I hate em they make all the noise in the world and are slow compared to other domestics ... actually i hate mustangs (most I love the classics)... sry I know i'ma get flamed b.c of this ....

I know sum of the new stangs are pritty fast but still garbage wen considering the engine size. it should produce more HP.

Sounds like a typical ricer to me. For the money, you can't find a much better performance car. It has a HUGE aftermarket, and are fairly reliable. This is coming from a Camaro owner.............................

mustangs are pieces. especially the 5.0 because for one reason, they are way overrated. and the 5.0 looks soooo stupid. and just because somebody doesnt like the mustang doesnt mean the they are a ricer. i prefer my european cars.

So then what kind of car do you guys drive?

i drive an oldsmobile right now and i am about to own a nissan 300zx in a couple of months. if you say a 300zx is a ricer, then you shouldnt even be near cars. first of all its not a little four banger. second of all its not gonna have one of those fart cans. i know plenty of people that own american cars that hate mustangs.

i drive an oldsmobile right now and i am about to own a nissan 300zx in a couple of months. if you say a 300zx is a ricer, then you shouldnt even be near cars. first of all its not a little four banger. second of all its not gonna have one of those fart cans. i know plenty of people that own american cars that hate mustangs.

Well, if it's the non turbo version your gonna have your hands full with any "piece of shit" Mustang GT, and maybe even a newer V6. How much are you paying for it?

i have nothing against 5.0's they are solid cars and have aftermarket capabilities. the look may not be the best but its still a great car and definitely wont be forgotten for years to come

the 300zx im looking at is $5,500 and it is n/a. i would get a tt, but i dont have enough money for that. im not going to keep my 300zx stock.

the 300zx im looking at is $5,500 and it is n/a. i would get a tt, but i dont have enough money for that. im not going to keep my 300zx stock.

Sounds like your getting a good deal. I looked up the specs on the early 90's zx's. It would be a good race stock for stock between a 300zx and my car (97 Camaro V6 5 speed). You have 222 hp to my 200, but I have 225 tq. to your 198. We weigh almost the same too 3200-3300. I have a 5 speed with 3.23 gearing, are you getting a 5 speed? Do you know the gearing?

I've never taken my car to the track, but have done a lot of research and a car like mine with the 5 speed and an experienced driver can net low to mid 15's all day. Do you know what the early 90's n/a zx's run?

of course im getting a 5 speed because i hate automatics. i have read that the 300zx n/a can do a 15.5 second quarter mile. so that would be a good race. a 300zx n/a was dynoed at 190 hp.

i have this friend that has a 96-97 (cant remember which year) camaro v-6, and he can keep up with a mustang cobra and he is still n/a. its loud as hell too. he has practically everything done to it.

Cool, ya I hate automatics too. I've driven them before, but never owned one. Ya, from 95-02 the Camaro V6 had 200 hp 225 tq., but everyone likes to dog on it for some reason. I only have a K&N airfilter and Flows on it, I need to get an lsd next.

Love them. With a reasonable amount of money you can make an 5.0 a seriously fast machine. Some of the body stlyles are fugly but some of the GT hatches look awesome in my eyes sitting on some 18 inch Cobra's.

love them 302 is damn good motor will contiune to be a hot tuner car stangs are an american icon.

Have never driven a mustang, but from what I hear its slow. Mustangs in general are alright cars for their price, but won't be that fast when they are stock. I drove a v6 1990 buick that could whoop a new mustang v6. Presonally I like the 60s-70s mustangs but the new ones are secretary cars. However I think that is going to change with the 05 models...

I can say I wouldnt run out looking for a mustang. Dont take me wrong here. I know people with some bad azz stangs. But for me they just feel like they spin up RPMs so fast your always shifting. I say this because most of them I have put miles on have killer power. But it all seems to be so high in the rpms. Just when it's pulling the way I like it's time to shift.

I liked the 5.0. And still stare if one still in condition passes me. And how can anyone call what comes from the exhaust of a mustang 'noise'. It, IMO, is the best sounding newer muscle car there is. I'm more of a camaro fan, but Mustangs just sound amazing.

In the 80s the 5.0L was a horrible engine. 176 HP from a V8 is not what I call impressive. In the 90s they made it better, it is an alright engine, but there are much better bases to start with.

Don't know about that. The 302 has a huge aftermarket for it, so yeah the 5.0 might not start off as much, but with a resonable amount of money, you can make it into a monster.

The 5.0 Windsor V8 was the joke of many a Holden enthusiast...............Especially when Holden adopted the the LS1.

So yes, Mustang 5.0's are crap.

I cannot believe how much you people slag each others cars.
For those people who hate mustangs......be realistic.

They do terrific things from truly humble beginnings. They are stuck with the basic chassis geometry of an economy sedan from the darkest days of American car manufacturing (1978) , the 302 is an ancient lump, the interior is cramped, the rear axle has a mind of its own, and...

they are really terrific cars, fast, strong, durable and fine handling.
They are like a blank canvas for an enthusiast, with ample room for mods to tailor it to do anything you want. And they are cheap and plentiful to buy.

They sound like the perfect enthusiast car to me.

I cannot believe how much you people slag each others cars.
For those people who hate mustangs......be realistic.

They do terrific things from truly humble beginnings. They are stuck with the basic chassis geometry of an economy sedan from the darkest days of American car manufacturing (1978) , the 302 is an ancient lump, the interior is cramped, the rear axle has a mind of its own, and...

they are really terrific cars, fast, strong, durable and fine handling.
They are like a blank canvas for an enthusiast, with ample room for mods to tailor it to do anything you want. And they are cheap and plentiful to buy.

They sound like the perfect enthusiast car to me.
Sounds just like an MR2 to me, well um the last paragraph does..................

many people can argue which car is the best, but it all comes down to one thing, subjective. the only thing that isnt subjective is performance, and yet, that is still kind of subjective.

I own a supra ... call me a ricer if u want lol i have no body kit no exhaust all i have is my little turbo intake and a downpipe... tell my why a 1991 supra can keep up with a new GT. although they are "fast" they suck ass for the price. go get yourself a real car... somthing thats truly fast and then mod that.

All right, then rice boy! j/k. Put in a vortech S-trim in the 5.0, put on some drag e.t's, and bam your in the 12's. Thats only two mods and your already respectfully fast in my eyes. So, yeah a stock 5.0 isn't the greatest stock engine. But with a resonable amount of money, you'd be lookin at their tailights! Now truly fast? Hmmm...LS-1 camaro or firebird are theee rice killa's!

I can't say i like or dislike Mustangs anymore. I grew up in a house with GM banners lining the walls.. But since it's no longer GM, Ford, and Dodge against each other, it's more or less Domestic vs. Import. I've grown to respect the Mustang, i would rather own a Mustang than a Civic, Integra or any other import coupe. Besides the Mustang has one of the largest aftermarkets than any other car, possibilities for customization are endless. The Mustang gets a :thumbsup: from me.

i like the old 5.0 mustangs, like 89-90's i like the way they look, but from what u guys say about the engine, i guess i would have to swap to whatever else

v-8 making 178? thats 4 cyl stuff

but i would rather not own a mustang than my 240sx :)

i like the old 5.0 mustangs, like 89-90's i like the way they look, but from what u guys say about the engine, i guess i would have to swap to whatever else

v-8 making 178? thats 4 cyl stuff

but i would rather not own a mustang than my 240sx :)

No no no you're highly misinformed. An 89-90 5.0 is 225 HP and 300 Tq. The main reason for the anemic HP is the exhaust bottleneck. Throw on a cat back Flowmaster system and you can add atleast 15 HP and TQ = 240 HP and 315 TQ. For a car that weighs under 3000 pounds, and can be found in nice condition for very low prices.

but that is still a small amount of hp for a 5.0L engine. my soon to be 3.0L v-6 300zx n/a makes 222 hp. plus, the z32 looks much better than a 5.0.

And that's why there are so many car companies, diveristy, whatever your preference is. Engine size is starting not to matter anymore.

I like the way they sound,but they aren't really that fast unless you pump some money into them.I like the box stlye of the late 80's 5.0's.But, being a chevy man give me a Camaro anyday.

What's good about a 5.0L (foxbody) Mustang: 1. cheap as hell. 2. endless aftermarket. 3. Option of a covertable. 4. v-8 rear drive. 5. sedan like driving position (if you don't want to feel like you're driving a jet fighter) What's bad: everything else. If I have $2500 and want to go fast, can you come up with a better option? (besides other domestics which are less reliable, more uncomfortable and more white-trashy)

I like em. I'd own one if I could afford the insurance.

how muc could you steal a non convertable 91 5.0 stang for with under 100k miles? and how far could you bring that 180 or so hp up to for a $1000 for used parts off of Ebay and maybe an old exhoust system full of holes from a junk yard?

Mods really do help this car but the stock 5.0 Mustang (at least in the 80s) was completely gutless...My cousin owns one and its 3 speed auto, guzzling gas, and weak performance made him hate that car. He had also told me that the 5.0 Mustang was considered one of the worst handling cars ever created.

hey mason ya u mason can you see the last post on this thread? 3-15-04 not 06-25-04

5.0 mustangs are soo versatile its hard not too like them. Although not much stock they have simple cheap mods added and they go like a molested primate. The bodies have endless possabilities as well with new kits added every day almost. I bet theres more body kits and aftermarket stuff for a 5.0 stang than honda civics arsenal of goodies.

hey man your an enthusiast you would think you would see the last post date by now

hey man your an enthusiast you would think you would see the last post date by now

And the problem is?

there is no problem we already talked

I like them,

They are allot lighter then 94+(94 and 5 also had the 5.0 btw) mustangs and the 5.0L has been proven time and time again to have major potenial for not too much money compared to many other engines/cars. I remember reading about a few sub 10second street legal full interior car with out the juice is.
If street/drag racing is your thing and you dont have much money this is a car you should not over look. :)

i say theres way too many here, but hey they r decent for the price rite?
id prob rather get the 5.0's than the 97's + v6 mustangs - those r just shjit. Unless u find a 98+ v8 4.8L mustang, than those r a force not to b recon with.

IMHO the 5.0 mustang is the best car ever made if you want a strait up drag car. No car i know of can compete (except 1st gen eclipse) with its aftermarket, price pf parts, price to begin with, and power you canmake from a stock engine. Basically if you want a fast car and you want it cheap, get a 5.0.

i think a mustang is deffinately best bang for the buck (compare to NA supra, the mustang is faster and way less money) and theyll outlast most import performance engines (performance engines do not inclde the 22r etc...) ive seen 5.0s with well over 250,000 and running strong.

Long Live 5.0 Bring Back The 5.0 In Da New Stangs

Although theis thread is dirt old, i saw one thing about it. The people that respected the 5.0L Mustangs were the ones that had knowledge, or ridden in one, studied them, ect. The ones that hated it were the ones that had there opinions based on the car being a 5.0L and only having a limited number of horses. I'd like to see any other "performance car" from back in 1986 turn a 14.60 at the track with a 17 year old driver. (The car being BONE STOCK) with 50,000 miles. Also on 225/50/15's that he bought used from a cheap tire re-sale dealer. He bought this car for $4,000 in MINT condition. Anybody else know a car that can compete with that for $4,000 from back in the mid-80's?

i cannot stant the F*$#!@ 4 fog lights that the mustangs have they look retarder

Personally, I'm more of a Gm person, then rice.. then ford.. But I do give stangs credit... They are the common ppl's muscle car that car modded in anyway... One thing I hate about them, is well, everyone has one! You can go for a drive a see 3 in a 5 minute period! But besides that... Mustang is tried and true performance.

Even though this is an old thread I wanted to get my :2cents: in.

The people who say the 5.0 sucks, have you drove one? I can say yes because my dad has a 90 gt and the only mods is has are K&N air filter, equal length headers, 2 chamber flowmasters, and 3.55 rear end gears. I must say before the gears it had 2.73 and could keep up with just about any car I ran into on a friday night. You guys say its slow, well, tell that to the guys I left behind who thought the same.

I've talked to adults (gm people I might add) who say from 88-93 the 5.0 was THE car to get. Can you think of any other car that could almost run in the 13s for under $20,000? A 90 or 91 LX would run a 14.1 and it cost $13,000 new. I think thats really good.

And on a finale note (I hope you camaro fans dont get onto me too much for this) the 5.0's rival was the camaro with a 305 at the time. GM had to upgrade to the 350 because ford's 302 would kick the crap out of a 305, and even at that the 302 could still run with a 350. (If I've made a mistake about what I just said about the camaro I hope you camaro fans will call me on it and correct it.)

Anyway this is what I feel about the 5.0. If you still think its a sucky car, go to msn autos and look up the ratings for the 5.0. About 95% of all the ratings are a 90-100.

When my 5.0 was running, it had intake, gears, exhaust, and a pro5.0 shifter. It ran 14.81 in the 1/4 mile. It also had 230,000 miles on it. I've never come across an import with that many miles and running faster than that without boost. pretty f'n good to me.

I like the old school mustangs like the 66 and the shelby GT (Elenor! haha GIFS) the newer ones seem to be missing something, and the build quality looks like crap... specially the convertables...

I agree, I gotta go with the oldies. My first car was a 66 289. Man I miss that car.

Fact like it or not , the 5.0 and 4.6 comunity is the largest most popular community in the world. Since theres more after market parts for power available to these engines even more so than any others in the world , why because the mustang was designed to be the most possable most hardcore production car in the world! You can make a monster with these on almost any budget. I dont own one but I drivem every day and talk to enthusiasts of these machines Ive spent months trying to cover most the stuff available for them but the list grows so fast theres no way I can. But for a production sports car it depends what your looking for if you want unique dont get a stang cus every one and there dog has one already.

most hardcore production car in the world?.... man you need to get out more!

if that was the aim when they designed it i would hope it would come out a hell of a lot better...

yes it has way more mod possabilities than any other car in the world its a fact we dont gotta like that but its true therefore its the most hardcore and less costly than other cars to mod up cus it comes with some preformance already.

hmmmmm so it wasn't "designed" to be... but if you spend enough you can make it pretty cool huh?

i'd rather have an EVO 8 or a GTR ...Supra.... M3... Monaro... actually pretty much ANY HSV... hell, i'd get a BA falcon before i'd get one of the newer mustangs... (except maybe the newest)

hmmmmm so it wasn't "designed" to be... but if you spend enough you can make it pretty cool huh?

i'd rather have an EVO 8 or a GTR ...Supra.... M3... Monaro... actually pretty much ANY HSV... hell, i'd get a BA falcon before i'd get one of the newer mustangs... (except maybe the newest)

ya cuz the saleens and the cobra r's are so slow that they would get whooped by all the cars u listed:rolleyes:

those are fine and dandy cars but you wont be able to mod them as affectively on a small budget. Its a tough car as well im more into 4 doors and smaller sport cars myself however I cant ignore the fact that a stock mustang gt 4.6 with 5,000 buck added engiine mods such as clutch and flywheel supercharger cams makes for a cheap straight away missile. You can also soupem up and makem drive on rails with over a thousand suspension setups to play with and choose from. These cars have more available bolt on power than any of the cars you mentioned but lacks in something........... unique qualities like the evo or supra and rarety. Id rather a focus svt over a lancer evo anyday , svt focus IS best handling fwd car in the world has racing suspension stock and a very moddable engine as well. Lancers are nice so are bmw's I used to work for toyota so i kinda got turned off from them (never seen so many crooks) but still enjoy a nice lookin supra. If I wanted to make a montster car I wouldnt buy a gt mustang cus Id feel like i was cheating and following the herd.

hmmmmm so it wasn't "designed" to be... but if you spend enough you can make it pretty cool huh?

i'd rather have an EVO 8 or a GTR ...Supra.... M3... Monaro... actually pretty much ANY HSV... hell, i'd get a BA falcon before i'd get one of the newer mustangs... (except maybe the newest)
its not designed per say but it was somewhat intentional to make the stangs easy to kick ass with cheap mods. I never seen engines that can handle nitrous with no mods on a daily basis like in the 4.6's and 5.0's. Its a durable engine.

so how much power can they put out before you have to start changing internals?

also.. how much does it cost for the first 40hp?.. just an idea of how "tunable" the actual standard car is, and how much of the standard car would be left when you build one of these monsters... cause if you change too much then it really has nothing to do with how the car was designed or how they are standard...

also... the focus really is a nice car! but it's front wheel drive... the EVO is 4 wheel... and the 4g63 is easily upgradable.

well my buddy put over 125 hp dry shot of nitrous on his and uses it every day (the idiot) and has for 2 years pretty much without any problems but I bet if he got more carried away internal strengthening would be required to keep it reliable but hes happy with the simple 125 shot. I know another buddy of mine with a 89 302 cobra put 100hp in his for 2000 bucks involved camshaft and electrical upgrades with underdrive pulleys and quick shift with timing advance and hes broke into the 12's with that old hunk. I keep looking for toys for as many other cars as I have time to and have not found anything thats cheaper to modify. But like I said Im not into the mustangs. I guess you can tell I like fwd cars since I mentioned the focus. Me and my buddy (the guy with the 302 cobra) went test driving all makes to compare to the focus st that just came out. We drove wrx subaru , lancer evo8 , mazda 6 , civic sir and this new suzuki swift and compared performance and handling. The quickest was the evo8 then the wrx then the focus then the suzuki then the civic. The best handling was Focus , evo , subaru , swift and civic were quite simular. Those subaru took off on the line best but when you let off and reapply it was kinda gutless for a bit the focus went almost as good as both the evo and subaru but with no turbo it was slightly raped. I also discovered Im not into 4wd but thats just me.
Sorry i off topiced

did you rev the EVO and the WRX to about 5 then drop the clutch? it's the only way to launch them right... i prefer 4/awd but yeah the focus has lower COG and stiffer suspension so it should feel more sharp...

NOS is a pretty bodgy way to make more power... cheap and effective i guess. i'm just thinking as far as tunable goes, look at toyotas 3s-gte and the 2JZ... turn up the boost on an MR2 for "round 10whp ber psi" and the stock turbo can go up round 5psi. so theres 50 hp with hardly any cost... and the engine can handle round 500hp on the standard internals before you need to change them..and thats just the 4cyl. the 2jz is very similar but with two turbos and two extra cylinders... the same pistons and rods fit. See thats my idea of a car thats designed to be tunable... the standard car, the way its built by the factory has potential, not just the aftermarket parts...

i guess what's available would also be affected by what country you're in...

i'd rather have an EVO 8 or a GTR ...Supra.... M3... Monaro... actually pretty much ANY HSV... hell, i'd get a BA falcon before i'd get one of the newer mustangs... (except maybe the newest)

You listed the above cars and you guys are talking about mods and how they will "whoop" a mustang.
I'm guessing you guys haven't heard of the 03 svt cobra have you? It's the perfect example about mustangs and mods. The car responds so well to mods its insane.
Need an example? Venom has a package that includes: a computer chip, headers, x-pipe, performance mufflers, cold air induction, and under drive pulleys. It will cost you $1,500 will give you an 11.7 in the 1/4 mile and will boost your hp and torque well past 400. So now I have a car that beats a z06 vette and viper in the 1/4 mile and cost me much less.
I dont hear about any of the above cars listed doing that.

actually i could probably get any of the above cars for less than the mustang you mentioned. the evo 8 would be the most difficult. as i said it depends what country you're in.

my next question is do you know what ALL of the above cars are and what their performance potential is.

In the 80s the 5.0L was a horrible engine. 176 HP from a V8 is not what I call impressive. In the 90s they made it better, it is an alright engine, but there are much better bases to start with.
I would disagree about there being much better bases to start with. As a mtter of fact I think the 5.0 (302) is second in after market support behind the Chevy 350.

actually i could probably get any of the above cars for less than the mustang you mentioned. the evo 8 would be the most difficult. as i said it depends what country you're in.

my next question is do you know what ALL of the above cars are and what their performance potential is.

Yes and as stated before for the money few have the potential of the 5.0s. I really wasn't a fan of the 5.0 body style but any car you mentioned you can buy, give me the same amount of $$ will each fix them up for drg, track you name it and the 5.0 will win most of the time. That's just fact.

i wouldnt say the 5.0 mustangs are over rated.....if anything somewhat underrated..215 hp, 300 lb. ft. torque.....0-60mph: 6.4 seconds...1/4mile....14.9

:banghead: Start a new thread please. Don't bring up 8 month old ones.

:banghead: Start a new thread please. Don't bring up 8 month old ones.

Sorry bro I liked this one, as well I thought I'd ring in and say 5.0 Mustangs are a kick ass bargain.

Sorry bro I liked this one, as well I thought I'd ring in and say 5.0 Mustangs are a kick ass bargain.

It's alright, but if you start a new one the mods won't shut it down :thumbsup:

http://www.turbochargedpower.com/1987%20Mustang%20LX%20-%20Derek%20Clary.htm

and this is why 5.0's suck :wink:

I don't know of a better sounding car besides maybe a Ferrari, but I think it's just because they rev real fast and don't sound like the typical 4 popping Honda's that we hear around these parts.

Plus the aftermarket support is great, and they are cheap to customize, which doesn't matter much to me but it's a plus.

They look ugly. Mustangs and Thunderbirds completely lost their heritage and shape in between, I think the designers screwed up big time. The newer ones are pretty sweet, and the way the they took designing cues from older models is something I like. But the twin turbo 5.0s do 7s on the quarter, right?

:bs: 7 seconds

:bs: 7 seconds


Don't see why that's hard to believe, if it was a Supra would you believe it?

one word UGLY theese cars are good performance wise for the money but they are ugly. of course thats all a matter of opinion. so it ran in the 7s. it has good aftermarket cause everyone and there brother has one. id rather have an early model mustang or the new ones.

but for the engine size it has very low hp. 5 liters 225 hp thats 45 hp per liter. and look at the s2000 120 hp per liter and its n/a. but you cant deny that it has good potential. supras are my favorite car and probably the best car to ever come from japan. they can be built up to run 7s as well.

I agree that theyre not great looking cars, I'd rather have an old one. Hell I do (a 65 fastback) or a new one. The new ones are beautiful, they don't have a lot of horsepower per liter as most cars back in the 80's didn't. The Supra is my favorite Japanese car as well (yes more than the Skyline) and yes Supras can be built to run 7's, what I don't understand is why some people think only Supras and Skylines can run 7's. As well for the money it costs less to get a Mustang in the 7's than a Supra. Oh and yes Mustang guys I've seen Mustangs in the 6's but those aren't really Mustangs they're a tube chassis with a fiberglass shell that looks like a Mustang. Anything going that fast is really a chassis with fiberglass shell made to look like something.

I don't love them or hate them, but in stock form they are rather unimpressive. The chassis is very weak and you can actually feel it give when you turn sharply or at higher speeds, however they have as much potential as about anything on the road to go fast. A lot of people that own them think they are really fast, but in reality it would get it's doors blown off by a 95 Maxima. They are great if you want something that can be fast in a straight line for little money, but for anything else it's subpar.

I don't think they are ugly but plain. I think from the side mirrors back they look really good. The front of these cars though are plain. I think a front cover bra is needed for these cars.

but for the engine size it has very low hp. 5 liters 225 hp thats 45 hp per liter. and look at the s2000 120 hp per liter and its n/a.

These engines deal in torque, not horsepower, and they have tons of it. I mean 300 lb-tq is high even for today.

The chassis is very weak and you can actually feel it give when you turn sharply or at higher speeds

Please! Obviously the chassis was very good seeing as how they used it for 25 years. Something had to be done right.

Also seeing as I own one and it's one of the best handling cars I've been in tells you something.

A lot of people that own them think they are really fast, but in reality it would get it's doors blown off by a 95 Maxima. They are great if you want something that can be fast in a straight line for little money, but for anything else it's subpar.

Considering when they were made they had to obey CAFE fuel and emissions regulations that very much cut down on their power. If you didn't know the last Mustangs hand 3.27 (now 3.55 with the new '05s) rear gears and they ran in the 14s. The 5.0 had "less power" with a 2.73 rear end and ran in the 14s. What does that tell you about it?

Also my '86 doesn't have much power because the heads on it were made to cut down on emissions, not for power or performance. Also the baffle to cut down on the air noise, power cutter, and all those other things cut in.

For its time, the 5.0 could not be beat for the price. A 14 second car for under $20,000, sounds good to me.

yea the 80s was a crappy time for most cars, looks wise and performance wise.

Mustang 5 o's are one of the best bang for the buck american made cars. And this is coming from a Chevy guy. For 5 grand or less you get a 302, 5 speed, RWD, fairly light (compared to most american car) drag machine trhat all ready runs high 15's. Good Car in my book. But, I'd still rather have it's arch nemisis, the 5.7L F-bodied Camaro:smokin:. but hey, like i said, I'm a chevy guy.

Mustang 5 o's are one of the best bang for the buck american made cars. And this is coming from a Chevy guy. For 5 grand or less you get a 302, 5 speed, RWD, fairly light (compared to most american car) drag machine trhat all ready runs high 15's. Good Car in my book. But, I'd still rather have it's arch nemisis, the 5.7L F-bodied Camaro:smokin:. but hey, like i said, I'm a chevy guy.*I mean't to say high 14's in the 1/4

yea the 80s was a crappy time for most cars, looks wise and performance wise.

Definatly...with much stricter emissions controls, and sky-rocketing gas prices due to world events, big muscle cars couldn't survive, and in came the era of bland fuel-effecient, crappy cars...save the Testerossa



Mustang 5 o's are one of the best bang for the buck american made cars. And this is coming from a Chevy guy. For 5 grand or less you get a 302, 5 speed, RWD, fairly light (compared to most american car) drag machine trhat all ready runs high 15's. Good Car in my book. But, I'd still rather have it's arch nemisis, the 5.7L F-bodied Camaro. but hey, like i said, I'm a chevy guy.

Who doesn't want an LT-1 Camaro? unless your talking an LS1, which would be a lil more $$...either way Chevy guys, or Ford guys, or honda guys, or Nissan guys, or friggin Merc guys wouldn't mind V8 Camaro

The lx models are only like 2700-2800 pound iirc. With 225hp and 300 tq...that's a damn quick car for stock. The reason alot of people, mainly the biased import crowd, think they suck and are slow are probably judging them by the numerous run-down, high-mileage, uncared for 5.0's out there.

From what I've seen, Mustangs are garbage.

My sister used to have a 1987 Mustang, with the 302, and it made a lot of extra noise (apparently some people like that), rode rough, got terrible mileage (about 12 mpg average) and had worse performance and handling than my 1985 Crown Vic, with the same engine, which makes hardly any noise at all, rides like it's on a cloud, and gets 25 mpg average.

Give me a big old land-yacht luxury liner over a sport car any day.

---Joe :swear:

mustangs ARE NOT a "good bang for the buck"

they can be made fast, just like any other car.
i do look nice, and run fast if you have the $$

mustangs ARE NOT a "good bang for the buck"

they can be made fast, just like any other car.
i do look nice, and run fast if you have the $$

We're talking about the 5.0 Mustang here, not that Civic you drive :loser:

Please! Obviously the chassis was very good seeing as how they used it for 25 years. Something had to be done right.

It's the weak link in the car, when I'm in my friends 93 GT I can feel the chassis flex. Ford used a new platform this time, and what did they do? The stiffened the chassis by 30%.

Also seeing as I own one and it's one of the best handling cars I've been in tells you something.

It tells me that you've probably never been in a Miata, Corvette, Integra GS-R, 3rd gen F-body, RSX, Civic Si, SVT Focus, Cobalt SS, etc. I'm not trying to say it's bad handling car, for where I live it's fine because there really aren't any curvy roads, but if you want a handling machine straight out of the box they are not the car for you. They are excellent drag cars, and for the money there probably isn't a better performance deal considering how well they respond to mods, and the large aftermarket and low cost to upgrade.

As for running 14s, the only ones that run 14s consistantly that I have know of are the 87-93 LX 5-speeds.

It tells me that you've probably never been in a Miata, Corvette, Integra GS-R, 3rd gen F-body, RSX, Civic Si, SVT Focus, Cobalt SS, etc.

I've actually been in over half those cars. So I know what I'm talking about.

Civic Si Skidpad 0.81
GS-R Skidpad 0.80
3rd Gen F-body Skidpad 0.80

5.0 Mustang Skidpad 0.83

Now I'm not an experct but I think that's just a little bit better don't you think?

I'll give you the Cobalt SS and the RSX as their skidpads were better. As for the Corvette and Miata, come on! If you're going to compare do it right. Those two are sports cars and need to be thrown out.

As for the SVT, a racing suspension, that says it all.

Motortrend STORY (http://www.stangbangers.com/89_LX5-0_vs_Competition.htm)

There's a Motortrend article too calling the 5.0 the best bang for the buck compared to Corvettes, Supras, 300Zs, Eclipses, Camaros, Firebirds, ect.

Don't see why that's hard to believe, if it was a Supra would you believe it?

a 7 second 1/4 mile car is a very serious vehicle and really isn't worth comparing here. and no i'd say a 7 second tt supra was crap too.

I've actually been in over half those cars. So I know what I'm talking about.

Civic Si Skidpad 0.81
GS-R Skidpad 0.80
3rd Gen F-body Skidpad 0.80

5.0 Mustang Skidpad 0.83

We both know skidpads are not an accurate measure of a cars true handling abilities, we don't know if they were tested on a 150ft, 200ft, or 300ft slolam, however if you would like to compare skidpad numbers here's an article on the same site you posted a link to.Camaro vs. Mustang skidpad (http://www.stangbangers.com/87_MustangGTvsCamaroIROC-Z_Article.htm)

We both know skidpads are not an accurate measure of a cars true handling abilities, we don't know if they were tested on a 150ft, 200ft, or 300ft slolam, however if you would like to compare skidpad numbers here's an article on the same site you posted a link to.Camaro vs. Mustang skidpad (http://www.stangbangers.com/87_MustangGTvsCamaroIROC-Z_Article.htm)

I agree, you can't just use slalom and skidpad numbers to say that a car handles well. Skidpad is just a representation of the cars ability to hold the road, or grip, which can be greatly increased simply by changing the tires. Hell, stock my GTC kicks all those cars asses at .89 Gs on the skidpad. The slalom is another story, shorter cars can get higher speeds.

i thought the alltrac scored kinda low in handling and wasnt it the only awd car in there. it should handle better than that. that was a good read though. corvette really shouldnt have been in that comparo.

Hear is a another article: Motor Trend 1990 Chevrolet Camaro RS vs Ford Mustang LX (http://www.thirdgen.org/newdesign/articles/shootout.shtml)

IMO the only way someone could not like the mustang performance-wize is if theyre raceist, rich, or dumb. or just never learned about them or dont like drag/drift only cars. But these cars can be seriously fast for super cheap.I read an article a few months ago where a guy made jis 5.0 run 9's reliably for only $5k. and i personaly have one that will go high 12's with not much $ invested and with as few thousand (s-trim ;)) it could be faster than almost anything on the road.

and a lot of them do look pretty shitty but ive seen a few that look pretty good too.

just to add my 2 cents about the 5.0 thing. i drive a mustang. its a "sh**y" 99 3.8l v6. i used to hate it , every week i came up with another reason to sell it and use the money to buy something better

...until i turboed it for about 1200$. i installed 3.73s, a moddified slp dual exhaust and saleen kit on it. some 17s and its pretty nice. for an idea of what kind of hp were talking about, it walks my friends rx7 tt.

i feel like the people who say 5.0s are weak and overrated are almost right until they really get into how much potential they have. i always thought the pushrod motors were garbage but i bought one. i think the fox body is ugly but i think the generation before mine are uglier. yet i still bought one.

if i had a say in what powered the GT. i would have developed a DOHC 5.0l.