1989 Trans am GTA vs 1989 Mustang GT.


Rakshas
08-22-2004, 06:38 PM
Which would you pick?

Gta pics on top, Stang on bottom

http://i1.ebayimg.com/03/i/02/4d/3c/70_3.JPG
http://i5.ebayimg.com/03/i/02/4b/5f/59_1.JPG

http://i22.ebayimg.com/03/i/02/4b/86/03_3.JPG
http://i15.ebayimg.com/03/i/02/4b/bb/ea_1.JPG

http://i3.ebayimg.com/03/i/02/4b/9b/a5_3.JPG
http://i3.ebayimg.com/03/i/02/4b/51/41_1.JPG

http://i8.ebayimg.com/03/i/02/4b/e2/99_12_s.JPG
http://i9.ebayimg.com/03/i/02/4a/41/92_1.JPG

GTA
5.7l
235 hp, 335 lb ft, 3460 lbs, .86g skidpad, 6.5 0-60time

Stang
5.0l
225 hp, 300 lb ft, 7.2 0-60time

I would take the GTA, but I love Trans ams.

billclinton
08-22-2004, 09:11 PM
Well, i do like ford over chevy. But i would go for the GTA. Mustangs are slow, handle very badly, the steering is very loose and the pedals feel weird. I havnt driven a GTA but it is worth a try. the 5.7 is a winner, i wouldnt even bother with a 5.0 chevy. But if you do get a mustang, make sure try out both automatic and manual. The auto was very sluggish i dont know about the 5sp

kman10587
08-25-2004, 12:08 AM
Trans Am...although the Mustang is cheaper and the 5.0 has a tremendous aftermarket.

GTStang
08-27-2004, 07:24 PM
If the Stang was a 5-speed I'd choose the GT. It would be a faster 1/4 mile car stock(GM 700R4> Ford AOD), much larger after-market. And the GTA's better skipad looks less important when you see the lighter Mustang whips through the slalom faster.

But bottom line is the are equal enough I'd make my choice purely on what I liked the look of better.

Kurtdg19
08-28-2004, 02:54 AM
If the Stang was a 5-speed I'd choose the GT. It would be a faster 1/4 mile car stock(GM 700R4> Ford AOD), much larger after-market. And the GTA's better skipad looks less important when you see the lighter Mustang whips through the slalom faster.

But bottom line is the are equal enough I'd make my choice purely on what I liked the look of better.

Exactly. Stock for stock, either cars don't handle very well considering the setup (and this would have nothing to do with the fact that they are very old platforms...).

I am also more of a fan for the T/A over the Mustang. I do agree that the Mustang will more than likely win in the quarter, but that doesn't change my viewpoint. To bad the 350 F-body's in this generation didn't come with a 5speed. Thats the only downfall with the GTAs IMO. From experience, the steering feels quite tight for the age (considering the vehicle has been kept up in maintence). I have driven a few that have been absolutley horrible, but this was due to mainly neglect in the upkeep that is required with a car of this age. A well kept and maintained V6 firebird handles a lot better than their V8 brothers I've driven.

ARThoMaSVT5
08-30-2004, 05:54 AM
its a toss up..... neither will thrill you with handling... mustang has more chassis potential.. stronger aftermarket...

pick what you like... even comparison stock...

ARThoMaSVT5
08-30-2004, 05:57 AM
the 5.0 already has an edlebrock performer intake and a large K&N filter... it's easily the faster car... just noticed engine pics...

mason_RsX
08-30-2004, 01:14 PM
Trans am looks alot better to me, and has more power going on and is all around better vehicle...the stang also has the reputation for absolutly awful handling, and shady reliability

GTStang
08-30-2004, 02:42 PM
Trans am looks alot better to me, and has more power going on and is all around better vehicle...the stang also has the reputation for absolutly awful handling, and shady reliability


Has more power going on- But heavier, also that edelbrock intake changes that.

Is all around better vehicle- How so?

Stang has awful handling- Not true

Shady reliability- Not true

kman10587
08-30-2004, 05:57 PM
Shady reliability? Not the 5.0, no way. Awful handling? Not sure, but the car is pretty light, so I doubt it's awful.

mason_RsX
08-30-2004, 09:34 PM
Have driven my cousins 86 Mustang 5L...the handling was painfully bad, and he told me its considered one of theworst h andling cars ever made...his cars now dead after the crank broke after 90,000 kms and about 2500 worth of maintainence...mabe his experience soured me. plus having driven a 93 trans am once and falling in love with it I believe it to be better

kman10587
08-30-2004, 10:54 PM
Yeah, that sounds like a bad experience. Drive a newer one that's in decent condition, the handling is really not that bad, and the 5.0 is an incredibly stout motor.

mason_RsX
08-31-2004, 02:44 PM
I've driven 4 stangs (2were mid 90's owned by relatives, and one was a test drive) but I have only driven one in the age bracket were comparing...im sorry if I haven't driven a mustang for every year in the 80's I guess I don't have the sick car connections you do... and I may have only test driven a trans am once, I spent hours researching it with my friend who wanted to buy it (he bought an S10 instead) so I have a general idea of what the trans am is about

engineer
09-13-2004, 02:56 AM
whoever designed the interiors for those cars should be hunted down and slaughtered

kman10587
09-13-2004, 09:23 AM
It doesn't matter, because anyone who actually gives a shit about a car's interior should not be shopping for a muscle car/pony car.

Rakshas
09-13-2004, 11:21 PM
The trans am interior isnt too bad....

Rakshas
09-13-2004, 11:22 PM
I mean, the person who designed the interior on the last integras before they changed the name to rsx should be shot.

kman10587
09-14-2004, 01:01 AM
Whoever designed the interior on the 92-96 Prelude should be hung with his own intestines.

mr_tw
09-14-2004, 08:11 PM
I would take the stang, I know that the mustang would easily out handle and out accelerate the Trans Am due to the simple fact of weight, and as much as I like the good ole 350, the possibilities for the 5.0 are endless, everything from 500 hp all motor to 1000 hp twin turbos to equal power superchargers, and the mods don't stop with engine, suspension and nearly everything that benifits stoping acceleration or turning can be fixed up

3000GT_Formula_350
09-17-2004, 12:07 PM
Are you kidding? the possibilities are endless for the 350 too, its more powerful than the 5.0 and has more power potential...between those two specific cars guarantee that trans am blows the 5.0 away...if you look close you can see the headers on the 350 (bigger power increase in comparison to intake on 5.0). Take this comparison, my 88 Formula 350 stock (same stats as GTA) raced a 99 Mustang GT w/ intake and headers back exhaust, I was half a car length ahead up to 100 mph, we both stopped after that. Oh yeah and my car is automatic his was 5-speed and he shifted at redline. 11 years and ford is still trying to catch up, after that I lost all respect for the Mustang.

3000GT_Formula_350
09-17-2004, 12:12 PM
Whoever designed the interior on the 92-96 Prelude should be hung with his own intestines.

WHAT? that interior is nice wtf you talking about...what do you think is a GOOD interior then???! I'll tell you right now the best interior on a sub $30k car is the 300zx's.

kman10587
09-17-2004, 06:34 PM
I think I'd have to agree with the 300ZX having the nicest interior. The 92-96 Prelude's interior wasn't BAD, it was just very strangely laid out.

87_Mustang_GT
09-17-2004, 08:54 PM
I would pick the Mustang. The mustang may not have as much HP or handling but it has a HUGE aftermarket which can make it handle as good as you want. I think the firebird is kool too, but I think that parts will be easier to find in the future (near and distant). BTW: a good tip would be to switch to a T-5 manual 5-speed eventually, because the 5-speed = 0-60 in 6.2 seconds...

3000GT_Formula_350
09-17-2004, 10:02 PM
I would pick the Mustang. The mustang may not have as much HP or handling but it has a HUGE aftermarket which can make it handle as good as you want. I think the firebird is kool too, but I think that parts will be easier to find in the future (near and distant). BTW: a good tip would be to switch to a T-5 manual 5-speed eventually, because the 5-speed = 0-60 in 6.2 seconds...


I got a 0-60 time of 5.6 seconds in my stock automatic Firebird. And once again, they both have a HUGE aftermarket.

kman10587
09-17-2004, 11:17 PM
I think the 3rd gen. Mustang is better than the 3rd gen. Camaro/Firebird, and vice versa for the 4th gens.

3000GT_Formula_350
09-18-2004, 12:36 AM
I think the 3rd gen. Mustang is better than the 3rd gen. Camaro/Firebird, and vice versa for the 4th gens.

Will no one listen to the stats given for goodness sake, and better how? you like it better? or it IS better statistically?

kman10587
09-18-2004, 01:01 AM
It's a much more popular car, which means better aftermarket, cheaper parts/repairs, and easier to find one.

I think of it this way. When people talk about a fast 'Stang, they are usually talking about the 5.0. When people talk about a fast F-Body, they are usually talking about the LS1. The LS1 Camaro is the most popular and talked about Camaro, whereas the 5.0 is the most popular and talked about Mustang.

3000GT_Formula_350
09-18-2004, 12:08 PM
It's a much more popular car, which means better aftermarket, cheaper parts/repairs, and easier to find one.

I think of it this way. When people talk about a fast 'Stang, they are usually talking about the 5.0. When people talk about a fast F-Body, they are usually talking about the LS1. The LS1 Camaro is the most popular and talked about Camaro, whereas the 5.0 is the most popular and talked about Mustang.

Ok, thats great that you "think" that, but unless you have statistics then you're personal opinion doesnt mean anything as far as the truth. So you saying its a much more popular car, doesn't actually mean it is, you just think that, get it? and as far as I know the LT1 is the most popular F-Body engine, but that's my opinion from what I've heard, no facts to back it up so I won't say it's a fact. It's not hard at all to find aftermarket parts for either, they are both popular cars, with cheap parts and repairs. The GTA is more powerful, and has more potential than the GT...if you maxed out both cars potential w/ the stock block, the 5.7L 350 cu. in. engine would have more power than the 5.0L 305 cu. in. (or 302 w/e is in that one), plain and simple. Bigger bore and stroke, means more torque and HP.

kman10587
09-18-2004, 12:41 PM
Okay, I concede. I'll leave this one to the Mustang 5.0 owners if they wanna argue it.

You're right, it's not my place to say which car is better. In fact, nobody can say that because it's a matter of opinion.

3000GT_Formula_350
09-19-2004, 10:48 AM
In fact, nobody can say that because it's a matter of opinion.

Since there's no statistics, you're right. So how bout you buy the Mustang, and I'll buy the GTA and we'll duel! :)

kman10587
09-19-2004, 01:15 PM
I have it down it down to a 93 Mustang LX 5.0 coupe and 93 Camaro Z28. Leaning towards the 'Stang, mainly because it's cheaper and in noticeably better condition :)

GTStang
09-24-2004, 11:14 PM
Are you kidding? the possibilities are endless for the 350 too, its more powerful than the 5.0 and has more power potential...between those two specific cars guarantee that trans am blows the 5.0 away...if you look close you can see the headers on the 350 (bigger power increase in comparison to intake on 5.0). Take this comparison, my 88 Formula 350 stock (same stats as GTA) raced a 99 Mustang GT w/ intake and headers back exhaust, I was half a car length ahead up to 100 mph, we both stopped after that. Oh yeah and my car is automatic his was 5-speed and he shifted at redline. 11 years and ford is still trying to catch up, after that I lost all respect for the Mustang.

#1 Those headers are not going to match the power increase of the Edelbrock intake.

#2 If your stock 88 Formula 350 beat a 99GT 5-speed it was cause of driver error. Your stock Formula will get shredded by a properly drive 99+ GT 5-speed and so would that 89 5.0! I lose respect for you cause it's a blantant lie or exclusion of the whole story.

#3 The 5.0 cars have a bigger aftermarket, engine wise the 305/350 TPI market isn't anything compared to 5.0's and in gets even worse when you add in the chassis factor of a Fox vs 3rd Gen.

Rakshas
09-26-2004, 01:41 AM
Should have mentioned this earlier, but I didn't now the stang had a performer intake, I meant to compare stock cars.

emokid15
10-31-2004, 09:51 PM
well i dont care what other people talk smack 2 mustangs. i choosed the mustang and mustangs are the best. i have a 87 mustang 5.0 gt stock and its fast.

Hypsi87
10-31-2004, 10:21 PM
I would get a 1989 Turbo Trans Am. (It's a GTA body with the GN engine.) and kill them both :loser:

crayzayjay
02-24-2005, 02:46 PM
Whoever just voted in this poll, please read this:

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=162405

Add your comment to this topic!