5.0 Battle: 1992 Ford Mustang GT vs. 1992 Chevrolet Camaro Z28

[kman10587]

I've got about $5000-10000 to spend on a used car, but I can't really buy one without looking at the good old V8, rear-wheel-drive, all-American muscle cars. So, I figured I'd get some opinions on the two major contenders beforehand. Which of these cars has the advantage in:
1. quarter mile performance?
2. autocross performance?
3. ease of modification for more power/better handling?
4. reliability and build quality?
5. gas mileage?
6. safety ratings?
7. drivability and functionality (such as clear views out of the windows, comfort of the seats, etc.)?
8. transmission quality (such as ease of clutch engagement, ease of shifting, durability, etc.)?

Thanks in advance.

[Joseph1082]

One thing, if you have $5K-10K to spend you can do a lot newer than 92.

[kman10587]

I know that, but I don't want to spend all of it if I don't have to; I'd like to have some left over to modify the car, or just have some in reserve in case anything breaks. If I can find a newer Z28 or a DOHC 4.6L V8 Cobra in decent condition for under $7500, though, I might go for it. Even so, I'm curious as to which of these cars is better.

[Joseph1082]

Honestly, I think the Ford 302 (5.0) os much better than the 4.6. Now, my advice may be a little biased but the best thing I can say to you is buy a 93+ Camaro v8, so you'll get the LT1, properly call the cast iron king. Though not as fast as the newer more refined LS1, it is a powerful, torquey motor. It has A LOT of potential, the Iron block makes it better than the LS1 for FI... you can build it up n/a, heads cam, etc, even stroke it. And you can definitely find it in your $$$ range.
Oh, and year for year, the F-body is always faster.

[GTStang]

Originally Posted by Joseph1082

Oh, and year for year, the F-body is always faster.

Not true

[kman10587]

I'm pretty sure that the first few years of the 4.6L Cobra were faster than the F-Body Ram Airs, but I'm not concerned with that fine a degree of performance anyways. Both cars are pretty damn fast, and that's enough for me. I'm more concerned with how much money I'm going to truly have to spend on either car when you factor in gas, insurance, and maintenance, and how livable the cars are in daily driving.

[Joseph1082]

Ok, when the LT1's came out the F-body was faster year for year. As for daily livability, I think the Mustang GT is a better choice than the F-body.

[Rakshas]

the 92 Z28 is a 5.7 ltr TPI.

[GTStang]

Originally Posted by Joseph1082

Ok, when the LT1's came out the F-body was faster year for year. As for daily livability, I think the Mustang GT is a better choice than the F-body.

Ok I agree since the LT-1's came out but year-to-year would start at 67 and run to 02.

[chevydrummer76]

i've seen 93-95 lt-1 camaros in the 5k range

[kman10587]

Well, I got to sit in and drive around a bit a 1996 Mustang GT yesterday. The car felt pretty comfortable, and I liked the torquey feel of the engine (although the transmission could have been better). The problem is that a 1996 Mustang GT makes 215 hp and 285 torque, and costs around $6500. For the same price, the Camaro Z28 gives me 285 hp and 325 torque, as well as a better suspension and a six-speed transmission. Now, I need to find a Camaro Z28 and see if the increased performance is worth the decreased livability. Meanwhile, anyone have any opinions on which car is more reliable? I generally hear that the Mustang is, any many of my friends who own Mustangs have kept them past 150,000 miles. Which car do you think will last longer with fewer problems?

[91300zxtt]

the mustang will last longer, more reliable. funny my friends camaro just broke down esterday haha. i like em both, but i would go with the stang in all honesty

[flylwsi]

get an lx mustang, saves weight, loses the louver-look tails, loses the body kit.

lx 5.0 is a great car, almost sleeper...

and with some money in it, it's hella quick, and can be made to handle as well

[kman10587]

Yeah, I didn't feel like typing GT/LX 5.0 every time, but I'd be fine with a LX 5.0 too. So the general concensus is Mustang is the way to go...I'm still gonna try out a Z28 and see how I like it. But I'll keep an eye out for any good deals on a Mustang LX 5.0, GT, or even Cobra.

[GTStang]

Originally Posted by kman10587

Well, I got to sit in and drive around a bit a 1996 Mustang GT yesterday. The car felt pretty comfortable, and I liked the torquey feel of the engine (although the transmission could have been better). The problem is that a 1996 Mustang GT makes 215 hp and 285 torque, and costs around $6500. For the same price, the Camaro Z28 gives me 285 hp and 325 torque, as well as a better suspension and a six-speed transmission. Now, I need to find a Camaro Z28 and see if the increased performance is worth the decreased livability. Meanwhile, anyone have any opinions on which car is more reliable? I generally hear that the Mustang is, any many of my friends who own Mustangs have kept them past 150,000 miles. Which car do you think will last longer with fewer problems?

I have many friends who drive Camaro's and it seems that they are always having problems here and there with thier 3rd and 4th gens while I have no problems with my stang. I don't know if one is more reliable than the other just how it plays out around here.