Mustang vs Camaro

hey also you said you should put a 351 in your stang but would'nt that be the same as a camaro with a 350.. no matter who makes it cubic inches are cubic inches. does on make any difference. so i'm confused do you like 350s or not...are you admitting a 351 is better than 283 or is smaller still better... i told my girlfriend that and she did'nt believe that junk either

0 Replies

Slappy Doo Hoo wrote:

First off, why would you ever invest the kind of money to swap a Taurus to a 5-speed? Why not put that money towards a true performance car?

for one thing, it costs a lot less to switch my taurus to manual than it would to buy a new OR even a used mustang. I was looking at a few used mustangs that peaked my interest, one which happened to be a 98 3.8L, that produced only 150hp, and had 70,000 miles on it (which is a little less than wut the taurus had on the old engine before the swap, now the odometer reads 79,000) and was priced at $5000... im pretty sure a tranny swap would cost AT LEAST 1/8 of that price. My approximation of all the mods i mentioned earlier, including the tranny swap, would be between $1500-2000, at the most $2300, much cheaper than buying, as you say, a "true performance car." Also, the taurus was given to me by my parents, so all i have been paying for is secondary-driver insurance (which is extremely over-priced) and find it easier to upgrade a car i got for free than to buy a "true performance car" and have to spend the same amount of money on upgrades, plus the added money i'd be paying for the car note every month, along with the additional insurance costs of being listed as a primary driver. If you would choose the "true performance car" over wut i have, i'd say you are greatly lacking intelligence, to put it politely.

Slappy Doo Hoo wrote:

Maybe it's the feel, but I'm wondering why you think a Taurus with a Mustang V6 is quicker than a Mustang with the V6? It's a bigger car with front wheel drive.

My taurus is less than 9 inches longer than the '99-'04. It's at least 200 lbs. lighter than a '99-'04 V6 and is at least 300 lbs. lighter than '99-'04 GT. If you wanna know the exact dimension comparisons, they are as follows:

'99-'04 Mustang V6
Length: 183.2 inches
Width: 73.1 inches
Height: 53.2 inches

'95 Taurus
Length: 192.0 inches
Width: 71.2 inches
Height: 54.1 inches

As you can see, the dimensions are rather similar, and the fact that, in two out of three respects, the taurus is a slightly "bigger car" than the stang is hardly a valid argument, and shouldn't be used when comparing the two cars. The only valid argument you may have in favor of the mustang is rear-wheel drive. Even with rear-wheel drive, the V6 mustang (automatic, haven't found anyone yet to race wit a manual, but i'm pretty confident the outcome would be the same) is significantly disadvantaged by the added weight of the vehicle, and hasn't helped the people i've raced and beaten. Also, the V6 mustangs i have driven (all '98 or earlier) do not offer as smooth of a ride as my taurus on new orleans roads... now i dunno if you folks have been around these parts, but i can tell ya these are pretty bad roads, and the taurus handles them much better than the stangs. Sorry to prove you wrong, but when you get your facts straight and come up with a valid argument, please let me know so we can discuss it.

0 Replies

Slappy Doo Hoo wrote:

Funny CJ says that...I drove my buddy's Sable one night(his was a 97 I think), and I remember telling him it handles like a shopping cart. The thing was so loose feeling, and it was wandering all over the highway. A big part of that was I was used to driving a BMW 3-series at the time though.

I wanted to make an additional comment about your dealings with the sable/taurus handling. I have not noticed such so-called "shopping cart" handling since i last rode in my grandpaws first taurus (a 1990 gen1 model) which he sold and got a new '03 taurus last year, which has an incredibly smooth ride. It's so smooth that sometimes I don't even notice that the engine is running, and it has much better traction than my taurus. My good friend's 96 taurus also has a pretty smooth ride and better traction than mine during rainstorms. The only problem i've ever experienced with my own taurus, is like i mentioned earlier, during normal-to-heavy rainstorms, and i only notice the loss of traction when i go over 55 or 60 mph. Otherwise, there is no problem, especially while turning. I made a pretty sharp turn just a few hours ago at about 55 or 60mph and was unable to notice any loss of traction or tire screeching, and was able to keep the car in one lane, at a consistent speed, throughout the whole turn... no kickback from the wheel, no "floating," nothing... just a normal, smooth turn. Maybe your friends sable had something wrong with its suspension or struts... or maybe you were just traveling down some crappy roads... either way, its a completely different year, model, and body style, and theres no reason why a gen3 sable should be compared to gen2 taurus. Nor should it be compared to the likes of BMW... if i had millions of dollars, i'm sure i'd buy a few, but i don't... i barely make enough money to pay for my montrous insurance, cell phone, and car repair bills (not for the taurus, for my dad's windstar). Anyway, maybe in ten years i'll be able to afford a BMW, but when that day comes, i'll buy a vette or classic muscle car instead... i've never been one for luxury cars, i'd take a good ol' charger r/t or chevelle ss anyday over a BMW and the like, but now we're drifting from the topic at hand. Reply if you must, but i beg of you to please use only valid and factual information.

0 Replies

427stroker wrote:

oh so if you like small engines so much why don't you go buy a supra....or better yet an rx-7. thats got a small motor a 1.3 liter . HEY WE COULD TURBO THAT JUST LIKE THE MUSTANG. ooh wait then it would be making like 500 rwhp. that comes out to be like 384 hp per liter compare the numbers. how much was your cobra making again...i forgot
also that must be one heck of a 4.6. question have you ever seen a built 5.7...probably not. there quick...well over 500 horse. but according to you 281 cubic inches is infinitly better than 350. if thats how you figure power would you also say that your engine could take an 702 ci. why not ,smaller is better right. pitting an ls1 against a cobra is the same as a gsxr1000 against a moped. i'm sorry chevy did'nt slap a supercharger on everything they could find but they left that up to the men. ya see my grandmother could go out and by a cobra just like you and she would be just as cool right .also, true they did stop making camaro but they also stoped making f-15 fighter jets. could your cobra take one of those

I cant argue with displacement because there is nothing wrong with big engines heck I would love a 1969 mach 1 with a 428 cj but after all this is 2004 and new technology is every where all the camaro guys rave about ls1 cars and how fast they are, they should be with that size of an engine. And a supra or a rx7 are not v8 powered cars so they will never be in the same category. But you cant deny the cool factor of a factory built engine with forged internals, a supercharger and high flow 4 valve heads. Heck im just glad there still people who are passionate about mustangs and camaros, not just rice burners.

0 Replies

427stroker wrote:

hey also you said you should put a 351 in your stang but would'nt that be the same as a camaro with a 350.. no matter who makes it cubic inches are cubic inches. does on make any difference. so i'm confused do you like 350s or not...are you admitting a 351 is better than 283 or is smaller still better... i told my girlfriend that and she did'nt believe that junk either

I didnt say I would put a 351w in my car, but I have seen them in fox bodied mustang before and they are nice, but I like my DOHC 32v engine just fine

0 Replies

Hey, who drank all the PBR?

0 Replies

I'll be the first one to say that a stock ls1 sucks. i've smoked quite a few in my tpi but to be perfectly honest a mustang and a camaro are fundamentally the same...oops,did i say that. no really both are v8 american muscle that are rwd...i'm talking about a two tire fire. both sound awesome and both provide that massive torque pull we all love so much. i however am not a fan of the new mustangs.i would much rather see a homebuilt racecar but to each his own. Hey at least we can all agree that ricers suck...especially the 4 bangers

0 Replies

GM V-6 Versus Mustang GT V8??? HAH
That is rediculous, I'm glad I grew up in the sixties and seventies, I have a 2002 Sonic Blue Mustang GT, off the Showroom floor has 260 HP...Of course that's been beefed up, and I ain't had one Trans AM V6 or Camaro V6 out run this pony...

Now before you go jumpin on me, I've owned a 86 and 87 Iroc, I've also owned a 93 and 94 Camaro Z-28...so don't try to bluff me...I see so many Saturn drivers, No Offense, on the road that think they can TAKE my Mustang GT that I don't even give them a look.

That comment about a V6 Trans Am running with a V8 Mustang is like me sayin I can Clean the clock off a Top of the Line Vette HAHAHAHAHA..

0 Replies

I thinki I posted my Response in another world...first off I've owned a 86 and 87 Iroc Z...93 and 94 Z-28 and a 91 Mustang LX and 92 Mustang GT, I now own an 02 Mustang GT and I ain't seen a V6 Mustang or GM out run this pony...Yes I have beefed it up and yes I have beat even some older Cobra's in this area...but you have to know what your car is capable of.

I'm glad I was a teen in the 60's and 70's, I knew what cars you could run or leave alone...not true with young folks today, I have Saturns wanting to run me..LOL, oops, no offense to Saturn drivers...what I'm saying is...know what your drivin...unless you blow out your V6 in your ride regardless of GM or Ford...don't go around sayin how your V6 can run with the REAL V8's...that's like me sayin my GT can run with a Viper!!!

I would also like to ask...why did you folks buy V6's when you coulda got a V8 at the same insurance rate??LOL

0 Replies

Speaking of Saturn drivers trying to race you, it is pretty funny seeing people with POS cars who throw an air filter/exhaust/stickers on and think it's converted into a rocket.

You all have to realize too, this is the dumbest argument ever, "which is better?" First off, the V6 versions of each suck. If you have one, don't try to compare it to the V8, you look like an idiot.
Second, both the Camaro/Trans Am and the Mustang are great cars with a lot of history. Driving a torquey V8 with a 5-spd and RWD is fun as hell. You can modify either car to make them fast as hell, and you've got some people that love one version and hate the other, and that will never change.

0 Replies

well said slappy... i suppose this post has been put to a close

0 Replies

I tried the sticker thing, it didn't do much.

Then I tried a different sticker, the one that came with the latest Ted Nugent CD, Craveman.

The combination of the two has transformed my automobile into an ass-fault eating machine.

http://www.msnusers.com/_Secure/0RgCz*yYWxia6ldkxR9ScNUjZLWvq1ASaM1Z!R9x71JCHNuncwSy291I2UvRZE0HVocSQoXoFVnaOD87OhTumwEv8Y92QNHMFvrbsEd*O9Ig/oldbmw.jpg

0 Replies

Let Drop you some knowledge son

Jarlaxle wrote:

The DOHC 4.6 Cobra will run with the LS1 Z28SS.[/q

Cobra are supercharged and are bearly quicker than an SS. Imagine if you Supercharged a SS it would be all she wrote son.

0 Replies

Camaro's are better than any mustang

99mustanggt wrote:

OK you guys really piss me off. Camaro owners always say how mustangs are junk and that camaros can kill any mustang. Up until 1994 the camaro has never beat the mustang. Also you always say how your v6's can keep up with a gt. There is no way . You guys always mislead people on things.The new gt's run 14.09 (auto)stock with no mods and a new(sorry 2002) v6 camaro is rated at 16.1 which is slower than the v6 mustang which runs 15.7. Also no camaro ever made could touch the 00-02(13.18) cobra let alone the 03-04(12.77) even with a way smaller motor. Also you guys say that a stock z28 can run low 13 high 12's(more missinformation) every magazine that has tested the car has gotten 13.9-14.1 and this is also what happens at the dragstrip(seeing as how i go there every weekend)So just stop f***ing misinforming people and face the facts, camaros suck , obviously why they stopped making them.Its pretty sad when a 4.6 beats a 5.7 .Thanks, Jason

The reason a v-6 camaro can beat a ford mustang gt ( on the street of course with less than profesional drivers) has nothing to do with horsepower. but how well the driver knows his car. i have personally beaten a later model ford mustang gt in my old hyundai elantra (5 speed manual ). "mustang suck camaro rules"

0 Replies

You didn't beat a Mustang GT with your Elantra. The guy in the Mustang wasn't racing you.

0 Replies

Mustang VS. Camaro
Guys, to start off I own a 2001 Camaro SS and a 2004 Mach 1. Here lately every where I go on the internet all people are doing is fighting about which is faster camaro or mustang. Well this is what I think about it my SS costed me far less than my mach 1 to get it into the 11SEC bracket. Yet for some reason I like both cars. I think ford and chevy should just quit bickering and aim for the imports because they are getting faster.

Oh yeah, I favor chevy alot mainly because they build NA cars not SC cars that hardly make advertised horsepower. The key to beating a camaro is the transmission a 6-speed ss and a 5-Speed mach 1 there are diffrent shift points.

0 Replies

seriously i did beat a mustang gt in my old elantra the driver just didnt know how to drive the car, missed 3rd gear

0 Replies

Well I had a debate about this on another forum. The 2002 phase 3 ZL1 Camaro tops out a 230 MPH goes zero to 60 in 2.8 seconds. It runs a 427 big block chevy none turbo or super with 770 hp and 638 ft/lbs of torque there are only 69 made. This is by far the fastest of pony cars. It is an actual production Camaro for one year, they cost about $200,000. Now honestly what mustange has ever come close to matching those number??? This car is one of the fastest production cars in history. The ZL1 was made to comemorate the 427 Yenko Camaros made back in 1969, which goes to show unless the Mustange comes up with an engine that can crank out that much power with out a super or turbo then maybe you will have any room to talk, and if you don't believe go look the ZL1 up.

0 Replies

I use to have a camaro and it was truly my favorite car. I still miss it.

0 Replies

Welcome to A2K SS_Drago.

I think you are confusing your Camaros.

The latest ZL1 was a concept car only.

The 1969 model ZL1 is the one they only built 69 of.

Very different cars.

0 Replies

Mustang vs Camaro

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know