Best American GT- Car and Driver, June 1987

Welcome to Car and Driver’s annual smoke-’em, slide-’em, rev-’em,
go-for-the-jugular American GT comparison test. If you were with us last July,
you saw a production-line 4.9-liter Mustang LX whip a prototype 5.7-liter
Corvette-engined Camaro IROC-Z upside the head. But that was last year. This
is 1987, and it’s a whole new street fight.

Only three agitators qualify for this all-American, V-8-powered,
rear-wheel-driven group: the Chevrolet Camaro, the Ford Mustang, and the Pontiac
Firebird. You either like these descendants of the original pony cars or you’re
out of luck, because there are no alternatives. Everything else in this
price-and-performance range has a distinctly different flavor.

The faces in this league are pretty much the same as they’ve been for several
years, but in engineering terms there’s been a whole lotta shakin’ goin’ on.
The competition in the pony-car ranks is so keen that yearly improvement has
become essential to survival. In 1987 alone, this titanic trio offers one new
cost-cutter performance model, three new or improved powertrain combinations,
one completely redesigned interior, and one freshened exterior. There are
detail improvements as well.

Corporate ego gets much of the credit for this. The Camaro, the Mustang, and
the Firebird are high-visibility image leaders, and they have youthful, loyal
followings to satisfy. They compete not only in the showroom but also on the
street and on the track–and every pony-car engineer worth his bonus wants his
brand out front. The Camaro troops feel the same gut rivalry with the Firebird
engineers as they do with the Mustang boys.

We know that for a fact, because we invited an engineer from each division to
take part in this test. Our instructions were simple: bring the best
all-around GT your company can muster. For the sake of equality we
specified three-door body styles, but the drivetrains, suspensions, and
complements of options were left up to the manufacturer.

GM and Ford mailed us three engineers–all named Jim–and a trio of the most
closely matched performance machines America has ever produced. Chevrolet anted
up a white Camaro IROC-Z, and engineering jack-of-all-trades Jim Hall. Hall (no
relation to the Chaparral-driving Texan) is an old friend, having done time on
the editorial staffs of Road Test and Motor Trend before deciding
to go respectable.

Ford supplied a hot red Mustang in full GT regalia and Jim Kennedy, manager
of Mustang development. Kennedy has been ramrodding the aggressive Mustang
rejuvenation program since 1982. Just to make sure his days are full, Ford has
also put him in charge of the development of the 1989 Thunderbird.

Pontiac sent us a canary-yellow Firebird Formula and hard-charging F-car
product-engineering manager Jim Lyons to chaperon it. Lyons’s long list of
credits includes a central role in the nurturing of the trend-setting 6000STE.

As usual we ran the contestants through the full battery of C/D
performance tests, but we can’t emphasize strongly enough that this is not
a simple comparison of objective test-track numbers. Cold, hard
performance data don’t tell you anything about the quality of the driving
experience. A skidpad number can’t reveal how much satisfaction a car delivers
on a mountain road; a 0-to-60 time offers no insight into a engine’s refinement
in the daily stop-and-go.

No, this is a contest of all-around prowess, focusing on the sum total of
pleasure each car delivers in the full range of driving situations–from freeway
cruising to autocross flogging. The performance numbers in our data panel are
only part of the big picture.

Most important are the subjecive impressions we gleaned from our long hours
in the saddle. Three C/D scribes took part in this test, and our judgements in ten individual categories are summed up in the Editor’s Ratings box.
Please note that the Overall Rating scores are not averages of the totals in the
nine other categories but independent judgements, with each participant voting
his heart.

In addition, we asked our guest engineers to evaluate the three cars in the
same ten categories, then tabulated their votes in the Engineers’ Ratings box.
So that they could pass judgement free from the pressures of corporate politics,
we granted them anonymity here. However, their votes did not contribute to the
determination of the winner, we deserve all the credit–or blame–for the final
results. We also invited the three Jims to write counterpoints, with
attribution.

To gather the all-important seat-of-the-pants impressions, we embarked on a
two-day, 400-mile drive from Los Angeles to the desert community of Palm Springs
and back. The route traversed some of Southern California’s most challenging
two-lane blacktop, including our old favorite, the Ortega Highway (State Route
74 from San Juan Capistrano to Lake Elsinore), and California 243 through
Idyllwild and up to Banning.

We finished with an afternoon of autocross competition at the Chrysler Shelby
California Development Center in Santa Fe Springs, where the three
Bondurant-trained engineers fought the C/D editors tooth and nail for
fast time of the day. (We aced them in two cars, they beat us in one.)

The three editors and the three engineers named Jim all came to one
conclusion: picking the best American GT is tougher than choosing between love
and money. In fact, this was the closest-fought comparison test in recent
C/D history.

But enough tension already. From the bottom, the finishers are…

This test is a good-news, bad-news situation for the IROC-Z. The bad news
is that last year’s bridesmaid has fallen to third-place status. The good
news is that it’s a significantly improved automobile.

In choosing its contender for this test, Chevrolet eliminated two of the
major annoyances we noted last year simply by skipping over its most potent
engine–the 220-hp, 5.7-liter Corvette V-8–in favor of its port-fuel-injected
5.0-liter V-8. The bigger motor makes for a quicker car, but you pay two
penalties for the extra kick. The four-speed automatic that you must take in
the bargain thumps you in the back with every shift like a long-lost Army
buddy. And on the freeway, the exhaust system throbs like a B-29.

The smaller engine is a 215-hp gem that’s happy right up to its 5500-rpm
redline. Previously it was bolted only to an automatic, but now a slick
five-speed is available. The manual gives an enthusiast the control he needs,
and it’s always a pleasure to stir. What’s more, the 5.0-liter never assaults
your ears on the highway. This is a fast combination, too–0 to 60 in just 7.1
seconds, a top speed of 135 mph–so you shouldn’t miss the heavy breather
Corvette engine at all.

Chevrolet addresses another of the complaints we made last year by leaving
the IROC’s base seat at home. This time, the upgraded optional bucket with
six-way power adjustment was chosen. This seat could stand to be shaped and
located better, but at least you can concentrate on driving now rather than on
hanging on to the wheel for dear life.

The IROC-Z can thread needles all day long. The chassis puts every last
pony to the ground, no sweat–and it can handle any move you dare. It’s only
when you get way out there, where your passenger is pie-eyed and rigid
with fear, that you notice a slight two-step when you turn into a corner. The
tail feints just enough to make you wonder what’s gonna happen next–but
nothing bad ever does.

Another important change for 1987, the addition of two more degrees of
caster in the front suspension, pays major dividends on the highway. Before,
straightline tracking was iffy. Now the IROC-Z rolls down the road as if in
its own special groove. (The Firebird benefits from this improvement as
well).

With so little to criticize about the IROC-Z, why did it finish third?
Well, all other things being equal, value becomes an important consideration.
The IROC-Z can hang in there on the road, but it gets smoked off at the loan
officer’s desk. Our admittedly loaded test car stickered at $18,083, more than
25 percent higher than the two other contestants. Yes, judicious options
selection could prune the cost some, but the IROC-Z is clearly the
premium-price car in this trio. When you pay more, you ought to get more.

That this car is the meat in our musclecar sandwich is something of an
accomplishment: the Firebird wasn’t even in the running last time around. In
the past we’ve been content to let Chevy carry the GM flag into battle, because
the Camaro Z28 and the Firebird Trans Am were so similar. This time, we’re
glad we extended a third invitation.

The new Formula is a Firebird with a difference. Pontiac has arranged
things so you can order most of the go-fast, feel-good pieces that pump up the
IROC-Z without having to pay for the Trans Am’s expensive gingerbread.

Transforming a Formula from a ballerina into a middle linebacker is a simple
matter of checking a few boxes on the options sheet. The WS6 suspension,
sixteen-inch alloy wheels, and fat Goodyear gatorbacks are all part of a
package that also includes full instrumentation, a rear wing, and a swollen
hood. Add the LB9 port-fuel-injected 5.0-liter V-8 (the 5.7-liter V-8 is also
on the docket, but Pontiac passed on that option for this test), rear disc
brakes, and a limited-slip differential and you’ve built an econo-bullet faster
than you can say, “Sorry, Officer.” A stripper Formula like our test car
(which had an AM/FM/cassette deck but no A/C) comes in a whopping $4500 below a
full-boat IROC-Z–and at least as much under a 5.7-liter Trans Am GTA.

Where the Pontiac and the Chevy differ is in their detail tuning. The
Formula lacks several structural aids that the Camaro group feels are
indispensable–including a front brace nicknamed the “wonderbar.” The Pontiac
is fitted with slightly fatter anti-roll bars and different shocks with special
calibrations.

These are differences you can feel. We preferred the Formula’s ride to
those of its competitors in most circumstances, and in the two-lane flog it
indeed felt like a formula car: tied down tight, with nary a false move
in its repertoire. It was also superior to its rivals on the slalom course.
Like the Camaro, the Formula could use more steering feel, but unlike its
brother, it never threatens to kick its tail out when you boil into a tight
back-road bend.

You also notice the Formula’s slight power deficit to the Chevy. A more
restrictive air cleaner, necessitated by the Firebird’s lower hood, trims 10 hp
off the top of the power curve, leaving you with 205. The Formula is only a
tick slower than the IROC-Z, but its engine gasps through the last few hundred
rpm, making it seem less enthusiastic than it is.

Inside, the Formula is as plain as vanilla pudding. Plastic plugs dot the
dash, attesting to the options you didn’t select. The three-spoke wheel looks
cheap, the upholstery is simple, and the seats are only adequate. But if you
can accept the rigors of economical living and focus on the Formula’s dynamic
pleasures, its advantage is clear. Where the Camaro stumbles, the Formula
forges ahead.

There is blood in the street, and some of it is the Mustang’s. The battle
for the GT crown was so brutal, the winner was roughed up almost as badly as the
losers.

As you can see from the Editor’s Ratings box, the GT was anything but
dominant. It usually proved to be strong where the others were weak, but it had
several chinks in its armor as well.

There was no controversy about the GT’s powerplant: all six judges awarded it
the maximum number of points. You could fall for this car for its engine alone.
For 1987 Ford squeezed another 25 hp out of its port-fuel-injected 4.9-liter
V-8, bringing the total to 225. Thanks to all the hoof power, the GT explodes
out of the hole and doesn’t look back until it reaches 137 mph. Sixty mph
flashes by in just 6.3 seconds, and the quarter-mile is digested in 14.7 seconds
at 94 mph.

When you throttle back, the driveline shows itself to be a class act. It’s
flexible around town and puts out a smooth, expensive-sounding hum on the
freeway. In this test, it had no peer.

The rest of the GT’s road manners aren’t quite so flawless. Most of the
time, it’s a sweet car to drive. All the controls have a silky, perfectly
weighted feel, the steering is dead-nuts accurate, and the ride motions are the
most supple and fluid available in this group. New lower control arms from the
Lincoln Continental add a half-inch to the front-suspension travel, larger
front brakes enhance high-speed safety, and additional front caster results in
first-rate highway tracking. As a switchback thrill ride, the GT falls a
stride or two behind the GM products. Its softer suspension calibrations let
it bob and nose-dive when you force the g-loads into no man’s land, and its
smaller tires give up earlier.

But this performance needs to be put into perspective. By any measure, the
GT is a thoroughly scintillating vehicle for hammering two-lane roads into
submission. There are precious few cars that can stay with it over any kind of
road. And in the autocross, the Mustang tied the IROC and hounded the
first-place Formula for fast time. Besides, whatever the GT lacks in absolute
handling, it more than makes up elsewhere.

Man does not live by performance alone, after all–and in the GT he doesn’t
have to. The Mustang edges ahead as soon as you pull the door open. As in the
past, there is room enough in back to carry a pair of life-sized adults, at
least on a cross-town trip. The surgeon general would recommend against that
in either of the GM rockets.

This year, there is even more good news inside the Mustang: a long-needed
interior redesign. The new digs, complete with a fully up-to-date instrument
panel, are as Teutonic and ergonomically correct as almost anything from the
Fatherland. The improved front buckets offer adustable lower side bolsters and
a power lumbar support and are the most comfortable in this group. Our GT was
also equipped with every amenity worth having. In sum, the GT’s accomodations
are leagues ahead of the GM cars’.

None of this would be exceptional at the IROC-Z’s eighteen-grand price, but
our test Mustang’s sticker was barely higher than the beefed-up Formula’s. And
if you have some trouble with the GT’s new boy-racer bodywork–as we do–Ford
has a solution: order an LX. It looks like last year’s GT, has all the
essential pieces, and will even save you a few bucks.

It’s almost ironic that the battle between America’s three premier GTs is
decided as much by value, driver comfort, and ergonomics as by horsepower and
handling–but that only underscores how terrifically competitive this segment
has become. Even though we’ve crowned only one winner, buying into this class
is in fact a no-lose proposition. This time around, the Mustang takes the
checker by the thickness of a license plate. But if two engineers named Jim
have their way, it’s going to be different next year.

-Rich Ceppos

Counterpoint: The Engineers

• If the adage about survival of the fittest is correct when it comes to
  cars, the Camaro, Mustang, and Firebird have some of the hardiest automotive
  genes in the business. These suckers have fought off corporate purges the way
  social diseases resist penicillin. And since it evolved into its current form,
  the Camaro has been the fittest of the troika. All three move along well
  enough to get whoever’s behind the wheel thrown into the local pokey in any of
  the 48 contiguous states. But the Camaro and Firebird are clearly superior
  when it comes to handling and braking.

  Although the IROC and Formula are alike as cousins, Chevy’s finely honed
  edge gets the nod. However, if you aren’t able to detect the precise edge of
  the IROC’s handling, your choice will end up being one of folded sheetmetal.
  As for the Mustang, what can I say? It’s the best damn Fairmont ever
  built.

  -Jim Hall, Chevrolet Engineering

• “Your evaluation results must be in by five p.m.!” Five minutes left
  and I’m not through yet. Bet I can clip a tenth off my autocross time. Come
  on, Ceppos, just one more shot at it? Thus ended two days of driving and
  having a heck of a good time doing it.

  Good numbers are not enough to win this test. The Mustang GT did well on
  the numbers, but after driving the competitors I knew it was going to be a
  close race. These cars are all good performers and fun to drive. The Mustang
  GT is best for powertrain, seating, and ride. The Trans Am and Camaro excel in
  handling and looks.

  Participating in a shoot-out means: easy driving, photos, quick driving,
  photos, slow driving, photos, driving at the limit, photos, holding on, photos,
  riding in the back seat with Sherman driving, no photos, answering to the wrong
  Hey, Jim,” meeting deadlines, more photos. For the three Jims, it’s who wins
  that counts; for the editors, it’s the amalgamation of facts, enthusiasm,
  opinions, humor, and art into a meaningful report. I appreciate that task a
  little more now, particulary the photos.

  -Jim Kennedy, Ford Engineering

• Apple pie and Miller beer aren’t this American. Twenty-five years
  later, the muscle car has reached maturity. These cars all burn rubber about
  as well as any ’64 GTO, but today’s shifter still works after days of abuse,
  and there’s an extra gear for cruising back home. Unlike 1964, these cars will
  stop again and again…and go around a corner pulling the side of your face off.
  All three are durable, go-like-hell cars that are easy to drive to work
  tomorrow, especially if you want to leave late and get there early.

  The Mustang has bigger rear seats and a stronger motor, with the penalty (or
  advantage) of looking like a hopped-up small sedan. The GM cars are sleeker
  and more secure at speed, particularly the Pontiac.

  Imports just can’t compete in this market–they don’t understand it–and no
  all-new domestic V-8 rear-drivers are coming, either. It doesn’t get any
  better than this.

  -Jim Lyons, Pontiac Engineering

Source: Car and Driver, June 1987