16th Aug 2010, 16:12
The SVT Cobra from 2003 with 390 HP and 390 Ft. lbs. of torque stickered at $37,835. Where could you buy a 2003 Vette brand new for that??
Also, check your specs on power and torque. The 5.7 was 330 lb. ft. until '89 when it got bumped up to 345, where it stayed until it was replaced by the LT-1. HP was the same as the Mustang in '87, and went up to 230 in '88, and then rose to 245 by '90, where it stayed until it was replaced.
18th Aug 2010, 17:10
OMG... Where are you getting your facts??
Let me direct you to a few websites to dispel the myths...
First... let's look at the history of the L-98 Corvette engine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_small-block_engine
"The new 1985 L98 added tuned-port fuel injection "TPI", which produced 230 hp (172 kW) and 330 lb·ft (447 N·m). It was standard on all 1985-1991 Corvettes (rated at 230 hp (172 kW) -250 hp (186 kW) and 330 lb·ft (447 N·m) -350 lb·ft (475 N·m) ). Aluminum cylinder heads (Corvette only) were released part way through the 1986 model run and continued through the end of L98 Corvette production in 1992.
Optional on 87-92 Chevrolet Camaro & Pontiac Firebird models (rated at 225 hp (168 kW) -245 hp (183 kW) and 330 lb·ft (447 N·m) -345 lb·ft (468 N·m) ) 1987 versions had 10 hp (7 kW) and 15 lb·ft (20 N·m) more thanks to 9.5:1 compression and a change to hydraulic roller camshaft. Compression was up again in 1991 to 10:1 but output stayed the same."
NOTICE that torque ratings were as high as 345 ft-lbs on "some Firebird Models"... aka GTA.
In the Vette, torque was over 350.... same engine.
The ONLY difference between the Vette and the GTA... The Vette got a more aggressive cam, PROM Chip, cold air box, and lighter overall weight.
That's IT.
Same auto tranny (on those Corvettes with AT, 700R4), same rear end, 3:27 Limited Slip, POSITRACTION.
Here is another website that is more specific to the GTA, but are a little less HP in the claims: http://www.gtasourcepage.com/techspecs.html
For basic HP, ratings (1987 5-7 Litre 210/315 @ 3200 RPM... who measures torque ratings at 3200??) (1988- 225 to 235 HP and 325-335 ft lbs at 3200 RPM).
Dealer installed GM option for SLP system and the applicable costs, everything is here. http://www.gtasourcepage.com/techspecs.html
Curb weight (roughly 3435lbs), rear end configuration (3:27 Limited slip AKA POSI-TRACTION), http://www.gtasourcepage.com/87GTAMCRReview.html
A little side note as to why I may be a bit skewed with my opinion... My 1987 GTA was purchased new from a dealership in early 1987. The original owner came back to the same dealership in 1989, and traded up for a 1989 GTA Model.
My 87 Model was sold to the original owner WITH the SLP system installed at the dealership... it is ALSO on the original invoice, which I obtained from the dealer at the time of MY purchase.
I am only the second owner of the car.
BTW... I NEVER lost to a 5.0 liter Ford, GT or LX.
My viewpoint... I look at the SLP header addition as simply an "apples to apples comparison" with the Stang... after all, the Mustang GT came from the factory with headers and overall better breathing.
This page shows the result...on the 1987 GTA is estimated at 260HP (210 factory rated +50 additional with SLP option).
http://www.gtasourcepage.com/techspecs.html
Now imagine if the same SLP option was installed on the LB9 5.0 litre Formula or TA??? The base HP ratings on the GM 305, 5.0 Litre in 1987 was 205... so add 50 for SLP, now you are looking at 255... 30 more horses than a Stang, and enough additional torque to overpower the Ford, regardless of a roughly 300lb difference in curb weight... AND these Firebirds could be had with a 5 speed tranny, which shoots down your theory about the tranny.
Let's express this mathematically:
Mustang GT/LX 5.0 Litre + Headers = 225HP
GM LB9 F-Body 5.0 Litre + SLP Headers = 255 HP
GM L-98 F-Body (1987) 5.7 Litre + SLP Headers = 260 HP
GM l-98 F-body (1989) 5.7 Litre + SLP Headers = 295 HP
Your claim the GTA or other F-bodies to be a "MUCH HEAVIER Car"... A bit of an exaggeration.
More facts:
CURB WEIGHT: for 1988 Mustang GT: 3160lbs http://www.musclecardrive.com/ford/1988-ford-mustang-gt.php
300 lbs is not enough of a difference to call this a huge advantage.
RE: TRANSMISSION...FACT: it is NOT TRUE about the 700R4 being a Impala transmission... It was the same HO transmission found in the CORVETTE, and was brought over from the automatic Vette's drivetrain... Read this line and check the web page reference for proof..."The only available transmission is a four-speed automatic, and the limited slip 3.27:1 rear axle is standard. GM saved both time and money in EPA-certifying just one drivetrain for both cars."
http://www.gtasourcepage.com/87GTAMCRReview.html
So there you go.
BTW... your comment about not seeing any Third Gen F-bodies on the road these days?
Go to Dayton Ohio on August 28-29... National Trans Am Show. You will see HUNDREDS of Third Gens, along with hundreds of others from all years.
Let's be honest... This has more to do with where you live. You don't see many "American cars", period, in places like Los Angeles... In the Midwest there is more an allegiance to "American" cars, because they are primarily made there.
Personally, I live in a town where there are two Ford plants, and even with that being the case, I rarely see many 1980's Mustangs... but I DO see a lot of new ones.
Whether we are talking about an 80s Stang or an 80s Bird... What do you expect?... it's 20-23 years later??? How many of EITHER of them on going to be on the road??
BTW, the last year on the Firebird was 2002. My earlier comment was that there were NO FIREBIRDS anywhere close to $40K like the Cobra R. in 2002, which DID have impressive power at 390 HP.
Therefore it is only fair to compare this to the price on a Corvette in 2002. That figure was $41,450 for a new Vette in 2002... (look it up yourself) and $41K is right in line or attracting the same market/buyer as the Cobra R at $39500...
Personally I think that the Vette's nearly perfect handling, (pulling WELL over 1G on the skidpath) better braking, and overall "look" was well worth the $2000 difference.
16th Aug 2010, 16:00
Wrong! You are forgetting one major thing... weight! The GM F body cars were so overweight that the torque advantage didn't help them. Just look up 0-60 and 1/4 mile times done by professional drivers, and see which cars were faster stock vs. stock up to '93. Do that and come on here and tell me I am wrong again. If I am wrong, then every driver for Car and Driver and Motor Trend is wrong too. They would also be wrong for quoting that the Mustang was BEST BANG FOR THE BUCK, because at 225 HP it trounced ANY Camaro or Firebird of the same year, INCLUDING the 5.7 with it's PITIFUL Impala automatic transmission.
Maybe you had a Mustang with an "M" code 2.73 rear end in it or an even worse AT. You would not have taken me in either of my 5.0's with the "Z" code 3.08 Traction Lok 5-speed PERIOD! The "M" code axle returned a 0-60 time of over 7 seconds, which was poor for a Mustang. The "Z" code was a no cost option in those days, so I am not sure why anyone ordered a Mustang without it.
The only time Camaros or Firebirds were faster was on the way to the junk yard. Like I said, they were some of the worst built cars ever. I hardly ever see one around anymore from the 80's or early 90's . I still see tons of 5.0 Mustangs though, as they were much better built and lasted a lot longer.
I even had guys with IROC's saying my car was faster than theirs back then... not to mention that I never got taken by ANY F body EVER in a race. I have also driven many F-bodies, and they were not as fast as my Mustangs. No way. Plus, the Formula 350 came stock with no posi on it. Believe me, I tested an '87, and with one black stripe across the parking lot... well the answer was clear.
Before you respond again, check the facts. Do some research on 0-60 times. I know for fact the Mustang was consistently around 6.2 to 60 from '87-'93. Mine were '88 and '90 LX's. The Cobra at 235 HP did 60 in 5.8. Camaros and Firebirds were around 6.7 with the bigger engine, and around 7 with the 5.0. My '88 was actually the faster of the two. There was a lot of variation back then in engines. Some were faster than others. I could roll in first, floor it and spin the tires all the way into third gear easily with the '88. The '90 wouldn't do that. My '88 felt more like 250 HP compared to every other 5.0 I had driven. I never did any mods to my cars other than 2 chamber Flowmasters on my '90. I sold Fords in the early 90's too, so I have driven tons of 5.0's, from the carb's up to '85 to the '93's.
I've seen so many Camaro guys claiming their cars are faster, but the facts stand... as do the old comparison tests from back then when these cars were the newest thing. Mustangs ruled from pretty much '85 to '93, and then the Camaro got the real Vette engine, the LT1, and they were way north of the last Fox body in HP, so they finally got ahead. After that, the Mustang was ugly and underpowered in comparison until '99, when they at least looked better. Then the Camaro died after 2002 and the contest was over for 7 years. Guess it didn't really matter how expensive or fast the '03-'04 Cobra was, when you couldn't buy a new Camaro or Firebird in those years anyhow....
Funny you should mention the Cobra of '03 and '04. It was pricey, but not too much above a loaded up SS of the last year, and yes it was the fastest Mustang ever until the new 5.0 returned. They have never built a stock Camaro that would compete with that car... or the 2011 for that matter. Mustangs are surely on top once again. I hope it stays that way.
Hey, the war between these cars has been raging for decades, and it will always be a fun one. Long live the Pony cars!