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

[91300zxtt]

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

[kman10587]

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.

[Joseph1082]

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.

[GTStang]

Originally Posted by Joseph1082

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).

[Joseph1082]

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.

[GTStang]

Originally Posted by Joseph1082

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.

[kman10587]

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.

[91300zxtt]

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

[kman10587]

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).

[91300zxtt]

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

[kman10587]

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.

[Joseph1082]

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.

[kman10587]

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

[GTStang]

Originally Posted by kman10587

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.

[kman10587]

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.