View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Dewey316 The Lama
Joined: 08 Jan 2004 Posts: 7295 Location: Bringing the tech
1990 Chevrolet Camaro RS
|
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 7:35 am Post subject: Back to 1982 . . . |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI-lukE09gs
Wow, how things have changed. _________________
"Ever see a Motorcycle in front of a Psychiatrists Office?" Me neither |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chevymad Master B
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Posts: 5474
1987 Pontiac Formula
|
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sad, the ford 5.0 HO had a 2 barrel. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
QwkTrip 11sec Club
Joined: 17 Feb 2004 Posts: 3942 Location: Peoria, IL
1989 Pontiac Firebird
|
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
And it was still more powerful than the Camaro. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Alphius Peanut
Joined: 05 Sep 2006 Posts: 2429 Location: Grand Mound
1984 Chevrolet Camaro Z/28
|
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fastest car in America! Can't even break into the 15s.
Great video. _________________ 84 Camaro Z28 - LS1/T56
85 Silverado - Low and Slow |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fiveoformula Member
Joined: 08 Aug 2007 Posts: 1799 Location: OR
1988 Pontiac Formula
|
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2014 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Enjoyed watching that, funny how today these tests still praise the Z28 for good handling! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fiveoformula Member
Joined: 08 Aug 2007 Posts: 1799 Location: OR
1988 Pontiac Formula
|
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2014 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
chevymad wrote: | Sad, the ford 5.0 HO had a 2 barrel. |
In 1974, there was no V8 option at all. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chevymad Master B
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Posts: 5474
1987 Pontiac Formula
|
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2014 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But that was a mustang II wasn't it? Not a Mustang |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aaron_sK Member
Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 8834 Location: Back in beautiful Tacompton
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
|
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2014 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Semantics.
All '80 and '81 Mustangs with a V8 had the 255, so a 2V 302 was a veritable miracle at the time.
GM couldn't touch Ford's power output in that era, and really GM didn't surpass them until '93.
The shocking thing is how unsettled the Mustang is around corners. It's truly bad.
Last edited by aaron_sK on Tue Nov 18, 2014 9:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chevymad Master B
Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Posts: 5474
1987 Pontiac Formula
|
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2014 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just the idea of calling a 2 barrel 302 an HO though. And a mustang II is not a mustang.. basically a freaking pinto. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aaron_sK Member
Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 8834 Location: Back in beautiful Tacompton
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
|
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2014 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Haha, yeah but in Ford's nomenclature 'H.O.' referred to the engine having the 5-7 swap not the actual output. They were just proud to not be selling the 120hp version from the Mustang II.
Also, why does the test driver look like a fat version of Goose? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fiveoformula Member
Joined: 08 Aug 2007 Posts: 1799 Location: OR
1988 Pontiac Formula
|
Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2014 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
chevymad wrote: | Just the idea of calling a 2 barrel 302 an HO though. And a mustang II is not a mustang.. basically a freaking pinto. |
In that case, the "Pony boys" shouldnt be able to proudly say "mustangs never stopped production since 1964." because 1974-1978, you couldnt have bought a mustang, only A pinto with mustang II badges. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
QwkTrip 11sec Club
Joined: 17 Feb 2004 Posts: 3942 Location: Peoria, IL
1989 Pontiac Firebird
|
Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2014 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just a reminder how horrible cars were in the 70's. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Alphius Peanut
Joined: 05 Sep 2006 Posts: 2429 Location: Grand Mound
1984 Chevrolet Camaro Z/28
|
Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2014 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
aaron_sK wrote: | GM couldn't touch Ford's power output in that era, and really GM didn't surpass them until '93.
The shocking thing is how unsettled the Mustang is around corners. It's truly bad. |
Literally every year '82-'92 except for in '82 the Camaro had more power than the Mustang. Some years (LB9) it was only 5HP more, but after the L98 came out the 5.0 Mustang really couldn't touch it. The 83-86 L69 cars with T5/3.73 really put the hurt on too. Of course the weight disadvantage meant the Camaro was at times slower in a straight line despite having more power on paper. The Camaro soundly trounced the Mustang in handling year after year, but this is 'Merica so how much do you think that was worth to Joe Sixpack? _________________ 84 Camaro Z28 - LS1/T56
85 Silverado - Low and Slow |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aaron_sK Member
Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 8834 Location: Back in beautiful Tacompton
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
|
Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2014 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ahh yes, you are correct. I was mistaken saying that it had more power, I should have said that they had better power to weight ratio until the early 90's when the weight of the SN95 chassis finally caught up to the 302 right around the same time GM struck on the reverse-flow idea. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Alphius Peanut
Joined: 05 Sep 2006 Posts: 2429 Location: Grand Mound
1984 Chevrolet Camaro Z/28
|
Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2014 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's true for more years than not I believe.
Also have to consider the price. The 5.0 Mustang could be had for thousands less than the Camaro. _________________ 84 Camaro Z28 - LS1/T56
85 Silverado - Low and Slow |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Quasi-Traction "I have petals"
Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 3873 Location: stumptown
1986 Chevrolet Camaro Berlinetta
|
Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2014 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
interesting to me is that the mustang had the 4 Lug wheel/ brake setup that a lot of Foxbody dudes seem to lothe so much. Interesting throwback. Automotive technology has certainly improved quite a bit in 32 years. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
IROCDave Member
Joined: 16 Jan 2010 Posts: 957 Location: Snohomish WA
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
|
Posted: Wed May 20, 2015 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Man I remember when the HO 5.0 came out. It was just a relief that the neutered mustang would continue and not be replaced by some FWD piece of crap. Camaro seemed to be heading that way also except that they were longer and handled and braked much better. When the California HWP adopted the 5.0 Mustangs it really boosted sales. From my teenage recollection, the 84 Mustang 5.0 was cool. at the time everyone knew the emission crap would be removed ASAP and the cam and carb would be right behind. Ford started putting SS exhaust on the Mustang in the early 80's and the 5.0 sounded great. Chevy didn't pick up on the importance of the exhaust sound. Back in the 80's my allegiance was set so my perspective may be off, but I swear Ford sold Mustang tons of GT's on the sound of the exhaust. They were not faster than the IROC's / Formulas / GTA's and corner like a floor jack. The mustang interior was horrible, even back then. 4 lug axles / wheels, brakes were almost as bad as the interior, but they were cheap and sounded great. Aftermarket parts were cheap and plenty though. hats was another huge miss by GM at the time.
When I graduated from HS in 88, a 5 speed stripped down LX 5.0 Mustang with a posi, AC, PWR windows and locks costs about 10K. The equivalent performance F body was 16K. There was basically no aftermarket support for the F bodies.
I spent a summer driving (beating on ) a 1989 loaded 5.0 GT mustang. It was my girlfriends sisters boyfriends and was up for repossession. I beat the crap out of the car. My girlfriend had a 5.0, A4 87 IROC. It was a much better built, and all around car. It was slower though, not by much. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|