mustang 5.0 luv em or hate em?

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.