If Camaro's suddenly became unavailable again....

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by el ess A

Mullets were for Camaro owners back then. Unfortunately, that was kind of true.

As someone who lived and drove pony cars back in those days can tell you, if you wanted to go fast in a pony car, you weren't going to do it in a new Camaro. The 305 was the WORST thing to happen to Camaro Z28, ever, imo. I struggled with it because I liked the Camaro body style, but after test driving one of those "new" notchback 5.0 Mustangs, there was no comparison performance-wise.

Were they ugly? Sure. But the fun-factor and a relatively lightweight car (not to mention fairly cheap) was a big draw. And you didn't muck with them on the street if you had a new 83 Z28 with automatic like me. I even got edged out by a V6 manual '82 Berlinetta my friend had!

I stayed with Camaro through and through, but those were some LEAN times. VERY lean and I took a LOT of bitch-slapping from Mustang's dominance. You bought Camaro for style and features (not many) because unless you were gutting it and dropping in your own build, you weren't going fast in it. No way, no how. Don't let anyone tell you different because they can't if they were really there.

Some of you are too young to remember when owning a Gen 3 Camaro meant you were the butt of nearly all car jokes (the mullet and trailer park jokes still hang though). It wasn't until '93 did Camaro start getting serious about kicking sand in the Mustang's face. I'm just glad the battle still lives on!!!

If Camaro no longer existed, I'd probably drive a Corvette or CTS-V.

I never said there was a long list or American performance cars back then. I've never liked the 305. That being said, people still talk about the old 5.0 Mustangs as if they're worthy of the discussion. The fanboyism surrounding them is profound.

[Bhobbs]

I would probably go with a new Colorado 4x4 or an 02 Z28 or SS.

[Muscle Car Memories]

Originally Posted by VADER SS L99

The amount of mis information is strong with you. The 1986-1987 Buick Turbo cars are the fastest production cars for those respected years. The 5th gen SS would destroy those cars but the V6 Mustang and Camaro would have a serious drivers race on their hands.

The fox body Mustangs were not faster than Turbo Buicks. The Mustang's of the time were not a drivers race with the Turbo Buicks unless you call more than .3 tenth and 3mph difference a drivers race and I do not. Please show me proof of a bone stock fox body Mustang running faster than 13.8@100mph. Then there is the GNX and turbo trans AM that ran low 13's. Hell I would like to see proof that a 1993 Cobra has done that well. Not to mention the Turbo "T"s and T types that were faster than the GN's because of their lighter weight. Those have run in the 13.7 area.



http://d0n3d.tripod.com/intercooled.htm

I used to own several fox body mustangs and was never outrun by a Grand National however I owned the coupe not hatchback's but I am sure there were plenty of GN's that would outrun a fox body but that run both ways.

Im not really into a pissing contact with you, so you keep to your Buick's and I will keep to my 5.0's

[Muscle Car Memories]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

I never said there was a long list or American performance cars back then. I've never liked the 305. That being said, people still talk about the old 5.0 Mustangs as if they're worthy of the discussion. The fanboyism surrounding them is profound.

I read a article in Hot Rod magazine a few years ago and it said the 5.0 Fox Bodies totally changed the landscape of drag racing on the cheap and that the 5.0's will become the 1957 Chevrolet of their day.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by Muscle Car Memories

I read a article in Hot Rod magazine a few years ago and it said the 5.0 Fox Bodies totally changed the landscape of drag racing on the cheap and that the 5.0's will become the 1957 Chevrolet of their day.

Couldn't the same be said of Honda Civics in the '90s making "performance" parts and accessories a mass market for young people?

[Muscle Car Memories]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

Couldn't the same be said of Honda Civics in the '90s making "performance" parts and accessories a mass market for young people?

Civic's arent V8 powered and cost a TON of money to make them run with V8's but you do have a good point because insurance rates are what drove ther younger crowd to Civic's and Accord's....

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by Muscle Car Memories

Civic's arent V8 powered and cost a TON of money to make them run with V8's but you do have a good point because insurance rates are what drove ther younger crowd to Civic's and Accord's....

I'm just stirring the pot and trying to compare Mustangs with Civics.

Of course, the number of cylinders is perhaps one of the most arbitrary ways to classify performance. Displacement and valve count is much more useful, but long gone are the days where garage mechanics had intelligent conversations about engineering. Now, we discuss vinyl stripes and bolt-ons, not cam profiles fluid dynamics. It always frustrates me when people say it's not performance without a V8. It's just a design that requires 8 cylinders next to one another as opposed to 6 in 2 rows or a W16 or an inline 4.

[Muscle Car Memories]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

I'm just stirring the pot and trying to compare Mustangs with Civics.

Of course, the number of cylinders is perhaps one of the most arbitrary ways to classify performance. Displacement and valve count is much more useful, but long gone are the days where garage mechanics had intelligent conversations about engineering. Now, we discuss vinyl stripes and bolt-ons, not cam profiles fluid dynamics. It always frustrates me when people say it's not performance without a V8. It's just a design that requires 8 cylinders next to one another as opposed to 6 in 2 rows or a W16 or an inline 4.

Your a bad man comparing a Mustang to a Civic

I gotta admit when I think of performance I think nothing but V8 but im older and grew up around V8's so thats where my thinking comes from

Ig GM stops building V8's then I go back to Ford, if Ford stops then I go to Dodge (in protest)

[hammdo]

Originally Posted by TxBandit911

I would go way back and get a 1972 Trans-Am, in Blue

Only other option would be a Vette....

Yes! 455 SD -- HOT...

[PoorMansCamaro]

Originally Posted by Muscle Car Memories

Civic's arent V8 powered and cost a TON of money to make them run with V8's but you do have a good point because insurance rates are what drove ther younger crowd to Civic's and Accord's....

tons of money to mod a civic to run with v8's? I think not. lol

[VADER SS L99]

Originally Posted by Muscle Car Memories

I used to own several fox body mustangs and was never outrun by a Grand National however I owned the coupe not hatchback's but I am sure there were plenty of GN's that would outrun a fox body but that run both ways.

Im not really into a pissing contact with you, so you keep to your Buick's and I will keep to my 5.0's

It's okay because the discussion is over. The turbo Buicks were faster than ALL fox body Mustangs. If you disagree provide some proof, until then stop posting incorrect and/or biased info. I beat some C5 Vettes in my old 4th gen Z28. You know what that proves? I'll give you a hint, it's not because I had the faster car. If you beat some turbo Buicks stock for stock and mod for mod with your fox body then great, you beat the driver not the car.

[Muscle Car Memories]

Originally Posted by PoorMansCamaro

tons of money to mod a civic to run with v8's? I think not. lol

Thats your opinion I suppose and since you like the Honda's so much why dont you own one?

[Muscle Car Memories]

Originally Posted by VADER SS L99

It's okay because the discussion is over. The turbo Buicks were faster than ALL fox body Mustangs. If you disagree provide some proof, until then stop posting incorrect and/or biased info. I beat some C5 Vettes in my old 4th gen Z28. You know what that proves? I'll give you a hint, it's not because I had the faster car. If you beat some turbo Buicks stock for stock and mod for mod with your fox body then great, you beat the driver not the car.

You outta get ya another one of those Buick's. Yea I beat some Turbo Buick's and maybe it was because of driver but a win is a win. So yea my discussion is over with you considering your a supposed know it all.

[PoorMansCamaro]

Originally Posted by Muscle Car Memories

Thats your opinion I suppose and since you like the Honda's so much why dont you own one?

I suppose a turbo kit for under a grand is a TON of money...it is not an opinion. it is very easy and cheap to get a Honda to run 13's, and a little more work to get 11's and 12's. Far from a TON of money.

I have owned civics and acura's, thank you very much. it is a great alternative when you are young, because the cars were cheap and it was cheap to mod. That's why the boom in aftermarket increased so much. not because of insurance costs. I'm a little older now, and like to enjoy other cars that are more refined.

Not sure why you think I like Honda's so much, because I pointed out your false statement that it takes a TON of money to make a Honda as fast as a v8.