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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Not true

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.

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.

the 92 Z28 is a 5.7 ltr TPI.

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.

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

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?

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

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

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.

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.

i dont know thats how it is around here too hmmm. i wonder whats up with that

I believe ya, I hardly see any Camaros over 100K and a lot of people I know have 120K+ Mustangs still going strong. So I guess the Mustang is the better choice.

Question, the "96 Mustang GT 4.6L only made 215HP? I thought it was making the same 260 it is making now, GTstang where are you.
Oh, also, I said year for year meaning in his price range, assuming he would spend $5K-10K he would most likely be looking at 93+ cars, I said before, Y blow money on a 92, step up a year and get an LT1. Oh, I think Camaro's have a bad rap because everyone beats the S*IT outta them... don't take this the wrong way GT or anyone, but a lot more girls are into mustang, tipping statistics in their favor. A lot of older people like Mustangs as well, due to the advantages, it is a more liveable daily car. The Mustang GT is a nice intermediate car in the Mustang line-up, a nice choice in between a 300+HP all-out performance car or a slow-ass V6.
You get my point.

Question, the "96 Mustang GT 4.6L only made 215HP? I thought it was making the same 260 it is making now, GTstang where are you.
Oh, also, I said year for year meaning in his price range, assuming he would spend $5K-10K he would most likely be looking at 93+ cars, I said before, Y blow money on a 92, step up a year and get an LT1. Oh, I think Camaro's have a bad rap because everyone beats the S*IT outta them... don't take this the wrong way GT or anyone, but a lot more girls are into mustang, tipping statistics in their favor. A lot of older people like Mustangs as well, due to the advantages, it is a more liveable daily car. The Mustang GT is a nice intermediate car in the Mustang line-up, a nice choice in between a 300+HP all-out performance car or a slow-ass V6.
You get my point.

The 4.6 doesn't make 260hp until 99 when the body change and they change the heads to P.I.(performance improved) heads.

As far as Mustangs not getting beat on maybe it is true but I'm not a girl and or and old man though I feel like it sometimes at 22. My first Stang(83 GT) lasted to 290,000 miles(90,000 by me) on the original engine no rebuild. My current Mustang has 150,000 miles original motor no rebuild.

The number of friends I have that own F-bodies outnumber Stangs 5:1 easy. I work on there cars to keep them running more than my cars. They all agree that Mustangs just tend to not break as easy. Once again not trying to just badmouth F-bodies cause I like them and work on them a lot but that's just how it tends to be around here(Central Mass).

So it only made 215HP... no way. I defintely got beat by older GT's (can tell by the taillights) in my Camaro V6, and it appeared to be a lot greater of a difference than 15 horses.

So it only made 215HP... no way. I defintely got beat by older GT's (can tell by the taillights) in my Camaro V6, and it appeared to be a lot greater of a difference than 15 horses.

Those are the numbers I swear to god.... That's why there was and still is a lot of Mod motor hatred among Stang owners. It made less HP than the good old 5.0 and there were practically no real mods for them other than S/C for some years.

You also probably got beat pretty bad cause there still was a large torque advantage with the early 4.6 vs your 6-shooter.

Hmm, so there isn't much aftermarket support for the 4.6? The reason I wanted the 4.6 is because it supposedly gets better gas mileage, it is newer and therefore easier to find, and SOHC is better for performance than pushrod is. However, I think I recall seeing a couple 5.0's with DOHC conversions. Is that a commonly done mod? Or is the pushrod design good enough? I'm not knocking pushrod or anything, it's tried-and-true...it just doesn't seem as efficient as having overhead cams to me. :)

naw hey kman there are a TON of aftermarket performance parts for the 4.6 now, a ton

Cool, but I'd still consider the 5.0 if it's really that much better than the 4.6. I should probably make a thread in the Mustang forum now that I'm comparing two Mustangs (still waiting on a Z28 test-drive, most of my friends have Mustangs :o).

ya 5.0 is an amazing engine, just wanted to say that there are alot more parts for the 4.6 now

I guess I should make a thread in the Mustang forum about this now...I've gotta decide which I'd prefer, the foxbody 5.0 or the newer 4.6.

Mot muscle car people know that the Ford 302 is THE modders engine... it is one of the easiest and has a huge HUGE aftermarket.

Well, I've always been an import person, but I think a Mustang is worth a try. I've asked around in some other forums and found out that the 5.0 is definitely the best Mustang engine. I'd prefer to get a 94 or 95 GT or Cobra, but a Foxbody is cool too. It's time to add the Mustang to my candidates list, and start keeping an eye out for a good deal on one :)

Hmm, so there isn't much aftermarket support for the 4.6? The reason I wanted the 4.6 is because it supposedly gets better gas mileage, it is newer and therefore easier to find, and SOHC is better for performance than pushrod is. However, I think I recall seeing a couple 5.0's with DOHC conversions. Is that a commonly done mod? Or is the pushrod design good enough? I'm not knocking pushrod or anything, it's tried-and-true...it just doesn't seem as efficient as having overhead cams to me. :)

Ok well the 4.6 market has gotten much much better but it is still maybe an 1/8th of what the 5.0 mod market is.

A DOHC 5.0 is super super rare in fact the only one I know were Gurney-Eagles sold in the mid 70's I think. Also don't confuse with Ford's new 5.0 DOHC crate motor which is still a mod motor.


Also If it was between a FOX and a SN-95 5.0 car and looks was all the same to me and I wanted the fastest solution it would be a fox cause they are all lighter.

I know the Fox is lighter, but the 1994/1995 seems to be much more comfortable to me. I've never driven a Foxbody, though, only ridden in one.

honestly... it also depends on what you find... most newer cars still are in newer condition, I have a few friends w/ foxes and they all are f*cked up somehow, i mean dents, bad paint, they weren't taken care of unfortunately... so unless you can find one in good condition, go w/ the next gen.

That's what I'm thinking, I'll seriously take whatever I can get for a good price. Just sayin' that I'd prefer a 94 or 95 :T

honestly... it also depends on what you find... most newer cars still are in newer condition, I have a few friends w/ foxes and they all are f*cked up somehow, i mean dents, bad paint, they weren't taken care of unfortunately... so unless you can find one in good condition, go w/ the next gen.


I agree totally but on the flip-side you can also buy a lot of Foxes that have been upkept, has a lot of mods, a brand new better than factory paint job for the same price as a nice SN-95 car. Like Kman said whatever deal he is able to come across.

Well honestly my first pick would be a Cobra which was only around for one year during the Foxbody style, but I'd be perfectly happy with any LX 5.0 or GT since I'm gonna mod anyways :P

Well honestly my first pick would be a Cobra which was only around for one year during the Foxbody style, but I'd be perfectly happy with any LX 5.0 or GT since I'm gonna mod anyways :P

I would not bother with a 93 Cobra they extra you pay for those cars is based on rarity+demand. It's performance above a regular 5.0 can be out matched for a $1,000 or less. And if your going to mod it anyway most of the parts that make it better will be taken off for others I/H/C etc.., So basically what I'm saying is if your gonna mod it a lot the 93 Cobra is a waste of money, if you have the money to burn well then more power to you!

BTW, what does "Sig Kill count: 40 and..." mean?

Okay, so if I'm doing mods, a GT or LX 5.0 will be better?

Okay, so if I'm doing mods, a GT or LX 5.0 will be better?
It depends on mods and what you ideally want to do with the car and how you want to get there. But I would save ya money on a 93 Cobra, a 95 Cobra is not much more than a 95 GT so in that case it's not as big of a deal.

What makes the 94/95 Cobra better than the 93 Cobra, besides the updated styling and interior?

Not better... cheaper!

Wow, that's odd. A car that's newer but cheaper... :P

BTW, what does "Sig Kill count: 40 and..." mean?

woo-hoo!!!!

I'm not the only one who fell for it!!!!

Thank you for bringing my thread back from the dead...someone lock it :/

Thank you for bringing my thread back from the dead...someone lock it :/

chill kman at least he got the -28-04 correct, all he has to do now is look at months and hell be fine haha

if u want a cheap reliable motor that has a huge aftermarket get the 302... the only thing better about the 4.6 is its so much sweeter beatin a 350, adds insult to injury :) but both the engines are equal in my books as performance, but in terms of dependebility and aftermarket the 302 wins...

and as for the mustang bein more of a chic car... do a little research, the sad fact is the demographics of both mustangs and camaros are 51% female.

my camaro (granted its a v6 but still) got no major problems and im about to break 154,000 miles, i can see it lasting no prob to 200,000 or more. my daily drivability is fine, summer and winter. i guess tho since this thread is a little old he might've decided, and i'm prolly biased my friend's mustang (i think its an 01 or 02, maybe 03) a month after he bought it from the dealership, wouldnt start... turns out the cables just disconnected from the battery overnight/were'nt tightened enough.