Ford VS Chevy........again?!?

[bigwhitecobra]

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.

[Mercury]

Originally posted by bigwhitecobra:
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.

To me, this statement infers that there is something wrong with the Mustang and the way it is designed. The only thing I can think of is that it has alot less Cubic inches in the engine department, but the 4.6 is starting to really show some of its potential. Give it about 2-3 more years and I think it will really be struting its stuff.

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.

------------------
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

[bigwhitecobra]

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.

[Power]

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.

[dinomite]

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.

[jimberg]

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.

[Rev]

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.

[Unit 5302]

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!

[Unit 5302]

Hmmm...

Seems my requirement for Musclecar is brutish, excellent low end torque, and power in a 2+2 or 4 seater.

[crewzin]

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.

[jimberg]

All 5.0s are muscle cars. You just threw that except convertible in there to piss me off. :P



------------------
351W 89 Mustang GT Convertible

[Lizard King]

Originally posted by Unit 5302:
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!

What about the Cobra R? Isn't that brutal enough. I personally think the new Mustangs are Musclecars of the new era. Why? The fact that they have a V8, produce a fast performance quartermile out of the box, have a live axel, and produce more Torque than HP are some reasons I consider them to be Musclecars.

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! !

[Unit 5302]

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.

[Power]

Originally posted by Unit 5302:
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.

Darn you for forcing me to look it up.

'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".

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.



I hate not knowing something so I had to go look this up just to answer UNITs question.

[This message has been edited by Power (edited 05-30-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Power (edited 05-30-2001).]

[jimberg]

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

[Mercury]

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.

[Unit 5302]

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.

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?

[Power]

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.

[dinomite]

First year on the mustang was 82.

But does anyone know what the first year the Capri had the 5.0 badge?

[Unit 5302]

aiiiiinnnnntttttt....

Wrong.

1982 is not the first year to display the 5.0 badge.