CamarosRUS

ive heard it for both sides and i want the final truth........mustangs guys welcome to join in. i want to know what the 3rd gen fbody excells at compared to the 80's mustangs and visa versa. accelereration, top speeds, hadling and anything else that needs to be discussed. ive heard the fbodys will destroy stangs in the handling aspect but i want more. who has created the best sports car!?!?

D Stroy H8

The ford 302 has the same size bore as the chevy 350. That's why a stock 305 tpi 5 speed will almost match a stock 5.0 manual foxbody, and a stock 5.0 manual foxbody will almost match a stock 350 tpi. So ford had the better 5.0 but didn't offer a 5.7 However, ford did build their 302's with forged pistons if I remember correctly, and the ford 302 I believe can handle a tick more abuse than the chevy 305.

From what I know the foxbodies were based on a modified ford escort frame - therefore explaing the less confident handling compared to the lower slung, wider based f-bodies.

If I am wrong about any of this please somebody point it out and flame me a little and then move on.

IROCZTWENTYGR8

iTrader: (1)

During the Third Gen, until the L98 (350 5.7L TPI) came along the M*****g was pretty much faster, it wasn't until then we started winning some. The F-Body though, is better performancewise in every other category, especially handling, its basically been like that since 67. The IROC-Zs' .92 G's can't be touched by even todays 4th Gen Camaro's and I don't think their aerodynamics can either at .34 Cd.

Which is better overall is the F-Body, they are great for both drag racing and autocrossing. The M*****g is a good car for drag racing, especially the 5.0 because it is easy and cheap to mod. The 5.0 (302, really 4.9 Liters) they use is not like the Chevy 5.0, (305) it's more like the Chevy 302 used in 1st Gen Z28's and more like the SBC 350 than a 305, which are better designs. Although, the best way to make power has always been a bigger ci. Chevrolet such as the 350, TPI is expensive and can be difficult sometimes, but it's still a good setup that can make great power.

Nic

Obviously, the F-body handles better, for those of you who actually care about anything besides the 2nd turnoff at the drag strip.

The Mustang, on the other hand, is lighter, and cheaper to make faster in a straight line.

No. The Mustangs were based on the "fox body" platform...ie., Ford played Mr. Patato head 1978 all the way through the early 90's creating such cars as the Mustang, Thunderbird, Lincoln LSC, Fairmont, Zephyr, and Capri all on the same basic chassis. Parts are interchangeable, therefore making brake, rearend, and other such upgrades inexpensive and easy to come by.

5.0mustang

Okay, in my eyes, the F-bodies accel in handeling over the Mustangs, whereas the Mustang accels in acceleration. It is very easy to make a Mustang go in a straight line and equally as easy to make an F-body go throught the turns.

As far as top speed, the Fbody is capable of higher speeds, merely because it is lower, wider and the suspension is set up better.

I think in the end both cars can be made to do whatever you want and both cars will do it well. The fact is in the end the Mustang is cheaper to make perform, but it all comes down to personal preferance!

Squeeks83

i agree

MdFormula350

very true

BikertrashDude

don't your stang have 4 lovely little cylinders? lol

I rather have the chevy over any ford.
that includes the trucks too. (ford trucks like the f-150 look like a$$)
but I rather have any ford over an import (R I C E)
biker
...on probation

fly89gta

iTrader: (1)

stock for stock everyone pretty much nailed everything, when you're talking about mods all bets are off, it all depends on who has more $$ and better ideas.

D Stroy H8

The fox mustangs were also lighter than us.
I think I read somewhere, Car Craft I think, that a fully optioned 1993 fox body tipped the scales at around 3300 pounds. Notchbacks were around 3150 pounds, and earlier minimalist optioned fox bodies were sometimes known to dip into the 2900's. So theres that.

Assembled somewhat more simply than the f-bodies, foxes are extremely easy to work on as most work on the engine, tranny, and rearend can be done easily and full dismantle is little more work.

Some more specifics:
1985-1991 all Foxes cam with TRW forged pistons
1985 & up "H.O." roller cams engines came with double roller timing chains
1986 & up came with an 8.8" rear axel assembly pretty similar in design to the abuse absorbant chevy 12-bolt.

I like them, even though I'm 'required' otherwise because I drive an f-bodied Iroc, hehe. Some of them are really ugly tho... in all fairness however, I think some foxbodies look sweeeeet.

89rsIMPRTETR

i dont know why you guys think fbodys are so expensive to go fast, there really not that much more money to hop up then a stang, plus once you throw in all the money that the stang needs for suspension, it ends up costing more than a fbody. all i know is ive driving in both kinds of cars, and i have to say the fbody is much funner to drive! but the stangs are still cool to

Abel Kane

For my own part...I have more taste for something that is just plain tough. And from what I have seen, the tougher vehicles are usually not the fastest vehicles. But I want something that can take a beating. There are alot of vehicles that cannot take very much abuse. I'm not saying that f-bodies are weak- they aren't, they seem to be very tough- I'm just saying that Ford, for the most part is stronger. Old Oldsmobiles are the toughest v8s that GM puts out from my experience, the 307 being the weakest engine released. Chevy is usually faster and usually cheaper. I need to find some info on old Chryslers before giving an opinion on those though. I'll say this: If you're going to get a new Chrysler Corp. car, pop the hood. If it doesn't say "Mitsubishi", close it and walk away.
With GM, I look at it like this: If I want a...
4 cylinder, I'll take a Pontiac.
v6, I'll take a Buick.
v8, I'll take a Chevy to fry someone's *** every now and then, but I'll take an Olds to drive as hard and as often as I please for years to come.

As for which car I would pick in the 80s...It depends. If I wanted to get an inline 4, inline 6, or v6 car...Mustang, preferably a notchback. Otherwise, F-body. Of course, there are some very nice v6s that the F-bodies used...they just weren't Chevy built. I've seen alot of v8 Fox-body Mustangs that looked good, but I'd rather make it more into a pony car, moreso. Have less weight so it can handle better. The 60s and early 70s Mustangs had the Camaros beat in handling- at least the big block Camaros. Take the ZL1. Scary handling, I hear.
Well, that's my 2 dollars.

HrdRockA4305

This is kind of a mix of opinion and fact, but hey nobody can really nail me for being biases....

Things I like better about Mustangs (79-93 mostly):

- Computers are very forgiving when it comes to modifications
- More aftermarket support than anything in the world
- 79-93s are fairly lightweight
- There was no low output version of the 5.0, the standardization worked to the platforms advantage, whereas the large variety of motors in the 3rdGen I think works to its disadvantage from an aftermarket standpoint
- 8.8 rear is pretty damn strong
- Better resale value, at least around here
- Many more of them out there come with 5 speeds
- Exhaust is much less of a pain in the butt, in general
- The only thing that limits what you can do is your budget, there is an aftermarket part for anything you'd ever want to do.

Things I like better about F-boides (82-92)

- They can be had for much less than a comparable mustang
- Excellent center of gravity
- Good design rear suspension
- Like the interior better (then a 79-93 stang)
- T-tops (Ok so there are a few T-top stangs but VERY few)
- Generally prefer the looks (compared to 79-93 cars)
- lower, wider body, much better areodynamics
- lower/better seating position

Gripes about Mustangs:

- They keep an insane resale value in this area
- Don't handle as well, but they can if you put a lot of $$ in the suspension. Few do though.
- Less "Creative" options, theres not really anything you can do with one thats unique.
- High speed areodynamics aren't so good. They get kinda light footed around 120 or more. My Camaro seemed to get more and more stable the faster you went.

Gripes about F-bodies

- So few come with a H.O. engine
- TPI is freakin expensive to mod
- Hard to find a 5 speed
- Less aftermarket support
- Less exhaust options
- Hoods are a lot more expensive, and comparably few to choose from


I left out the SN95 Mustangs and 94+ F-bodies to keep it more apples to apples.

CamarosRUS

IMO the 80's stangs are just plain ugly. the only mustangs i can stand are the like 93 GT's with the spoilers and taillight covers. all others to me are just UGLY they dont look sporty at all. but i have never riden in one let alone driven one so as far asthe performance aspect i do not know. i can only say what i hear.....which is exactly what you guys said!!

iroc22

Sorry guys this doesn't really have much to do with theoretical street racing and this is flame bait for the ignorant users out there.