I always wondered what car (stock) was quicker (late 80's-1992 versions). A 5.7 IROC vs. 5.0 Mustang LX (5 speed). I think the Mustang was a tad bit quicker but I'm not sure. I'm guessing both were in mid 14's stock?!? Thanks.

 

It depends. Some Camaros guys will say that they have beat the guys with the LX 5.0's and the M*stang guys will say the opposite. Fact is stock for stock they are both capable of pretty much the same times, sometimes 1 is faster than the other, sometimes not, its usually a drivers race.

 

I have actuallt witnessed two very close comparisons and I can say it is neck and neck.

I raced an Iroc with an L98 (not sure what year) and he went 14.8. He had a flowmaster cat-back but other than that the car was stock. It was pretty warm so bone stock it should match that 14.8 in good weather.

My dads 1991 Mustang LX with a 5-speed went 14.8 bone stock also. These runs were at the same track too.

I think the only Mustang that could walk the L98 would be a 1987-1988 LX coupe with a 5-speed and 3.08 gears. Those cars were a little faster than the late 80s early 90s hatchs and coupes!

 

Well, I've heard of multiple 91-92 L98 Zs running down around 14.1-14.3 bone dead stock. I've not heard of any 5.0 Stang (with the possible exception of the 93 Cobra) matching that. Probably your average race with your average times for both is going to be neck and neck though...

 

I agree with everyone else

 

Yup even some MAF L98's have ran that, But I think there were some 5.0 5-Speed LX's that have been there stock too, the 87-88's as mentioned.

 

My 92 Z28 Heritage Edition L98 ran consistant 14.1s on street tires with just K&N drop ins and a Flowmaster muffler. I also had subframe connectors and an AFPR set to 50lbs. That's all, no major mods.

 

Yeah. My '88 LX hatch with an Automatic ran a 14.8 bone stock. I would imagine a 5-spd coupe could better that time by half a second over the slushbox AOD

In fact i have a friend that owned for a short time a no-options 87 LX 5-spd coupe. Ran 14.1 with that baby stock! dipped into the mid-13's with off-road h-pipe, flows and some pullies! The car was light as hell though. Didn't even come with a radio! The dumb *** sold it!

 

drivers race...
its all i have to say...

i hear awfully good things about those mustangs with the right drivers bone stock...
then again that goes to most cars...

so have fun

 

Yes, the 87-88 coupes with 3.08s were fast. If driven right you have a very low 14 second car and back in the late 80s, the infamous 10 minute tune would get you well into the 13s. This included no silencer, bumped timing, TPS adjusted to .99, removed sway bar and McCreary dirt track tires. For about $100 you could have a mid 13 second car!

 

What about trap speed? The fastest I've heard a stock L98 running was about 98 mph, it was an SD car. I've also read somewhere about an LX 5.0 running 14.1@98 stock.

 

Dead even, 6 one 1/2 dozen the other. These cars were designed to compete with each other and they did. Totally even.

Later, Garrett

 

I'd love to see a rundown of the fastest production cars of the mid 80's-thru 1992. I know the '87 GN was the fastest for that year (think the '86 GN took top honors in that year too). Were the GTA's (350ci) & Formula 350's as quick as the 5.0's and IROC 5.7's in '87 - 88?? Is there a website where I can find this info? Thanks.

Gary

 

yeah very close racing between the two...

 

The Camaros were usually faster due to Firebirds being heavier and having a more restrictive air intake.

 

But, we all know what car owned in '89 . The sweetness that is 3.8 turbocharged ownage in a 3rd gen :hail: :hail: :hail:

 

I've got an article saved on my computer that was from Motor Trend in the early 90's (it was the Best Bang for the Buck article). I'll post a few of the stats from the test for you. All tests were conducted on the same day by the same driver, so everything should be pretty similar in those regards. I'm just going to list the top 10 of the 17 cars tested to save myself time. These are magazine times, but they should be good for comparisons sake.

The Firebird GTA was a 350 with 235 hp/255 tq and a 4 speed with 3.23 gears. I don't have specific info on the specs of the Mustang except that it was an LX hatchback with the 5-speed. I have no information whatsoever about the IROC Z Convertible.

0-60 time in seconds

1. 5.11 - Pontiac 20th Anniv. Trans Am
2. 5.63 - Chevrolet Corvette
3. 6.27 - Maxda RX-7 Turbo II
4. 6.53 - Plymouth Laser RS Turbo
5. 6.57 - Pontiac Firebird GTA
6. 6.62 - Ford Mustang LX
7. 6.71 - Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX
8. 7.33 - Nissan 300ZX
9. 7.41 - Ford Thunderbird SC
10. 7.54 - Ford Probe GT
16. 7.83 - Chevrolet IROC Z Convertible

1/4 Mile Time Sec/MPH

1. 14.18/98.86 - Pontiac 20th Anniv. Trans Am
2. 14.46/95.27 - Chevrolet Corvette
3. 15.02/93.25 - Maxda RX-7 Turbo II
4. 15.38/91.52 - Ford Mustang LX
4. 15.38/89.92 - Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX
6. 15.39/91.79 - Plymouth Laser RS Turbo
7. 15.40/90.28 - Pontiac Firebird GTA
8. 15.89/87.88 - Ford Probe GT
9. 15.95/86.59 - Toyota Celica All-Trac Turbo
10. 16.01/87.12 - Nissan 300ZX
16. 16.28/84.31 - Chevrolet IROC Z Convertible

The Top 10 Bang for the Buck Cars from all the calculated performance tests and taking price into consideration looked like this:

1. Ford Mustang LX
2. Plymouth Laser RS Turbo
3. Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais Quad 4 H.O. (WTF?!?)
4. Mazda MX-6 GT
5. Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX
6. Ford Probe GT
7. Toyota MR2 Supercharged
8. Pontiac Firebird GTA
9. Ford Thunderbird SC
10. Mitsubishi Starion ESi-R
11. Chevrolet Camaro IROC Z Convertible

Hope this helps someone.

 

Just proves MT drivers suck! My stock AOD with 2.73s went 15.3 and trapped higher than theirs! If they couldn't run 14s they should be smacked in the head. I think all those times seem high, come on 14.1 for a TTA?

I hate MT and C&D, they suck at driving!

 

I agree that their times suck...what's important here is that all of the times suck equally, therefore they might be useful for basic comparitive purposes (i.e. what's faster with the same crappy driver on the same day on the same track).

 

that's why magazine accelleration times mean basically nothing... They used to have a disclaimer saying they don't speed shift or drag launch their test cars. They ease into the throttle to prevent wheelspin.

 

It is bogus but I am sure there are kids sowing off a Mustang or F-body running 15s!

They truly cannot drive and even today their times are very slow!

I agree that it does allow for a comparison of the vehicles with eachother, but the fact that an AWD can launch off the rev limiter and they are launching off idle shows that some cars have more improvement. The manuals they tested should improve more than the autos for the fact that the drivers suck! IMO.

 

No offense but that's a joke.

I ran high 14's with an AOD and they run 15.3 babying a 5-spd?

 

They also used a 305 IROC Convertable. Which sounds like it might have been TBI, maybe an Auto.

 

i hate them too...they cant drive worth ****.

dont believe everything you read in magazines.

 

Definitely, the reason the Camaro's and Stang's are where they are today, is due to each other. On the street or at the track it's anybody's race. Alot of course falling on whether or not they can drive the car.

 

well they came very close with the rx7 TII times for the 1/4


15.02 sounds about right


best I would guess stock with a great driver would be something like a 14.8

and again that is with a GREAT driver and even that though I'm not sure about though....



so see they don't suck with everything

they just needed to get behind a REAL CAR

 

Just for reference, how much quicker were the LT1 F-bodies? I don't think that they had all that much.

I'll edit the post with a link to a 5 speed 88 LX Hatch documented in car illustrated. I'm not sure, but I think it had 3.08 gears.

Chris

Edit:

Page 1
Page 2
Page3
Page4
Page5
Final Page

 

They weren't 12's. The later 6-Speed's were usually good for high 13's, but they are usually really close to good running G92 L98 IROC-Z's and Z28's instead, sometimes slower.

 

Ive never heard of an L98 f body running 13's stock. Most of the TPI cars I have seen run high 14's to low 15's stock. The majority of LT1's run very high 13's to low 14's.

 

I didn't mean the L98 would get 13's. Some L98's do run real low 14's stock and so do many LT1's. I've heard of the Autos getting mid-14's before also.

 

I often get in the debate of which is faster the 5.0 GT or the 5.0 LX? I always say the LX is faster and i have a lot of peeps tell me GT is faster...am i right....?

 

I think the LX is faster as well. Both have the same drivetrains, but the GT weighs more. Basically an LX is just a low optioned GT.

 

The LX is faster.

 

Ok, here is a link to the first page of the magazine article Cars Illustrated

To see the rest Either click the links below in order, or type in 1-5 after "defeo" in the web address. Sorry the resolution isn't the best but I had to make the files smaller so they'd fit on my free server.

Page 2
Page3
Page4
Page5
Final Page

 

I might add, a 13.90 out of a hatch with only a timing bump and raised tire pressure is pretty sexy!

Hatches are heavier than coupes by 50-70 lbs.

Chris

 

Not necessarily. By the end of the 3rd generation run 5.0L LX's and GT's both had the same options and such, same rims, same everything. Only difference being the ground effects really. Earlier LX's had less options standard but you could order most of what came on GT's.

But for the most part

LX = Less eXtras

 

The only difference between my car and a GT is the skirts and I had 10 holes factory (15x7) instead of the GT turbine rims (also 15x7), other than that they were identical. The LX did weigh a little less, and were a little faster, but the fastest were the 1987-1988 LX coupes with the 3.08 gears and no options!

That article proves what traction can do to a car! Add slicks and that is a mid 13 second car easily. Then gears, pulleys and take weight out and you have 12s!

 

Great article 12sMustang!! BTW, what would a '92 5.0LX Mustang (w/ flowmasters) run in the 1/4 approximately? Thanks!

 

that depends on a couple things:

First, how much traction he has. Second, is he a coupe or hatch. Third, how many options does he have weighing his car down? Fourth, is it a manual or auto?

Chris

 

Chris,

Let's say a 5 speed hatch, drag radials, w/ standard options. BTW, from the factory ('87-92), typically how much slower is an auto LX 5.0 than a 5 speed. Thanks.

Gary

 

Second question first: Auto's are typically .5-.8 seconds slower than the corresponding 5 speed.

Now, a 92 LX hatch on stock street tires with cat-back exhaust in healthy condition with no advanced timing or other tuning should run in the 14.5-14.7 range at around 95 mph. Drag Radials would knock a considerable chunk off of the times and bring the LX into the very low 14s. If it were optioned out, it would add a couple tenths to the ET. The biggest killer of performance on those cars was the convertible and automatic options.

Chris

 

Thanks Chris. You're a wealth of knowledge!

~Gary