14th Sep 2010, 10:37

A G-Hawk is a second gen Formula Firebird. They take the entire car apart and totally rebuild the suspension and brakes and add a sub frame making it pull about 1.00 g's on the skidpad... or about as well as a brand new Corvette. They then rebuild the engine to your specs and can easily get into the 500+ HP range. They finally redo the interior with upgraded racing seats and all new gauges and of course finish off the rest so it is all new. The purpose was kind of the same as the Burt Reynolds Bandit TA by Year One. Take an old classic Firebird and turn it into a modern street machine that will exceed pretty much every new car on the road in all driving aspects.

The year One Birds are awesome too but I like that the G-hawk is generally made from '74 Firebirds which are my favorite year.

The TA Nationals sounds awesome. If I were only a few hours closer I would definitely make that. I just went to the Adirondack Nationals in Lake George, NY on Saturday and that is a great show. They have all kinds of old classics and muscle cars. I took photos of many Firebirds and TAs though as they are my favorites of the classics. I did see a couple of new 5.0 Mustangs cruising the strip though and still would love one of those! There were a lot more cars this year than there usually are and the people there I have never seen in such huge numbers. It had to be like 50% increase in attendance since the last show. Still a great time though as it was about 74 and sunny.

2nd Mar 2011, 02:42

I may not know the exact stats for Mustangs or Firebirds, but if you had 2.05 locking rear end in a Mustang and stock Firebird, then they are no longer ever "factory to factory", and therefore still does not prove a Mustang is faster.

Also, one must take into account that it is not always the car, but sometimes the driver who has a quicker reaction time or better shifting time. Which can and will make a big difference. The only way to get a true fair comparison is to have the same professional test both cars on the same dyno, and compare the results.

2nd Mar 2011, 14:54

Well the Mustang came with a 3.08 rear end stock that was a Traction Lok axle. Not sure what you are talking about with a 2.05 rear... that would be mighty weak, if it even existed. The Formula 350 was not posi in 1987 that I have ever seen, unless it was an optional package. My friend test drove one and smoked the tire... yes one tire, as he boarded it off the line. The Mustang shreds both tires easily off the line. Also, the Formula 350 is automatic only, so shifting isn't taken into consideration, and this also makes for a 7 second 0-60 time against the 5.0 Mustang's 6.2 0-60 time.

Stock to stock, the Mustang is the faster of the two. It has been tested by professionals time and time again against the rival cars from GM. It was a well known fact back in the day, and even the car mags praised the Mustang as best bang for the buck, as it was the best deal on the fastest car in its class. Once the Vette engines were put into the Camaro, they took the prize for the faster car, but anything before '93 was in favor of the 5.0 Mustang.

3rd Mar 2011, 14:06

Again, I don't know the exact specs, and someone had mentioned a 2.05 rear end. But also you can shift an automatic manually. Start in 1 or low, and pop it up as you go. I know because I have done it several times. And if the Firebird is automatic, then you should test the automatic Mustang.

3rd Mar 2011, 17:04

You specified the Formula 350 Firebird, but which Mustang model are you comparing it to?

4th Mar 2011, 10:37

The Mustang LX 5.0 with a 5-speed manual, and the traction lok 3.08 rear end (which was a no-cost option over the standard 2.73 rear end). 1987-1993 were the most potent stock form of these cars. This was the model the car mags tested, as it was cheaper than the GT, but you got all of the go-fast hardware, including the suspension upgrades over the base model. It was lighter as well, as it lacked the ground effects package the GT came as standard with.

4th Mar 2011, 10:51

Manually shifting an AT really doesn't get you anywhere on that old of a car. They didn't have a sport shift set up back then. As far as the AT Mustang goes... well I prefer a manual shift on any sporty car. I have driven AT Mustang 5.0's and it is boring to me in comparison. It isn't my fault that the Formula 350 had no manual option. When they did the tests, they took the fastest example of each car in stock form. The LX 5.0 Mustang with a 5-speed manual was it.

A much nicer Firebird Formula would be the 5.0 tuned port engine with a manual tranny. I drove a couple of those, and although they weren't quite as fast as the Mustangs I had, they were very nice driving overall, and great looking cars.

6th Mar 2011, 22:07

OK. But if they tested a Formula 350 Firebird because it was the best or top line of the Firebirds, then they were more than likely wrong because the Trans Am was the top end Firebird.

7th Mar 2011, 15:56

Even a GTA with 5.7 liter engine wasn't as quick as a 5.0 Mustang. They all had the same engines in them. If anything, the Trans Am was heavier than the Formula, because like the Mustang GT, it had extra ground effects on it. The only Trans Am that was faster was the 1989 turbo V6 car.

9th May 2011, 20:49

I wanted to make a few (or several) comments about the Mustangs, Camaros and Firebirds in the late eighties.

Anyway, I was 15 years old in the summer of 1987. In Louisiana, where we lived, you could get a drivers license at 15 years old. I had been driving for a few months, and was just learning about the current lineup of GM and Ford cars, and picked up either a C&D or MT issue comparing the Mustang, IROC and Firebird Formula, all with the 5.0 engine and 5 speed manual transmission.

I recall that this magazine said the 1987 Mustang had 225 hp. The IROC had 215 and the Firebird had either 205 or 210. The Firebird and IROC engine, according to the article, was virtually identical, but because of the Firebird hood design, the air filter box was cramped, making it harder to breathe, which knocked off a few horsepower. Test driving a Mustang and Formula 5.0 TPI, the info from the dealers supported the horsepower claims made in the magazine.

Spring of 1989, my dad bought me a Mustang LX 5.0 Hatchback with 2.73 gears and an automatic transmission. It was pretty slow compared to some other Mustangs in the 87-89 range, but a lot of that had to do with the automatic transmission. Mustangs with 5 speed transmission had a 3.35 first gear, which is very low. The manual transmission cars even with a 2.73 gear could get off the line pretty quick, but 3.08 or steeper gears made a significant difference.

Anyway, I found out later that the first gear in the automatic tranny Mustangs was a 2.4. This explained why I could go almost 60 mph in first gear. Over the next couple of years, I made several 'bolt on' mods, which made it much quicker. However the first 12 months that I owned it, the only mod I made was a K&N air filter and had the timing adjusted. Fall of 1989, I headed out to Pasadena (Texas) only a few miles away from where I lived in Houston, and my neighbor friend was riding with me and we saw a 350 IROC with a guy who looked to be in his forties. We raced twice from 50mph to around 100mph and I beat him both times (to my surprise). I didn't beat him bad, but I thought the 350 engine would certainly beat me, but it did not.

Later, I would trade the stock 2.73 gear for a 3.55 gear, which made a lot of difference, especially off the line. I put an off road exhaust on it, removing all 4 catalytic converters and put 3 chamber Flowmasters on. Later, I put a stock, yet ported throttle body, and a ported mass air flow sensor. Also had my computer replaced under warranty, which made a big difference (it's a long story, but my car always seem to run slower than it should, and the computer seemed to give me an extra .25 seconds in the quarter, which brought it up to where it should have been).

For a couple of years, most Friday nights I went to Center Street in Pasadena where there were a lot of Mustangs, and a few other cars - I remember a guy with a Trans AM GTA, but I don't recall any 5.0 TPI IROCs or Firebirds. But it seemed common knowledge that the 5.0 F-bodies weren't as fast as the Mustangs (even comparing them completely stock).

Once in a while, you'd see a fairly fast GTA, but people often raced for money, and it was common for people to heavily modify their cars and try to make it look stock. So it was hard to tell what car had what mods..

Also, for the Mustang starting in 1989, Ford switched from a "speed density" MAP sensor to a MAF (mass air flow sensor). It was thought that the 87-88 speed density cars were much quicker, and it may have been the case, as looking at the rather small diameter mass air flow sensor -- it seemed plausible that it didn't breathe as freely as the speed density cars. Also, I kept my car for 8 years and had about 180k miles on it. I do recall when it reached around 60k, that it felt like it was mostly broken in, and once it reached about 100k, it felt even faster.

I was glad to have owned the Mustang, if for no other reason - its engine. However I still have admiration and a place in my heart for the IROCs, Firebird Formulas and GTAs. Although I did a lot of drag racing, my main interest was in overall street performance, and I imagined that the F body design handled better at high speeds than the Mustang's less aerodynamic shape.

I always thought it would have been fun to have a Formula 5.0 or 5.7 TPI, and put a nice set of heads, bigger cam, and better exhaust system. That would have given many of the Mustangs a run for their money.

Greg.

1st Aug 2011, 23:46

Are you kidding? You think this guy doesn't know you can "manually" shift an automatic car? Doesn't matter if you manually shift it or not, the Mustang wins hands down, every single time if it is a 5 speed manual. The AOD equipped Mustangs (automatic transmission) were complete pigs.

The Mustang LX 5.0 5 speed was the king of the streets back in the day. Now, as for the 1989 Trans Am Turbo, now that's a different story. That is one bad ass car...

2nd Aug 2011, 00:06

Wrong, back in 1989, I owned a 1989 Mustang LX 5.0 5 speed and a 1987 IROC 5.7 350 TPI. When we would take them out, (my brother and I..) no matter who drove which car, the Mustang always won. Always.

L98 was not 1LE. 1LE cars were a little quicker come 1989, but still couldn't cope with the "go cart" like light weight Mustang LX.

Now you have the facts.

19th Feb 2012, 09:46

Sorry, the 1986-1987 Grand Nationals were the kings of the street. I know, as I had all these cars; Mustangs, IROCs, a Trans Am and a Grand National.