 100.3 mph 1/4 mi. |
Is there a displacement clause in there, or just a power/torque band requirement?
I would like to restart the arguement. Is the Mustang V-8 a musclecar? Here is what I would argue. 1964-1966, No. 1967-1973, Yes, only hipo engines exceeding 302ci. 1974-1978, No. 1979-1984, No. 1985-1986, Only 4bbl/SEFI GT 1987-1993, LX and GT 5.0, exc vert. 1994+ No. My mood fluctuates. I would say any 1987-1993 Fox 5.0 with the T-5, exc. the verts are. I actually thought about making the Cobra II and King Cobra musclecars. For their era, they most certainly were. Why? Cause they are just plain brutes. They don't ride good, they have excellent low end power, really quite brutish, even for their years. That's what makes them so fun! http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/smile.gif |
Hmmm...
Seems my requirement for Musclecar is brutish, excellent low end torque, and power in a 2+2 or 4 seater. |
I HATE TO SEE THE CAMEROS GO. I SURE LIKE KICKING THE S@#T OUT OF A NEW ONE, AND LOOKS ON THERE FACES! IF WE START TO LOOSE THE COMPETITION MAYBE FORD WILL SLOW DOWN ON THE ADVANCES ON THE STANG.
|
All 5.0s are muscle cars. You just threw that except convertible in there to piss me off. :P
------------------ 351W 89 Mustang GT Convertible |
Quote:
When we go cruising with a bunch of stangs, we actually say "hotrodding" which may not be true, but hey there are so few of them we need to keep the terminlogy up there. Besides, Civics go cruising, Mustangs (and other V8 friends) go Hotroding! http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/biggrin.gif ! |
LOL.
The second post by me was the more accurate of the two. I find it extremely difficult to put the 64 1/2 260 V-8 in as a Muscle Car. Even the 289 and 289hipo's. The older 302's as well. They weren't brutish enough. The Mustang II was a lot more than what it gets credit for. Placing it into the Muscle Car category, even with the 302 is too hard for me to do though. They are too close to sporty. Can any one here name the ONLY year the V-8 was not an option in the Mustang? For a bonus, name the two possible engines that year. For even more points, what was the top performance model, and the output of the engine? LOL... If you don't know, it'll make you sick. |
Quote:
'74 mustang II came available with only a 2.3-liter overhead-cam four-cylinder or the 2.8-liter V6. The 140ci/2.3 liter 4cyl. put out 88 hp. The 171ci/2.8L V-6 rated at 105 hp Both for a car that weighed in at around 3,000lbs. In '75 the 302ci/5.0 was added to the lineup and produced a whopping 122 ponies for the "muscle-heads". http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/biggrin.gif The top model was the Mach 1. I have taken the excerpt below from here. "The Mach 1 came with the larger engine, the 2.8L V-6, and a unique lower bodyside treatment with Mach 1 lettering. However, the Rallye package was required to give the Mach 1 the maximum performance potential. The package consisted of the Traction-Lok differential, CR70x13 wide oval radial B/WL tires, extra cooling package, digital quartz clock, the Competition Suspension(heavy-duty front and rear springs, rear stabilizer bar and adjustable shocks), outside color-keyed remote control mirrors, leather-wrapped steering wheel and styled steel wheels/trim rings." A little sidenote; The base 140 ci 2.3L four-cylinder was the first metric American engine and featured a cross-flow single overhead cam cylinder head. http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/biggrin.gif http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/biggrin.gif I hate not knowing something so I had to go look this up just to answer UNITs question. http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/biggrin.gif [This message has been edited by Power (edited 05-30-2001).] [This message has been edited by Power (edited 05-30-2001).] |
Here's what m-w.com has for the definition of:
Main Entry: muscle car Pronunciation: -"kär Function: noun Date: 1969 : any of a group of American-made 2-door sports coupes with powerful engines designed for high-performance driving My 89 GT convertible coupe has a powerful engine, 2-doors and was designed for high-performance driving. I guess Corvettes and Vipers do fit the definition. The important thing is that the official definition excludes imports. ------------------ 351W 89 Mustang GT Convertible |
I think the Shelby GT350 counts as a Muscle car, and its first generation.
I consider my 64 1/2 with a 289 a muscle car, but thats because its been built up. I also conisder the 99+ Mustang GT's and Cobras Muscle Cars. I though muscle car was dependent on the wieght of the car, in relation to the size of the engine and power output. I know the early Mustangs and Camaros werent considered muscle cars back in there day, there classified as pony cars. Muscle cars were cars like the intermidiates. Examples. GTO, Chevelle, Fairlane, Comet, 442, RoadRunners, Chargers. I dont know, Guess we need to think up a formula for considering what a Muscle car is know a days. |
Damn you and your books, Power!
LOL! Anybody else find it extremely sad that Ford continued the name Mach 1 into the first year of the Mustang II? Mach 1 with the 2.8L V-6 @ 105hp. Oh, man. That's horrible. I was pretty sure the 302 V-8 offered from 1975-1978 had 139hp@3200rpm, 248lb/ft@1800rpm. I had one, coupled to the C-4 auto in a 1977 fastback. http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/wink.gif Incidentally, after the 1974 year, the top option was the Cobra II, with an optional 302. Hehe. Seems as though the Mach 1 name was somehow soiled? In 1978 the King Cobra was released, but with no additional power under the hood, it was all show, not much go. Hehe, now. What model year was the 5.0 badge first used on the Mustang? |
Ok, I'm not much a fox guru so I don't know too much about them. I'll have to look up your next question when I get home, Unit. I will edit this post with the answer....for now I will guess 1984. This is just a wild guess, I seem to remember a few thunderbirds tagged with the 5.0 badges around '86-89(unless someone else did it and it wasnt ford).
Ill post the answer when I get home from work. |
First year on the mustang was 82.
But does anyone know what the first year the Capri had the 5.0 badge? |
aiiiiinnnnntttttt....
Wrong. 1982 is not the first year to display the 5.0 badge. http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/wink.gif |
The First 5.0 badge? I thought 79, but I am a nutt case....so I have a 99% chance of being wrong.
what about the 1994+ Cobra's, aren't they Muscle Cars? I know they aren't street beasts, but they do have that awesome lowend punch(with a set of gears). Here's a trivia question for you: How many 1969 Ford Talledega's had 429ci engines? What was the color of the First 'Stang off the line? Answers tomorrow. Later. |
aiiinnnntttttt...
1979 is not the first year for the 5.0 badges on the Mustang. Ah, jeez... that trivia question even makes my head hurt bigwhitecobra hehe I've gotta guess. White, 500. |
Ok, to Units question.
What model year was the 5.0 badge first used on the Mustang? I couldn't find any hard writing to back this up, but I'm going to go with 1983. The first year they re-introduced the convertible is also the first year they put 5.0 badges on the mustang. They also replaced the I6 with the V6. Next to bigwhitecobra questions. How many 1969 Ford Talledega's had 429ci engines? I had a hard time finding this information. I found one thing that stated only 754 '69 Talledega's produced, but another that stated 859 429's were sold. So I can not answer for a fact how many were produced. I'll wait till tomorrow to see what you say. http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/biggrin.gif What was the color of the First 'Stang off the line? I'm going to have to guess on this one as well. I'll go with black. You guys are starting to make me go crazy trying to research this stuff. http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/eek.gif I guess its good for me to know though....although I have no idea why. http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/wink.gif |
What was the color of the First 'Stang off the line?
I'm guessing Baby Blue. |
1983 is.... WRONG! LOL.
I knew this would be a hard *** question. Hehehe. |
I think you got me on that question Unit. I can't find anything anywhere, but I'm starting to wonder if they might have thrown the 5.0 badges on any of the Mustang II's in the mid-late 70's. I'll have to wait and here the answer.
|
I was gonna wait for one more answer, but Power is probably digging through old photo albums right now, hehe.
1978 was the first year to feature the 5.0 badgeing. They were on the 1978 King Cobra Mustang II. It was also labelled on the cowl hood. http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/smile.gif http://www.mustangworks.com/mediacen...ne/78stang.jpg I believe the 5.0 badge on the fender came out in 1979, on both the Mustang, and the Mercury Capri. |
VIN #1 was Whimbledon White and a convertible. VIN #2 was Caspian Blue and a hardtop. There's a dispute as to which one was the first that came off of the assembly line but history books will say Whimbledon White.
------------------ 351W 89 Mustang GT Convertible |
Yeah, I got to thinking about it and thought I had seen it on one of the old mustang II's. I didn't remember for sure and couldn't find anything on it. Oh well, you got me on that one.
|
a muscle car is a car with two doors and a engine that is way to f&ckin big. The best muscle cars, in my opinion, were produced from 1967 to 1972.
My favorite muscle cars in order 1: 1969 BOSS 429 2: 1970 Mach 1 (428, 4-speed, shaker) 3: 1970 Hemi Cuda vert 4: 1970 Chevelle SS 454 5: 1969 Road Runner with a hemi 6: Shelby AC Cobra with 427 7: 1967 GTO 8: 1973 Trans-Am 9: 1971 Boss 351 10: 1978 Trans-Am (can you say Smokey and the Bandit) ------------------ 1990 Dodge Dynasty with 275,000 miles. Mods:chiped paint, CD player. Sucks but it was free. Praying for a stang. The "Guetto Glider" http://cwm.ragesofsanity.com/s/net2/burnout.gif If it ain't broke, you ain't tryin hard enough |
If the 94 to 98 Mustangs aren't muscle cars then what are they?
My 95 has a V8, sounds like a muscle car, has some pretty good punch (compared to "normal" cars), Handles well, but not compared to an import!.... What kind of car do I drive??? ------------------ Driving: 1998 F-150 Far way in Edmonton==> :( 1995 Mustang GT |
The American Heritage dictionary says:
muscle car n. A high-performance automobile, often with flashy, sporty styling. And the 5.0 badge, that was cheap. But i'm pretty sure that it was first on the capri in '79, and on the mustang in 82. |
My first thought was "god.. another chevy vs ford thread!!" but im glad to see everyone is being intelligent http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/smile.gif ~~ My first car was a 64.5 Mustang (ended up being the 176th mustang ever made).. I bought if from a little old couple in the desert. They bought it off the showroom floor, still had the window sticker and paperwork and had never ever sat in the back seat!.. I think i paid about $2200 back in 1980.. god I wish i still had that car http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/smile.gif ~~ the only prob was it was a 6cyl.. but it moved pretty good and was easy to work on..
Shouldnt we be more like "domestic vs import" or "RWD vs FWD"... not that the friendly ford vs chevy thing isnt fun http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/smile.gif ------------------ 2000 M6 SS Camaro.. mostly stock go mods.. lots of show stuff.. 320rwhp & 333rwtq corrected SAE |
Ok, congrats to whomever guessed Wimbelton White. It was sold to an airline pilot in Canada. He owned the car for 15 years+/-, Ford keep hounding him, and offering him newer 'Stangs as an even trade. I think he took a 1969 Boss 429, but not too sure.
Ah, and the beloved Talledega. For general sale to the public, NO 1969 Talledegas had the 429 option. Ford put the 429 in the Mustang, because NASCAR rules stated that in order to run the engine it had to be in a production vehicle, though they never speciffied which vehicle. Rumors were planted outside of Ford that there were 300-400 of them produced, but is just rumor. In 1970, the 429 was put between the shock towers of the Torino and Cyclone. Which is what gives the rumor about the '69's so much strenth. There were, however, 25 or 50 1969 Talledega's produced for NASCAR teams(of which several have reached the general public). So the answer would be, technically, None. Later. [This message has been edited by bigwhitecobra (edited 06-01-2001).] |
Trick questions. Sheesh. http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/smile.gif
As far as the first fox body to have the 5.0 badges I was having a heck of a time trying to find a picture of a 79. It had the non-HO 5.0. Is the first fox body year 1982 when the first GT's came out? ------------------ 351W 89 Mustang GT Convertible |
The '79 Indy 500 pace car was a GT, as far as my memory is concerned.
|
The part that the GTs came out in 82 is not in question in my mind. The Mustang GT registry only includes 82 and up. Neither is the fact that the 79 came in non-HO 5.0. I'm just not sure if 79's actually had a 5.0 on the fender. The Indy pace car definitely didn't have a 5.0 on the fender.
|
I think the '79+ that had the 302 all had 302 badges. '79 was the last year of the 2.8L V6 (i'm pretty sure, i know that at least the first year fox 'stang had that "powerhouse") in the mustang and i've seen '79 stangs with actual 2.8L badges just like the 5.0's (why they decided to badge 2.8's....i don't know) and in '80 and '81 Mustangs switched to the boat anchor 255 Windsor V8's so there weren't any 5.0 emblems.
- My definition of muscle car would have to be exactly as mentioned, a two door, V8 powered vehicle meant for spirited/high performance driving...not that anyone cares http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/smile.gif - ------------------ '84 Mustang 5.0 LX My car [This message has been edited by 84stangLX (edited 06-05-2001).] |
cool thread ,like the trivia......but i couldnt help wanting to defend the lil 2.8 moter they didnt come from the factory with much horses but they were neet lil moters ....when comparing the 2.8 to other v 6s they are a superior v6s.i know a guy with one in a cobra II that only has basic mods to it(4 barrel intake,cam,mallory ignition,headders,and i think higher compression pistons.)that is dynoed in at 240 horse power.i have a 78 with one in it and when compared with my 87 302 it dosnt have near as much get to it.but if i modified it it would have some go to it and it would have the go at a far less weight.i have thought about putting one of those v6s in a fox with a turbo or a blower set up so i could have a fox that handled real good .i love the fox and i love the power of the 302 but a fox with a 302 doesnt have the cornering ability as the smaller v6 and 4 banger sport cars out there today.when you consider your options for a buildable v6 .the 2.8 is a great moter for it .its light,it has big porting,factory gear driven cam,adjustable shaft mounted rockers ,hugh main caps ,plenty of boring room ,and it can be interchangable with newer ford drivetrains.....not to mention its way lighter than the 302.......well i just figuered i'd put in my 2 cents........hay i got one what were the last mustangs to come without a computer controled engine managment system.
|
Old guy,
Thanks for the info...i really didn't know much about the 2.8L. I wasn't saying that it was a bad engine, just that ford sold a 2.3L, 2.8L, 3.3L, turbo 2.3L, and a 302, and deciding to selectively badge the 5.0L and 2.8L is kinda odd in my opinion. Stock those engines are pretty much dogs though with all the emissions slap ons, poor exhaust and induction and cam timing i think they made little over 100hp. Those engines from what i hear were german made, got decent mileage, and were long lasting, but just like most mid-late 70's engines, they were just dogs stock. Does anyone have a detailed mustang history book with pictures to clarify when fox stangs first came with 5.0 emblems??? i looked in all mine and found nothing....man, now this is going to bother me until i find out http://www.mustangworks.com/msgboard/smile.gif for your trivia: was it the '86 2.3L non-turbo? they had a carburetor i believe and i don't think any other engines had carburetors that year (all had EEC-IV with fuel injection except the 2.3L???) ------------------ '84 Mustang 5.0 LX My car [This message has been edited by 84stangLX (edited 06-06-2001).] |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:40 AM. |