14th Aug 2010, 09:59
Absolutely false!!
First, the '87 Mustang was 225 HP, not 210. The last Carb '85 GT was 210, then they went to FI in '86 and it dropped to 200 even, and then got bumped to 225 in 1987 until it was re-rated to 205 in 1993 (but was actually still the same).
Second, no Trans Am other than the turbo pace car from '89 could take a Mustang of the same year until 1993 when they started using the Vette engines in them. Check any source for 0-60 and 1/4 mile times on both, and you'll find the Mustang was consistently faster. The best the 5.7 could do to 60 was 6.7 due to the pitiful AT they used in them and no manual option. The Mustang was a 1/2 second quicker. The 5.0 Firebird was closer to 7 seconds to 60 or a bit over that.
I met a guy with an '87 IROC 5.7 back in '88, which is the same exact car as your GTA, and he said he could beat pretty much all but the 5.0 Mustang LX 5-speed. He drove that car really hard as it had low miles on it, bald tires, and it burned oil badly. He did a 360 on dry pavement in a parking lot with me in the car, so he definitely wasn't holding back racing it.
You gotta check your stats a little more closely before making claims. I had 2 5.0's with traction lok 3.08 rear ends, and never lost to any stock Camaro of the same year... never. I have also known a few people with IROCS, and they were junk overall. They rattled and shook over every bump, and were so unpleasant to drive compared to my Mustangs. One of the people who had an IROC was my cousin and his brother, a mechanic, said they used mostly regular Impala parts in the rear ends and transmissions and they were prone to failure due to the high demand and abuse they were subjected to. His rear end failed pretty quickly.
You're right, it has been a fun war... The GM cars have always had the Vette above them to borrow from, and were winning easily in the 90's until they stopped producing them in 2002. Now the Mustang is king again over the Camaro. GM's are always too bloated to be a real challenge, unless they have a huge power advantage. Of course, the 2010 Mustang was almost dead even with the Camaro with 111 less HP, so it doesn't always help. Now with 412 HP, the Mustang easily dispatches any new Camaro.
15th Aug 2010, 22:26
Sorry guy... but you are DEAD WRONG... I owned both cars simultaneously, and know which did better at the 1/4 mile track. Part of it was the GM posi-trac rear end. Part of it was the stock 350ft lbs of torque....and more "displacement" offered more torque. Total torque across the RPM curve makes a car faster.
Keep this small fact in mind.... GM's engineers screwed up by putting exhaust manifolds on these cars in Norwood, OH..... IF the 5.7L came stock with headers (like the Mustang did), there would be ABSOLUTELY no comparison in performance. The 5.7 litre Formula or GTA did not breathe well, nor perform anywhere close to its full potential, however SLP parts (FireHawk) were available at the GM dealership parts counter. You could buy a GTA with the SLP parts off the showroom floor. The SLP parts even had a GM parts number... so CAN we call those SLP equipped Firebirds, "stock"??
Look up the FACTS.
1987-1992 GTA, FORMULA 350 (and very few "regular" Trans Ams) had the 5.7 litre, Chevy L-98 TPI Motor.
My friend... the L-98 IS a CORVETTE engine. It was in the same respective year Vettes... main difference between a Pony car and the Vette was in "breathing" (intake and exhaust), and PROM chips.
The L-98, of course, was also used in the 5.7 litre IROC Camaro.
The 1989 Turbo Trans Am (TTA) used the 3.8 litre heavily boosted Buick Grand National motor. Once again, GM grossly under-rated the hp for insurance purposes at 255, yet GM themselves dyno'ed the car at 301hp... 0-60 times of 4.6 seconds and top speed of 162 MPH. The TTA had faster acceleration in the same years than a Ferrari Testarossa and Lamborghini Countach...
So NO KIDDING that it beat a Mustang!!... however, this came at the price equivalent to an 89 Vette.
While it is true that in 1993, GM switched from the L-98, 5.7 litre to the LT-1 (another Corvette engine), boosting stock hp ratings to 275, it dealt swift Euthanasia to any Mustang GT.
Ford in their infinite wisdom, dropped their 5.0 Litre the same year down to a 4.6 litre, and cut from 225 hp to 215.
And GM only went up from there... culminating at best in a "stock" version (not a special edition vehicle) at 325 HP. A completely STOCK WS-6 Ram Air Trans Am in 2002 produced 325, at a similar price to Ford's MACH 1, which was a disappointing 305 hp out of the 32 valve, 4.6 litre.
Only the Cobra and Cobra R could muster anything even CLOSE or better... but then you are comparing apples to oranges, because the price tag of the 390 hp Stang was similar to a Vette.....
And if you are going to pay THAT price, we're no longer comparing pony cars any more...
SO... why not compare that Cobra R to a Vette? Because once again, the Stang will be trounced, by either the base Vette at over 400 HP, or the even-more venerable Z-06
I've owned both pony cars... I have always felt that Ford has been one step behind GM.
13th Aug 2010, 22:55
There is both true and falsehoods in these previous comments... maybe I can offer some clarity.
I am a car collector and enthusiast, and have owned a number of pony cars thru the years, including late 60s ponycars (mostly Camaros).
At one time, I had owned both a late 80s Mustang GT (mine was a 1989) and I also own (23 yrs later) a 1987 GTA, which is essentially the same thing as a 1987 Formula 350... except the GTA is a bit heavier due to ground effects package, and more options, a heavier dash, etc... which in reality makes the GTA a tick slower than the Formula 350)
The Facts... The 1987 Mustang GT was rated at 210hp. The 89 Mustang GT I owned was rated at 225hp.
It IS true that GM's version of the Trans Am and Formula, which had the 305 engine, was a tick SLOWER than the Mustang GT in each respective year.
Not to be outdone, GM answered Ford's challenge with the potent Mustang by borrowing the L-98, 5.7litre from the Corvette, and the end result was this... in each respective year, the General managed to claim street superiority.
The facts are that the 1987 GTA and Formula were conservatively rated at 215hp, and in 1989 the 5.7 litre GTA and Formula got dual cats and a better flowing exhaust, which bumped the hp up to 245 from the factory, while the Mustang was still sitting at 225.
In addition, the 5.7 litre always had more total torque than the Mustang GT, which overall torque makes a car faster.
Cube to cube... the Mustang GT, with its 302, 5 litre outperformed the GM 305, 5 litre counterpart; it is NOT true that any Mustang GT (or the LX, which was actually lighter and faster than the GT) could outperform the 5.7 litre in each respective year, when you are comparing "all factory stock" vehicles.
Isn't the GM vs Ford ponycar rivalry fun after all these years??