7th Sep 2009, 21:18

True. A wealthy Mustang-enthusiast friend of mine has put $10,000 into modifying his 2007 Mustang GT. The shop that did the work did a dyno test and it is putting out close to 600 horsepower. The same shop tells me they can get 400+ horsepower out of my V-6 for under $8,000. With money all things are possible!!

8th Sep 2009, 12:42

A V6 Camaro has the following HP, depending on the year:

1982-1986 115HP, 1987-91 125HP, 1992-1995 165HP, 1996-2002 200HP.

A Mustang GT being lighter and have more HP 225-300, depending on the year, would smoke any V6 Camaro. Don't even compare a V6 Camaro to a Mustang GT. If you want to compare any Camaro to a Mustang GT, compare it to a Z28, or SS!

Be logical, compare apples to apples, not apples to pears!

A MUSTANG IS A MUSTANG ONLY IF IT HAS A V8.

9th Sep 2009, 20:34

Oh, really?? Then explain why a V-6 Camaro could repeatedly beat both my Fox 5.0's in the quarter mile. I've driven 2001 and 2002 V-6 Camaros that were totally stock. Regardless of WHAT their horsepower rating, they were faster than my stock Fox 5.0's. I'm a Mustang fan, but it doesn't do the brand a lot of good to exaggerate their performance. I drive them because I like Fords and especially the Mustang. Yes, the V-8 Mustang can be modified to be very formidable. Stock, however, it is a fun ride but not really a true muscle car. The post-2004's with 300+ horsepower ARE much faster, but the Foxes were pretty tame stock. My mildly modified 4.0 V-6 would run rings around either of my stock Fox 5.0's. Check out the 0-60 figures for the stock Fox 5.0's and you'll find they were pretty tame. Both mine did 0-60 in just over 7 seconds. That's not BAD, but not as good as the new 4.0 or the Camaro V-6.

10th Sep 2009, 13:04

The Fox Mustang from '87-93 did 0-60 in 6.2 seconds as per C&D or MT magazine. If you are doing it in over 7 seconds you either had an AT or a 2.73 rear end, which really choked the performance potential of the car. The totally STOCK 3.08 traction lok axle with the T-5 5 speed manual is the only way to go on those cars. There is no Camaro V-6 that ever got to 60 in under 7 seconds, and you can check 0-60 times in many places on the internet if you need support of that claim. Okay, maybe the new one does it in less than 7 seconds, but it took 304 HP to get it to 60 in 6.5 seconds.... STILL not as fast as a 5.0!!

It makes me laugh when people think lower HP heavier cars, such as the older Camaros, are faster than lighter ones with more HP. Simple physics.

10th Sep 2009, 21:13

Both my Foxes were automatics with the 2.73 rear gearing. That was how the vast majority of 85-93 V-8 Foxes were bought. My '85 took nearly 8 seconds to 60 and my '90 took about 7.5. A totally stock 2002 Camaro V-6 my friend owned easily broke into the high 6's. GM vehicles have generally always outperformed Ford products with higher horsepower ratings. It isn't always a case of pure weight/horsepower numbers. Our 6 cylinder mid-sized SUV easily blows the lighter V-8 Explorers away while getting 5 mpg better gas mileage. It's about as fast 0-60 as my '85 Fox, for that matter.

12th Sep 2009, 19:56

Actually the AT used a 3.27 gear. Still not a performance car though with that lousy tranny in front of it. I think the '85 should have been a little faster though as the 5-speed did 0-60 in 6.4. Comparing AT cars to V-6 Camaros doesn't really carry much weight. Anyone who is an enthusiast would get the car equipped with the traction lok 3.08 with the 5-speed T5 manual tranny as it was a no cost option and made the car much faster stock than ANY V-6 Camaro. All of my friends and family who have owned 5.0's always had them equipped right and never had trouble with any Camaro V-6 or V-8 up until '93 when they made the Camaro essentially a plastic Corvette with the LT1. Oh, and I have NEVER seen a V-6 Camaro that beat the 7 second mark to 60 short of the 2010 model year. Most of them were closer to an 8 second run to 60.

I actually came across a guy with an IROC 5.7 and he said the only car that beat him consistently was an LX 5.0. If that car came with a 5-speed option, it may have had a better chance at taking the Mustang, but with it's AT even 240 hp wasn't enough to take the Mustang.

I have driven a couple of AT 5.0's, and they just don't do anything at all for me, so I can understand your disappointment in their performance. Don't be so quick to judge the Fox Mustang as a slow car if you haven't owned the fastest stock version of the car though. Even Car and Driver praised the 5.0 year after year through the late 80's and into the early 90's as the best bang for the buck, because it basically wiped up the pavement with every other car short of a Vette in those days.

Today, yes they are tame since virtually every V-6 powered sedan, and even the RAV 4 with a V-6, comes close to the performance, but let's not forget the latest V-8 powered Mustang is now doing 0-60 runs in 4.9 seconds stock! Pretty impressive since the Camaro SS with 111 more HP can only best it by .1 seconds at 4.8. Go test drive a new GT and you'll be amazed at the performance. It kills even the previous '05 - '09 car by a long shot.

8th Nov 2010, 10:25

OK... I don't know how old these posts are, but... I've got a stock 1991 Mustang GT automatic.. and I guarantee that the pickup would NOT have a chance with my car. No offense, just saying...

8th Nov 2010, 14:31

"Both my Foxes were automatics with the 2.73 rear gearing. That was how the vast majority of 85-93 V-8 Foxes were bought."

This is entirely untrue. First, the AT used a 3.27 rear end. Second, most Foxbody Mustangs were 5-speed cars. I used to sell them so go ahead and argue. Also, if you go on Ebay even now, most years you put in will have more 5-speeds than AT's. These cars were best with manual shifts and the 3.08 traction lok rear end that was a no cost upgrade.