Quote: Nic it's just what I have observed from working in an auto parts store for a year. In my own opinion I believe that the F-Body has a better basis for a performance car. Even one of my fellow employees I work with who is totally Mustang-biased admits that my IROC is a better basis for an all-around performance car if I am willing to spend the cash. You're entitled to that opinion. I was just responding to the statement about the Mustang's lack of an aftermarket. IMO if you're willing to spend the cash you can make either one of the two cars into an amazing all around performance car. That's the result of having huge aftermarkets at your disposal.

Yes and I agree that you can turn either machine into a real performance car and it all comes down to which brand you like more and the price you are willing to spend to make the two cars equal. You probably can't go wrong with either choice because they are both rear wheel drive-American bred-V8 powered machines, it's just that I would pick the F-Body. That's all.

Better choice.

Thanks, for mods i've got Edelbrock TES headers,Edelbrock catback exhaust,no cat(straight pipe),TPIS level 3 chip,modified MAF,52 mm throttle body with TPIS air foil,ram air,K&N's,MSD ignition,TPIS ignition coil,comp cams xtreme energy cam,timing advanced,under drive pulleys, and a couple other things. I'm changing over to a mini-ram setup sometime soon and hoping for 450 HP realistically out of the motor.

Well, to put either car on the ragged edge of either handling or 1/4 mile performance, you're going to spend looooootttts of money. Mustangs can handle, so long as you've got the right parts, and you can set up a suspension correctly. Personally, I'm gonna make my Mustang one helluva street brawler, with a decent mix of handling tossed in for kicks. Most the streets in Phoenix run north/south, east/west, so all I really have to worry about is hitting those easy 90 degree apexes...

Rattle traps??? Our 85 Camaro with 90000 miles rattles a heckuva lot more than my 89 Mustang with 142000 miles on it.

And you've never lost to a Mustang in your LG4? Certainly you're either (a) hugely modified, or (b) picking on 4 cylinder Stangs.

Dude, what have you been smoking? Put the crack pipe down and pick up a copy of MM&FF. There is a huge aftermarket for the 5.0. There are dozens of companies, other than Ford, who make intakes, cams, heads, superchargers, turbochargers, suspension components, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

I have Super Ford and Mustang magazines coming out of the wazoo. I have been collecting them since I was 8. I used to be a 60s Mustang guy. When I turned 16, I test drove a '89 5.0 Notchback 5-speed and was impressed. Then my dad said I should test drive a Camaro before I set myself on a Mustang. So I drove the '89 IROC vert I own and I was definitely way more impressed by the fit and finish of the IROC, the quality of the interior, the position in the seat compared to the mustang (how the wheel was, shifter, etc.) , the better braking and way better handling (the handling was just amazing compared to the Mustang!) I am not making any of this up I know my stuff. How many people do you know have rebuilt a V8 at the age of 12? (My dad used it in his '53, so it did run after I rebuilt it). I know about fit and finish because my dad and I built a '34 Ford Sedan Hot Rod out of scrap pieces. I am not talking out of my ***, I know my stuff and maybe you should read the previous posts before jumping down my ***, because I wrote: "Nic it's just what I have observed from working in an auto parts store for a year." Yes an AUTO PARTS STORE.

Easy fellas. Neither one of these cars are known for their world class craftsmanship. If you cared about interior quality too much you wouldn't be driving a mustang or f-body. No need to get in a pissing contest over which car is better because neither car is better...they're both great foundations to build on.

And thats something I tried to get across earlier.....You probably can't go wrong with either choice because they are both rear wheel drive-American bred-V8 powered machines

Sorry if I offended you. I just couldn't believe anyone would say that the only aftermarket for 5.0's is from Ford Racing. You may have been a Ford guy at one time, but that statement is just blatantly uninformed. And not to be insulting or anything, but working in an auto parts store doesn't make anyone an expert in anything.

in my opinion, i think that the fox body mustang has a LITTLE bit better of an aftermarket selection, but that could be b/c of the many different v8's that gm offered. if you have a 305, how many choices of heads do you have?...my point exactly. plus, if you want aftermarket heads, on some of them, you have to get a different intake manifold for the bolt pattern.

and on the subject of which is better, well it all depends on what you want...handling, comfort, performance, stereo, etc.
i happen to like both, infact i like imports too for that matter. i own one of those too. look at my sig. i try to appreciate all cars. i like ricers with body kits (i prefer the clean look), and i like mustangs with loud exhaust and open headers, i like camaros. its all about personal preference. this car stuff is supposed to be fun; a hobby, something to spend your paycheck on.
so my advice, do whatever you want. buy a mustang and mod it, or hell buy a kia and put a turbo on it, its whatever you want to do. and i often wonder why it has to be about mustang/camaro or mopar/svt/chevy or import/domestic, rice vs. corn
why cant we all enjoy the sport
so to the mustang guys, i respect you, whatever you do with your car.
ricers, i respect them too, b/c sometimes its cool to see a juiced civic run 13's, or that slammed show car. (but dont have an attitude, or try to front that your stock show car is a race car)
anyways,
peace out and have fun with your car, show, go, or auto x

Human nature. People are naturally competitive.

I DIDNT SAY THAT. I said the only engine components made for the 302s are Ford Racing stuff. Which may be slightly uninformed but the real basis for most companies is Pre-'87 Small Block Chevy components. That's the reason why Ford Racing is the main source for engine components on the 302's (They're not even 5 liter engines, so I stopped calling them by their metric measurments) I may not be an expert at what I do but I KNOW A LOT about the high-performance aftermarket, there's a Mustang guy coming through everyday ordering parts for his Fox-body Mustang.

I think the point he's trying to get across is that Ford Racing is nowhere near the main source of engine components for 302's.

Heres the lowdown... I have a 88 Mustang GT and a 85 T/A


Mustang stock will spank probally all 305 f-body that are stock.

Thats it


Now a 350 is where it starst to come alot closer between the 2.

THe mustang cant handle worth **** and the cost to make it handle liek a T/A would be more then the cost fora t/A to take on a mustang

Mustangs have more parts available

Mustangs dont look nearly as good

Mustangs sounds better

Mustangs are lighter(this is not necissarily good though as snow driving is not all that fun)


If you want to tear a mustang up and have your F-body ge ta carbed 350 (old one put $2000 in the motor) and oyull priablyl need a tranny to.

....and you will tear the **** out of alot fo heavily modified mustangs


There are kits to make a 350 put out 430 HP for like $1400 wihtout carb.


To mak ea mustang oput out that number you woudl spend

intake = $600
throttlebody and spacer = $200
Injectors = $200
Camshaft= $200
Heads = $1200
and in reality you wont be anywhere near 430 HP wiht a 5.0 wiht all that crap then you start spending biocks dollars for 5 HP gains


Im abotu to get a 350 and ptu all victor jr. race **** on it and throw in in the T/A and sell the mustang(Im gonna make over 500 horses..... ) 302's woudl be damn near impossible to make that and be drivable


Theres no replacement for dispacement


Note: f-body's have a pretty big aftermarket for them as well


Summary: If you want a good platform for strickly drag racing go with a mustang body with a huge motor

If you want a bad *** good looking good handling really quick and cheaper to make that way car get an F-body with a 350(cheaper if carbed)

Heres the lowdown... I have a 88 Mustang GT and a 85 T/A


Mustang stock will spank probally all 305 f-body that are stock.

Thats it


Now a 350 is where it starst to come alot closer between the 2.

THe mustang cant handle worth **** and the cost to make it handle liek a T/A would be more then the cost fora t/A to take on a mustang

Mustangs have more parts available

Mustangs dont look nearly as good

Mustangs sounds better

Mustangs are lighter(this is not necissarily good though as snow driving is not all that fun)


If you want to tear a mustang up and have your F-body ge ta carbed 350 (old one put $2000 in the motor) and oyull priablyl need a tranny to.

....and you will tear the **** out of alot fo heavily modified mustangs


There are kits to make a 350 put out 430 HP for like $1400 wihtout carb.


To mak ea mustang oput out that number you woudl spend

intake = $600
throttlebody and spacer = $200
Injectors = $200
Camshaft= $200
Heads = $1200
and in reality you wont be anywhere near 430 HP wiht a 5.0 wiht all that crap then you start spending biocks dollars for 5 HP gains


Im abotu to get a 350 and ptu all victor jr. race **** on it and throw in in the T/A and sell the mustang(Im gonna make over 500 horses..... ) 302's woudl be damn near impossible to make that and be drivable


Theres no replacement for dispacement


Note: f-body's have a pretty big aftermarket for them as well


Summary: If you want a good platform for strickly drag racing go with a mustang body with a huge motor

If you want a bad *** good looking good handling really quick and cheaper to make that way car get an F-body with a 350(cheaper if carbed)

It is what you said. You said the only aftermarket for "302 engine components" was from Ford Racing. I used the term "5.0's". And, you've just repeated the statement again, although now you say you "may be slightly uninformed". If you "KNOW A LOT" about the high performance aftermarket, then you should know that every major engine component manufacturer makes engine components for the 5.0.

I've got a copy of MM&FF sitting here in front of me, and if you'd like I'd be more than happy to list some engine component manufacturers... Here's a short list:

Heads: Edelbrock, World Products Windsors, Trick Flow/Twisted Wedge, Holley. Also available from Canfield, Brodix, AFR, and others.

Intakes: Edelbrock, Holley, Trick Flow, Weiand. Also available from Cartech, Hogan, Comp Cams, and others.

Throttle Bodies: BBK, Holley, Edelbrock, Accufab, MAC

Cams: Ultradyne, Comp Cams, Wolverine, Crane, Crower, Lunati, Steeda, and every other manufacturer and custom grinder.

Rods: Oliver, Crower, Carillol, Manly, Eagle, Scat, GRP, Probe.

Pistons: TRW, Probe, DSS

Electronics: MSD, Accel, Fireball, Crane

Superchargers available from ATI, Powerdyne, Vortech and Paxton.

Nearly all of the components listed above are also produced by SVO/SVT/FMS/FRPP as well, and a lot of people use exclusively Ford parts when doing their build-ups. The Ford stuff is very good stuff. (Also, I realize that all of the above companies also make stuff for SBC's and BBC's.)

It simply amazes me that someone who claims to "KNOW A LOT" about aftermarket high performance parts thinks that the only engine components for the 5.0 are made by Ford Racing and that all anyone else makes for Mustangs is exhausts and wheels. You are NOT "slightly uninformed", you are "incredibly uninformed". In other words, you know squat about the Ford 302 aftermarket. So quit trying to pass yourself off as some kind of expert because you worked in an "AUTO PARTS STORE". All that makes you is a clerk. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

haven't we beat this topic to death already? Mustang? Camaro? Who Cares?! They're both great cars and deliver what we're all looking for-PERFORMANCE- Both cars have massive aftermarket product choices and both are very cheap cars to build up. Is there a need for a pissing contest over who has the broader aftermarket? or the cheapest parts? NO..It's like listening to a bunch of old ladies arguing over a whole lot of nothing. We all drive great american bred V8(and sometimes V6 turbo's hehe) muscle cars. Isn't that enough? I sure as hell think it is.

Sorry CobraKiller, you're right. But, I wasn't debating Ford v. Chevy, or Mustang v. Camaro, or which has a bigger aftermarket, or which is less expensive to build. Just trying to point out that there is a lot more to the 5.0 engine component aftermarket than just Ford Racing Performance Parts... End of topic for me...

No need to be sorry..you're one of the most well informed "mustang" guys on the board I just didn't want to see this topic turn into a big argument over nothing as I've seen plenty in the past.

Camaros better handlers than mustangs? News to me. The only bit of experience I can put into this is my brother 87 Z28 and my 85 couger. The Camaro was a great handler, but it was helpless on anything but dry smooth terrain. My cougar was exactly the same. My brother drove a 4 cylinder mustang once and complained about the handling.
Although, back in the late 60s and early 70s, most mustangs were fantastic handlers. Just watch Bullitt, and you'll get some idea. The R/T slings around corners, burning tires. The Mustang goes around every corner- no problem. The Boss 351 in 68 was known for it's handling...
You know- if you want my opinion, it just depends on what year and what model camaro or mustang you're comparing. I usually prefer Fords, but just look at the 80s mustangs. No offense and I would have one if given the chance, but...hatchback? notchback? Come on, can you think of a few other cars that carried similar body shapes? Subarus, Toyotas, Chevette, Citation, Cavalier...Like I said, I would have one, but my taste isn't always for sporty designs. If you want something sporty from the 80s, the camaro is way above the mustang.
If hurts to say that.

OK, I said I was through, but, Abel, you're way off base. The 60's & 70's Mustangs didn't handle any better than the Fox's or current Mustangs. I mean, look at the tires those things used. They didn't even make radials then. On those bias ply tires, and with 60's/70's suspension and shock technology, those things handled like boats, even compared to a Fairmont chassied Fox-body. Bullitt was a movie. Any car can be made to look good in a movie. Hell, give me a special effects team, and I'll show you Honda Civics outrunning Porsche 911's. Oh, sorry, that's already been done in TF&TF... And, there were no Boss 351's in 1968. The Boss 351's were, I believe, only made in 1971, and maybe 1972. In 68-69, they made a Boss 302, and in 69-70, they made the Boss 429. The Bullitt car was a 68 GT Fastback, probably with either a 390 or a 428.

Just read a post about the driving position in mustangs and camaros and I do recall the 87 z28's seating. I do not like being crunched up into a car, of course I'm only 5'7. But I hate being reclined as well. Used to have an 83 coupe deville with electric seats. Got it positioned just the way I liked it and then it happened. The controls stopped working, so anyone erlse who got in was not fond of my settings and they could do nothing about it. Looking back, I wish I had kept my 403 in that car and just fixed it up. I didn't know it then, but it would have cost me less. If you look in the the books, when the magazine people test drove the coupe deville, they gave it a 2 out of a possible 5 in handling/roadholding, and I personally loved the handling and driving position, seats, interior, everything, so maybe my views on handling should be disregarded by sports car drivers. Does anyone know if an 81 cutlass supreme brougham handles well? It will be completed just in time for spring, I believe- I've given my cousin an unlimited amount of time to finish since my payment may achieve a similar status. It will occur, but it will take patience. Anyway, sorry for two back to back posts.

It was a 1971 Boss 351. Here's an piece from a book, "...the 351 went through most corners with virtually no roll and had so much power it over- rather than understeered." The World's Greatest Classic Cars- page 109. I realize that Bullitt was a movie, but there's no exaggeration of speeds- the mustang is really cutting around corners, they really hit speeds of 120 in that movie. McQueen was a proffessional race car driver. As a matter of fact, he had to be trained on how to lose control. The only thing I don't like is the rumous that the mustangs sounds were dubbed in from a different car. If that's true, it sucks, but the did do a very good job at it.

I've gotta agree with that...even though in my opinion a stock fox body stang is not going to outhandle a thirdgen f-body it will absolutely destroy an older stang in the turns. The fox stangs have better tires and suspension components. And anything can happen in a a movie take F&TF for example..Do you think that charger pulled that wheelstand and spun the tires like that? If you do then I've got a bridge for sale real cheap..

Abel, When was that book written? I suspect that the writer's impressions of the Boss 351 were based on a comparison to other cars available in 1971 or earlier, and in that context, the Boss was certainly an excellent performer. But, on a twisty course, my money would be on an 87-93 fox-body, SN95, or newer Mustang, or any post 1987 Camaro.

The 71 Boss 351 was the biggest Mustang ever. 109" wheelbase. Almost 190" overall length. It was darn near as big as a Torino which was 117/206. I've never driven a 71-73 Mustang, so can't really comment directly on their handling characteristics, but I did own a 71 Torino GT back in the mid-70's and, if they were even remotely similar, well.... the word land-yacht comes to mind...

There's a guy here who owns a 71 boss 351. The real way to find out is to ask him. By the way, I have an uncle who owned a 72 318 Challenger. He bragged about how fast it was, with me doubting that, but he complained of the rear end nearly swing around under hard breaking or cornering. The way I see it, it really depends on how you drive a car. That little handling flaw could be an advantage. Some cars give you a little warning when there about to lose control. Others, like a certain cougar and z28 just fly along and BOOM, you're wrapped around a telephone pole or tucked into a Ram's bumper. I guess that's the difference between tight and soft suspension. If you want to compare a camaro and a mustang, compare the 69 ZL1 to the 71 Boss 351. Which is the better handler? You want Mustangs that are actually bad at handling, try the 64s and the 66 390s weren't to smooth either.
By the way this book was published in 1995.

It also says that, at least in 84, Mustangs suffered from "terminal understeer", something the SVO didn't have. "...it lacks the larger-engined car's propensity for terminal understeer, making it almost the equal of the '84 Corvette through the slalom course." This book quotes alot from Motor Trend, so it can be assumed that this info could also be found there.

UMMMMMMMM SO WHAT !!!!!!!

I've owned and driven several classic stangs, and believe me...there's no comparison in the way they handle in stock form compared to a stock fox body. If you want to understand the difference...take both the sway bars off the fox, throw a set of 90/10's on the front and then add a set of bald drag radials on the back and skinnies up front. That will give you about equal handling capabilities, with the exception that the fox will be more stable at high speed. I've been there, I KNOW this is how it is.

Okay I am dropping out of this topic because we have steered away from the original post. I also know I am not going to win this arguement with an attorney....

See the thing with the mustang 5.0 is, that they have a large bore and a shorter stroke. So you can rev, NOS, and supercharge the **** outta them and they usually can hold it. The GM 5.0 has a long stroke and smaller bore, so it makes gobs of torque but not much hp. I will say that the ford 5.0 is a very good, and inexpensive engine. But I would go for a 350. You got the torque and the HP. 1+1=GO!

but they look like ***

You know, I started saying that exact same thing after I barely would pull on a stock 5.0 5-speed with my car. And we all know how easy and somewhat in-expensive they are to mod. I don't know, I think we are crazy sometimes. But I will definently admit...OURS LOOK SOOOO MUCH BETTER!!! LOL

That's up to the opinion of the person you're asking. Some people like one style, some like another. A clean third gen with ground effects isn't hard on the eyes, but I still prefer the looks of even a well worn fox body any day of the week. (This is where my bias will come out because outside of anything that has "Ferrari" in its name I think the fox bodies are the nicest looking car on the road). Anyway, point is...looks are very subjective. What looks good to one person may not necessarily look good to another.

I agree with Nic. I do like the looks of the F-body....they look fast just sitting there. BUT, i also LOVE the looks of the Fox Body.

My likes have changed. I used to hate notchbacks and LX's in general and only liked the GT's. After owning 2 LX hatchbacks, i would never consider a GT again...in fact, Now I want an LX notchback..a style I used to hate. You grow to love them when you figure out their benefits.


I agree though..stock 5.0's handle like ***. I had a friend with a 1990 firebird V6. I could dust him in a straight line but i could never handle like his car when stock. Of course, springs and shocks and subframes can change all that.

If i ever do buy a mustang one day down the road it will almost have to be an LX notchback..GT's are a dime a dozen and an lx hatch is a little bit more rare but the LX notch is a car you don't see everyday. I only see one nice 5.0 notchback maybe once a month sometimes i go even longer without seeing a nice one out driving. Something about the style that makes it look intimidating.

NOTHING looks as mean as a clean notch with skinnies up front, a set of big *** slicks on the back, a cowl hood, and an aluminum wing.



Especially when it runs high 6's/low 7's at over 200 mph

Your opinion. Not mine.

Yep, and you know what they say about opinions

hehe..everyone has one...that car looks bad ***..there's one around my area that's electric blue w/4 inch cowl hood skinnies up front and slicks on the rear and the aluminum wing to boot. He brings it out to beat up on the street cars every now and then. Supposedly it's running high 8's to low 9's at the track. I love my IROC but I love a clean notch also..and that's my opinion

I give Mustangs respect because they are good cars, But They are not faster than camaros period. Yea If you get a 5.0vs.5.0 yea the mustang was faster( and 90% of people who hace IROCS and thirdgens have 305's ) but the 305 was not made for performance. If you wanted performance you paid the extra for the 350. I think any givin year from 82-92 the mustang and the camaro were a very close race.I personaly can tell you that I have never lost to a mustang when I was stock till now. I now my car is faster a 5.0. When I was Bone stock( From air filters to mufflers )and I mean Bone stock to the radio leavin My stuff in the trunk and having the spare Tire in I got a best of 14.1 at 99.8 Mph. Most Mustangs couldent get that till 1999 and 2000. But Im sure some 5.0 Lx's did in the early 90's. I guess what Im sayin is that any mustang is not faster than Camaro its just in the 80's you couldent get a 350 model with a 5 spd so everybody went out and got a ford and said that camaros suck. In the ninties and till now people are just plain out dumb and still think that way. Also Im sure plenty of people will dissagre with me so here- I live in the Bay Area- If you have a 5.0 with the same mods as me we can meet some time and run but you better be well into the 13's cause I am.

If I lived near there I would love to race your car in my dads 1991 LX 5.0:
Pulleys, K&N, Mac Cat-back, Drag shocks, Lower control arms, shifter, and full interior.
Next year, with H-pipe and Headers hes making a run for the 12s, already went 13.6 without suspension stuff. I love racing Camaros in my car, especially when its a good friendly race and there are no hard feelings to the winner. I agree that Mustangs and Camaros recently don't seem to be in the same league, but our cars, 80s and 90s, were as close as the rivalry came. Lets just race the two, which ever you like, and have fun.

Would I be able to run slicks ( if you have a set two ) cause I have 18" rims on 35 series z rated tires so I cant normally race on the street cause I get no traction. Just let me know where you live and maybe in about three weeks or in early feb we can meet up.

I propose yall meet in Topeka, Kansas...it's about half way

I had a 69 mach 1 and a 88 gt and I don't believe that the handling was much different. What is this great technological improvement in shock absorbers? They still do the same thing. As far as looking BAD, a mustang is a pony car which was designed to attract women and look pretty just like a camaro. There are some that look bad but the epitome of BAD isn't a mustang. 55chevy, Hemi Belvedere, Chevelles, are more along the lines of a BAD car.

Too bad I live in Connecticut. It would be one long ride for a street race, although the street scene out here isn't too bad. The imports and American cars are about equal as far as participants, but the imports don't stand a chance against the guys I hang with.
1999 Mustang Conv't: 11.70s
1999 Firebird: 11.60s
1970 Chevelle: 11.60s
1991 Mustang LX: 10.90s
1963 Falcon: 10.60s
1996 Camaro: 10.50s
1996 Saleen: 10.20s
1972 Nova: 9.90s
These are just a handfull of the quicker cars that cruise the Berlin Turnpike (one of the best cruising spots) and most of them tune at a place called J&M Motorsports in Manchester.

In case any one is in the Central CT area, we hang out every Saturday in the Summer, and the racing is NUTS!!!

Big Mike...Mustangs aren't faster than Camaros. Period. That's a pretty shallow, stupid, and broad thing to say. How about the 80s? You said 5.0 vs 5.0 and the mustang would win. And then said that the 305 wasn't made for performance. BS. They weren't as high-performance as the 350s....But isn't that a little ci advantage for the F-body? And in that case, the nearest thing that you can go to is...what...the 351 Saleen?
Competion is fun, but why is it that there has got to be a big war over everything? To each his own. Me? For big engines in order of preference: 455 Rocket, 428 or 429 Cobra Jet, 460 ford, 500 cadillac, 440 Magnum, then 454. There's others, but on to the smaller list. 403 over all other 6.6 litres. Go ahead. Bash me for my views. That's what you're best at.

Abel Kane
Cubic Inches doesent mean alot when it comes to performance- Hell you should know that being a ford guy- The new Mustangs are faster than the 5.0's and they are 4.6L. And I stick to what I said earlier that 305's were not made for performance, If Chevy wanted more porformance they would have made them that way. doesent mean you cant make them fast. Also Im looking on your Sig and I see a list of cars but non of them seem to be ThirdGens. Do you have one. If you do it must be a 305!!

Also I wasnt trying to start a war, Im just stating my oppinion. It seems to me that your trying to start a war. Also I bet you really have'nt owned half of the motors you listed in your post. Alot of people like to say they have this and that ( espically over the net )
but just go on what they want or heard.