Ford Mustang GT VS Chevrolet Camaro Z28

well here it is everyone the biggest showdown for all comparisons the Mustang GT vs the Camaro Z28. well i like the mustang better and here is why

Bigger Wheelbase but not by much 101.3 vs 101.1
More Rear Leg Room 29.9 vs 26.9
Better Gas Mileage 18/26 vs 18/25

and MUSTANG IS THE BEST SELLER AND THATS WHY THE CAMARO IS GONE

#1, your gas mileage figures are off, LS1s have gotten up to 30 MPG on the highway. #2 rear leg room? glad you dont own an Fbody, and #3 you're forgetting the extra 70 RWTQ and 70 RWHP the LS1 cars have.

I think that if it came down to it and both cars where 6-speed, the camaro would take it. that 5.7Litre V8 is pretty damn powerful. but Im also biased towards GM cars...:rolleyes:

The camaro just kills the gt the ls1 is definetevelly more powerful. A mach one would have more of a chance but that is quite above the standard GT.


Also the mustang is selling so well because of the V6(image car anyone)

Not only is the engine in the Camaro bigger and produces more power, its also have a lot more potential than the 4.6 from the GT. Hot Rod Magazine featured a 10 second LS1 F-body with the stock block and no forced induction. Some hot rodding school built the car, and it wasn't even all raced out.

And stock for stock? the average LS1 F-body with a decent driver runs low to mid 13's.... Although there has been few instances where high 12's have been ran with the spare tire, jack, and tools removed as the only mod.


The Mustang also sells better because Ford advertises it more. Not saying that advertising is bad.. Just wondering why GM didn't publicize the Camaro so much more..

Mustang sells better because it's cheaper...CHEAPER...CHEAPER CHEAPER!!!!!

Yea, the Mustang is a cheaper car than the Camaro/Firebird, and that's why it sells better, plain and simple:)

Originally posted by Self
Mustang sells better because it's cheaper...CHEAPER...CHEAPER CHEAPER!!!!!

Yea, the Mustang is a cheaper car than the Camaro/Firebird, and that's why it sells better, plain and simple:)

I thought that the GT and the Z28 cost about the same?? If I remember correctly... the difference in MSRP was only like 200 bones..

And how's the v6 Camaro cmpare with the v6 Stang?

Originally posted by fatninja19


I thought that the GT and the Z28 cost about the same?? If I remember correctly... the difference in MSRP was only like 200 bones..

And how's the v6 Camaro cmpare with the v6 Stang?

Nope, the difference in 2002 was about $3000. Which changes the cost of insurance and the like.

Mustang, only cos the Camaro is so - damn - UGLY :apuke:

Disclaimer: no offence to any Camaro owners, it's my opinion so please respect it

Originally posted by Self


Nope, the difference in 2002 was about $3000. Which changes the cost of insurance and the like.

Ouch!!!

Originally posted by crayzayjay
Mustang, only cos the Camaro is so - damn - UGLY :apuke:

Disclaimer: no offence to any Camaro owners, it's my opinion so please respect it

They weren't THAT ugly. I admit, Camaros weren't the nicest cars, but either are Stangs. I think I would take the Camaro if I had a choice.

Heck no. The 2002 Z-28 Camaro will stop the 2002 Mustang GT...eat if for lunch! :D

2002 Z-28 Engine Specs.

5.7L V8 Engine Type
cast aluminum Block Material
350ci / 5665cc Displacement
10.1:1 Compression
310 / 231 @ 5200 Horsepower (hp / kw @ rpm)
340 / 461 @ 4000 Torque (lb-ft / Nm @ rpm)


02 Mustang GT

281ci (4605cc) V-8
Cast Iron Block/Aluminum heads
281ci 4605cc
9.4:1
260hp @ 5250 RPM's
302(lb-ft) @4000 RPM's

Tell me what car you think will get stomped??

And on top of what everything Scott just said.. the LS1 reacts to mods waaaaay better:spam:

Did anyone ever look at the power output and engine size comparison, sure the chevy has the bigger engine, but that ford is putting out a lot of power with that littler engine, think what would happen if they put a bigger engine in those mustangs (one the same size as the camaros), heck look at the new concept mustangs, not that I am bias one way or the other.

Originally posted by dolla_bill0913
Did anyone ever look at the power output and engine size comparison, sure the chevy has the bigger engine, but that ford is putting out a lot of power with that littler engine, think what would happen if they put a bigger engine in those mustangs (one the same size as the camaros), heck look at the new concept mustangs, not that I am bias one way or the other.

Doesn't matter...Sure that's wonderful they're putting out that hp with that engine...But an S2k is putting out nearly the same as the Mustang with half the engine size:rolleyes: That argument is invalid in a comparison. He asked which was better.

Originally posted by Scott 02
Tell me what car you think will get stomped?? instead of posting and then posting again right after it, why don't you just put the two posts all into one. Or if you posted and then forgot something, use the edit button.



and I would choose the camaro

Yeah i know......you know you are not the only person who has told me that. When i was typing that i by accedent clicked on Submit instead of preview it firts. Its like only the 3rd time i have done that . The Camaro would stomp it anyday. Tell me what car you think will get stomped??

Is that better now. sorry im taking up about 1mb of your space. Kicker1_solo
:D

will make sure it don't happen again. :)

Originally posted by Scott 02
When i was typing that i by accedent clicked on Submit instead of preview it firts. Then hit the EDIT button and edit your post instead of making a new one!

He won't reach 12701 posts if he do that :D

If he do that????? nice language. Maybe you should edit your last post :D I'll probably reach 12,701 posts before you.

You can give me the Z28 any day over the Stang. I need not say why; everyone else has already given my reasons.

Just kidding about the 12,701 posts lol that will take me awile to get that many. Oh yeah...i love the camaro i want one so bad. I just don't like the insurance on those ;) Maybe when i get older i might get the new kind.

Originally posted by Scott 02
Just kidding about the 12,701 posts lol that will take me awile to get that many. Oh yeah...i love the camaro i want one so bad. I just don't like the insurance on those ;) Maybe when i get older i might get the new kind.

How old are you? My insurance on my 1995 Z28 was $290 a month:eek: back when I was 17.

17, thats more than what i pay for my GTP.

I gotta go with the Z28 on this one. What I don't like about the 4.6 Modulars is there's no torque. I recently drove a 03' GT, you really have to rev em'. I used to own a 94' Z28, & it was nothing like that. Granted it was the lt1 not the ls1 but it still had the torque that the Modulars are missing...

stock for stock.. the LT1's actually had more down low than the LS1's now.

I hate camaros and firebirds, if they had 400 horsepower i wouldnt even buy one, they are horribly built, no quality what so ever, and despite so much more power, lap times for a z28 are barely better because a mustang handles better. Mustangs handle better, look better, ride better, and last longer. for the 3,000 dollar differenece i could make simple mods and get an easy 40 to 60 more horsepower. U guys can keep ur pushrods.

I would have to say that the camaro looks better, has more power (stock for stock), and is better for mods. My friend had a 97' Z28, supercharged, stahl, rear end (don't know size), chip, and a nice exhaust (got everything off e-bay) and ran 11.1 in the 1/4 @ 120 mph. He was about to get a tranny off of a Buick Grand National to keep from breaking his tranny. He was puttin out 500 hp at the engine and about 460 hp at the wheels, with over 450 lb. of torque (not sure how much, just over 450). He paid $14k (got it in 99) for the car and about $8k for the mods. Good prices, good results. I go with the Z.

I'm soory, but GT Mustangs are just SLOW. I have taken a GT Mustang in my 2002 Maxima. I've never even tried to hang with a Z28, but I've driven one and they are a lot more powerful than the GT. Mustangs are cheaply built, as are Camaros's, but at least Camaro's have a REAL V-8.:biggrin:

dang its been awile since i have posted in here. CAMARO! all the way people.

Bigger Wheelbase but not by much 101.3 vs 101.1
More Rear Leg Room 29.9 vs 26.9
Better Gas Mileage 18/26 vs 18/25]


PFFT who buys a muscle car for gas mileage, wheelbase, and leg room? you gotta be kidding :lol: :loser:

*and that gas mileage is a HUGE diff. by the way... :gay:

whatever you want to say....

I'm a mustang guy but I will admit that the mustang gt will get beat by the Z28. It isn't a fair comparison in performance though. The fairest comparison would be the 305 hp Mach 1 versus the 310 hp Camaro Z28.

sorry, the stangs are way more expensive..

You're paying for the mid life crisis, middle aged white guy car:iceslolan

yeah the lt1s do have more down low hp. it's basically an iron block vs. aluminum block dilemma.

For all the f-body haters. This car got a bad wrap due to the 3rd gen. cars.
82-92. Those were horribly built. But if you look for reviews for 4th gens. You'll see they're built really well, and got excellent marks from consumer reports. Except for the cheap looking interior. But I'll take that if my car will be reliable.

Also, my 99 v6 cammy has 65k miles on it, not one problem with it!

in response to dolla bill, the engine in the v8 is bigger. But the displacement is the same. Basically meaning, the size doesn't matter:sunglasse

actually the 4th gens chassis is weaker then teh 3rd gens. not to mention the better handling of the 3rd gens. the only thing the 4ths have on the 85-92 TPI cars is LT1 and LS1 power and the simple fact that they are more up to date in styling since they are newer.

the new LS1s are pretty under rated to. 325 or 335 they are rated at, most put out 300-320 at the wheels outta the show room. and they take to mods extremely well. ls1 is very well designed engine, and its also nice to beable to take a gen III 6.0L block, punch it out and have a 427 small block Ls1. its also nice that GM can get 406 N/A hp outta a z06 and ford cant break the 400hp mark with a blower.

he he he, take a look at thi s

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=3391&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

1BAD305, Ford is actually pumping out 430+ hp out of the supercharged 4.6 liter engine. The cobra is dynoing at about 375rwhp/375rwtq. With a 15% drivetrain loss, the cobra is actually pumping over 430 horsepower and 430 torque. That is more than the ls6 produces! I've noticed that all you can say about the mustang is that the cobra has a blower and the camaro/corvette doesn't. Why aren't you saying stuff about porsche. After all, they use twin-turbos. Please quit saying how crappy the cobra is because of its supercharger. There are plenty of companies that use superchargers on their cars!

i think the reason the "they just put a blower on it" comment comes up so much is just an excuse. for me i say it in a way kind of disappointed because if ford put their brains into it they could make a really nice motor that produces that hp.

all through the 80s/early 90s fords 302 whipped the 305, then the 350 came out making 275hp/285hp in 96/97 while fords 351 makes 300hp in the cobra r... but why does it have to be so expensive that they start dropping 4.6s (SMALLER MOTORS) in the stangs. true the new 5.7 like i have will make 360 or so stock (it varies) but at the same time the 5.4 cobra r will make 385. they need to make the motors more cost efficient they'd be on top of their game :icon16:

Ford's biggest problem: 4.6 liters. Simply put, that is just weak.

I guess this comparo is only based about performance and horsepowers right? Because if not, the Mustang would be the winner, is so much better looking, nice interior with the quality Chevrolet doesn´t has and is more confortable, and come on, I know Camaro is a little faster, but is that a main fact at the time of buying? Ask people who own way more Mustangs than Camaros, or even both

Originally posted by stangvette1
1BAD305, Ford is actually pumping out 430+ hp out of the supercharged 4.6 liter engine. The cobra is dynoing at about 375rwhp/375rwtq. With a 15% drivetrain loss, the cobra is actually pumping over 430 horsepower and 430 torque. That is more than the ls6 produces! I've noticed that all you can say about the mustang is that the cobra has a blower and the camaro/corvette doesn't. Why aren't you saying stuff about porsche. After all, they use twin-turbos. Please quit saying how crappy the cobra is because of its supercharger. There are plenty of companies that use superchargers on their cars!

do you have proof to back up such claims, 390hp is what ford claims. i think ford could have used more inginuity then to just slap a supercharger on it. my point about the stang having a blower and fbodys/vettes not is the fact that ford isnt that far ahead, and actually behind compared to the LS6. what about a porsche? last i knew this was a mustang camaro comparo. is the porsche a direct rival of the mustang and fbodys? i think not. its in a totally differnt class of cars and its specs has no bearings on this thread.

I personally do not own a cobra. But ask anyone who does and they will tell you that the horsepower was underrated by Ford!:smile:

Ford is at least making an attempt to move forward with technology instead of just using the same stuff from the 60's.

The '03 Mach 1 has an NA 4.6 liter engine and does the quarter in 13.1.
That is faster than a regular Z28 and about even with an SS. Why should a car(Mach 1) with over 1 liter less displacement and is heavier hang with these lighter cars with larger displacement engines(Z28,SS)?

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by stangvette1
I personally do not own a cobra. But ask anyone who does and they will tell you that the horsepower was underrated by Ford!:smile:

Yeah, let them pull out the butt dyno...:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
There's a lot of cars that feel like a lot more power than they really have.

Originally posted by SVTerminator
Ford is at least making an attempt to move forward with technology instead of just using the same stuff from the 60's.

The '03 Mach 1 has an NA 4.6 liter engine and does the quarter in 13.1.
That is faster than a regular Z28 and about even with an SS. Why should a car(Mach 1) with over 1 liter less displacement and is heavier hang with these lighter cars with larger displacement engines(Z28,SS)?

:rolleyes:

uh, first of all, thats not faster then a Z28, and second a 13.1 is the very best time it could accomplish, it's closed the gap between the 2 cars but it's still roughly a half seconds difference. I've seen a high 12 from a bone stock Fbody in person, when I see a 13.1 in person maybe then I'll believe it, but until then its just another MM&FF "stock" car with a retune, BFG rubber and a host of other mods, and just for the record I didnt believe them when the Fbody ran a high 12 there either.

Originally posted by stangvette1
I'm a mustang guy but I will admit that the mustang gt will get beat by the Z28. It isn't a fair comparison in performance though. The fairest comparison would be the 305 hp Mach 1 versus the 310 hp Camaro Z28.

Ok. Guess what? The Mustang still gets its ass kicked. Why? Z28's, SS's, Formula's, Ws6's all dyno about 300-310 to the rear wheels. In the real world, LS1 f-bodies make about 350 flywheel hp. So 260 vs 350? Not even close. Don't believe me? Look at the trap speeds. Mustang Gt's trap around 98-100 in the 1/4th. LS1 f-bodies trap around 304-306. LS1 f-bodies on average trap around SIX mph higher than GT's. Thats a HUGE difference. Trap numbers tell where the real horsepower is.

Originally posted by SVTerminator
Ford is at least making an attempt to move forward with technology instead of just using the same stuff from the 60's.

The '03 Mach 1 has an NA 4.6 liter engine and does the quarter in 13.1.
That is faster than a regular Z28 and about even with an SS. Why should a car(Mach 1) with over 1 liter less displacement and is heavier hang with these lighter cars with larger displacement engines(Z28,SS)?

:rolleyes:

The Mach 1 is about even with a well driven Z28 in the 1/4th. Z28's and SS's trap at almost the exact same milage driven the same. Reason is they have very close to the same hp. Seems like pushrod power is doing just fine in the new century. Somehow, few engines in anything less than a $50k+ car came come close to the power a LS1 is putting down stock let along with a few mods. (the blown 4.6 being the exception).

Tekone, you talk about the camaro ss or the transam having 310-320 at the wheels. Let's compare that to a car that is about $1000 more. The mustang cobra is dynoing anywhere from 370-385 hp at the wheels. With the 15% drivetrain loss, that is over 440 horsepower at the flywheel! The cobra will beat ls1 ass by a mile!

P.S. The mach 1 is just as fast as a f-body ls1. :smile:

1000 more? you could pay 30s for a transam, if you're a moron, but they start at high 20s, and they're not for people looking for a bang for the buck car. As to "moving away from 60's technology" - if you actually knew anything about the different valvetrains you'd realize they're both late 1800s creations, DOHC is not more high tech and it is not better overall. Funny how the stang fans have turned, before the OHC stuff was overblown bullshit they didnt need, now they're trying to hold one of THE shittiest head designs over the heads of Fbody fans, who's LS1 design is one of the best ever, OHC or OHV, stock LS6 heads can nearly flow with winston cup racing models, that not enough tech for you?

lol, everywhere you look non-03 owners are using the 03 cobra to defend themselves... "hey i have a v6 stang and it's got about as much horsepower as my mom's minivan but... the 03 cobra will kick your ASS!" :loser:

Why should a car(Mach 1) with over 1 liter less displacement and is heavier hang with these lighter cars with larger displacement engines(Z28,SS)? :rolleyes:
DOHC :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Idunno, I am only 16 years old. I can't afford a cobra. I bought a v6 because it looked nice and my parents could insure it. When I am about 25, I will buy a cobra! I just love mustangs and I am glad to own one. Sure it has a weak v6, but it still looks better than firebirds or camaros. I'm not trying to start anything here, but what is your point? When camaro or firebird people are in trouble, It's big bad camaro ss or transam to the rescue! It's obvious that since the mach 1 is barely slower than the ss or transam that a supercharged version of that 4.6 liter,4 valve engine (mustang cobra) will kill a camaro ss or transam.:loser:

Originally posted by stangvette1
Idunno, I am only 16 years old. I can't afford a cobra. I bought a v6 because it looked nice and my parents could insure it. When I am about 25, I will buy a cobra! I just love mustangs and I am glad to own one. Sure it has a weak v6, but it still looks better than firebirds or camaros. I'm not trying to start anything here, but what is your point? When camaro or firebird people are in trouble, It's big bad camaro ss or transam to the rescue! It's obvious that since the mach 1 is barely slower than the ss or transam that a supercharged version of that 4.6 liter,4 valve engine (mustang cobra) will kill a camaro ss or transam.:loser:

Your age shows in your posts. Whether you think your Mustang looks better than f-bodies in immaterial. Everyone on either side of the fence will say their car looks better than the other. Thats why they bought it.:) You have contunally posted incorect or just plain BS'd posts in this thread and in others I have read that you posted in. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT before you post. Other people might believe you and spread the BS even farther. My point is this: Read up on your cars first and then post. Someone else in another thread has a similar problem and 10 of my posts have still not quited them down. Yes a supercharged 03' Cobra will beat an LS1 f-body. Who whoulda thought that? Look at the trap speeds. An LS1 traps around 5 mph or so slower than an 03' Cobra. So obviously, the Cobra has some hp to it if it is trapping that much higher. Quit generalizing and saying that a 4-valve Mustang engine will beat an LS1. What has happened since 96' up until this year when the 03' Cobra came out? 4-valve Cobras have been getting beat year after year.

Loser? Please. You being immature. Grow up first and then come back and post.

im 17 and own an 89 iroc, someday ill buy an Ls1 yadda yadda yada. still has nuthin to do with this comparo. techone and idunno thanks for helpin to enlighten a few people but i think now its useless, ya can lead a horse to water but u cant make em drink.

Tekone, I do have my facts straight. Yes, I have read up on my facts about the mustang cobra ( it's only my favorite car in the world). I am involved in svtperformance.com, stangnet.com, mustanglife.com, and stangit.com forums. I chat with people that own cobras. Some of them are getting around 380rwhp and 380rwtq when they dyno their cars. Newsflash, Ford underrated the cobra. Maybe you need to open your eyes and quit dreaming that GM rules the world!

here's something interesting to say. All this talk is about 2003 cobras and mach 1s, when chevy didn't even make a 2003 FBODY, you're making comparisons against cars that are no longer produced and of course are older. No wonder they're faster. Hahaha, this's the only time that the pony boys compare to the f-bodys, and they make these comparisons when they are no longer produced. :thefinger Why don't we stick with year for year comparisons. In 2002, chevy couldn't be beat. Wait till they release the next round of camaros.. mua ha ha

and btw, any n/a car that keeps up with a blown one, kicks ass
ls6 vs. blown 4.6=close race
blown ls6 vs. blown 4.6= not a race
man, a blown ls6 could easily run low 11s, 10s. wow :thefinger
and for the extra 10k you're paying for with a corvette, you're getting luxury, true v-8 power.
Oh, I just remembered something, my friend's dad has a supercharged 2003 z06
puts down 625 horses

It's big bad camaro ss or transam to the rescue! It's obvious that since the mach 1 is barely slower than the ss or transam that a supercharged version of that 4.6 liter,4 valve engine (mustang cobra) will kill a camaro ss or transam.

it's almost always ls1 OWNERS getting in fights with gt owners, and the first thing out of there mouth is, yah... well the 03 cobra will beat you. wow, do they have a 03 cobra? no, so what is their point? i wasn't posting attacking you, just saying something i've noticed.

Originally posted by stangvette1
Tekone, I do have my facts straight. Yes, I have read up on my facts about the mustang cobra ( it's only my favorite car in the world). I am involved in svtperformance.com, stangnet.com, mustanglife.com, and stangit.com forums. I chat with people that own cobras. Some of them are getting around 380rwhp and 380rwtq when they dyno their cars. Newsflash, Ford underrated the cobra. Maybe you need to open your eyes and quit dreaming that GM rules the world!

Where did I ever say the 03' Cobras were overrated? I have already mentioned that they are underrated by around 25 or so hp. I was refering to the previous 94 to 2001 Cobras. Seems like the pre fix 99's weren't exactly underrated.:) They couldn't even match dyno sheets with previous 98 Cobras. I don't think GM rules the world in any way. You need to read more closely what I post.