Cascade Crew

Dewey316 · 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.

chevymad · Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2014 5:35 pm Post subject:

Sad, the ford 5.0 HO had a 2 barrel. Confused

QwkTrip · Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 6:15 am Post subject:

And it was still more powerful than the Camaro. Laughing

Alphius · Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 6:05 pm Post subject:

Fastest car in America! Can't even break into the 15s. Very Happy

Great video.

fiveoformula · 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!

fiveoformula · Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2014 2:09 pm Post subject:

chevymad · Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2014 5:53 pm Post subject:

But that was a mustang II wasn't it? Not a Mustang

aaron_sK · Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2014 8:55 pm Post subject:

Semantics. Laughing

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.

chevymad · 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.

aaron_sK · 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. Laughing

Also, why does the test driver look like a fat version of Goose? Confused

fiveoformula · Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2014 11:32 am Post subject:

QwkTrip · Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2014 6:23 pm Post subject:

Just a reminder how horrible cars were in the 70's.

Alphius · Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2014 7:06 pm Post subject:

aaron_sK · 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.

Alphius · 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.

Quasi-Traction · 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.

IROCDave · 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.