Mustang 5.0 is back

[karl_1052]

Originally Posted by Dave

dodge daytona shelby z. stock for stock they were right next to each other in the quarter (15.3/15.4). dodge had better brakes (1.00 g of force in 1987!), could likely best the stang on the skidpad and would be far cheaper to up the power on in the short run. commence crying about how its wrong wheel drive

My buddy had a Daytona Shelby Z, and it was quick, but not as fast as the mustang(it did handle far better though, and I would put it against pretty much anything from that era for handling). Mustangs were anywhere from the low 15s to high 13s stock, with the majority ending up in the mid 14s(even the heavier GT models).
It was definitely not refined though.

As for upping the power, in the 80s turbos were still black magic. NA V8s could be tuned by anyone, turbo magic did not start really catching on until the 2000s when engine management systems started getting cheaper and more popular.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by pauldun170

Despite the fanboys RX-7 was a POS.
You would be posting up how you loved it but you were always sinking money into it. Lets not forget that for the most part of the decade the RX-7 was a bit of a dog unless it had the turbo.

Taurus SHO didn't show up until the end of the decade and there was no way you'd find a used one before the end of the 80's. Remember the SHO was just about DOUBLE the price of a mustang (points though for putting it on your list. Didn't think you'd list it because of the styling: Body cladding on a first gen Taurus)

Seriously lets think about it.
1981-1989
New car @ same price point as a Mustang 5.0
or a used car available in the 80's (so that excludes cars sold in 89 and even 88)

What cars (besides the RX7?)

You asked what I'd buy

Some people like myself care more about the overall experience, rather than what the quarter mile time is. Going WOT isn't fun if the engine starts shaking or if the torque curve starts dropping too early. I was raised driving 4-cylinder cars, so of course I'm going to feel that way.

And you say RX7's were pieces of shit.......maybe so, but you couldn't find a smoother engine when wound out........Also, Mustangs of the 80's weren't exactly great quality either. Thin paint, flexy chassis that needed a lot of bracing, awful driving position.

Hell I might have even considered an 82-86 Supra, or an 83-87 Prelude, or a 16V GTI/Scirocco............. Of course they were a lot slower, but still very fun to drive in a different way. I'm not a big guy, so for me a Prelude is a perfect-sized car to toss around. You can't toss around a Mustang in a residential area.

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

You asked what I'd buy

Some people like myself care more about the overall experience, rather than what the quarter mile time is. Going WOT isn't fun if the engine starts shaking or if the torque curve starts dropping too early. I was raised driving 4-cylinder cars, so of course I'm going to feel that way.

And you say RX7's were pieces of shit.......maybe so, but you couldn't find a smoother engine when wound out........Also, Mustangs of the 80's weren't exactly great quality either. Thin paint, flexy chassis that needed a lot of bracing, awful driving position.

Hell I might have even considered an 82-86 Supra, or an 83-87 Prelude. Of course they were a lot slower, but still very fun to drive in a different way. I'm not a big guy, so for me a Prelude is a perfect-sized car to toss around. You can't toss around a Mustang in a residential area.

What you'd buy at the same level of performance...


A CRX or Accord from that era had a smoother engine but it was no where near the level of performance a Mustang was.

A Supra brand new cost a lot more than a comparable year Mustang, the earlier Supras being cushy dogs and if you were shopping in the 80's and you had to choose a used Supra or a new Mustang you would choose a 4-5 year old Supra?
I don't think so.

You certainly wouldn't be grabbing the later models and though the earlier long nose Celica' jobbies are decent cars of the era...they are are not even close to Mustang performance.
Perhaps a reminder of what started this conversation

Originally Posted by pauldun170

At a sub-15k price point during 80's, what vehicle offered the performance of the Mustang and offered a smoother high breathing engine?(85 Gt could be had for around 10K)

The nice thing about the old 4.9 is that it made the Mustang fun. Sure there were engines that you could wind it out, the 4.9 got you there just as fast if not faster and it all came down to shift points.

So what if it had the power delivery characteristics of a modern turbo diesel?

[z06boy]

Originally Posted by 101lifts2

We used to call em 5 O slow...

In stock form...yep...but not the one I had and that's part of my point about liking them...parts available everywhere...easy to modify and not expensive to play with.

He11 I've got a Dodge Neon SRT-4 toy in the garage and stock v.s. stock...it's faster than my 5.0 was...brakes better and handles better too...but yep...it's still a Neon.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by karl_1052

My buddy had a Daytona Shelby Z, and it was quick, but not as fast as the mustang(it did handle far better though, and I would put it against pretty much anything from that era for handling). Mustangs were anywhere from the low 15s to high 13s stock, with the majority ending up in the mid 14s(even the heavier GT models).
It was definitely not refined though.

As for upping the power, in the 80s turbos were still black magic. NA V8s could be tuned by anyone, turbo magic did not start really catching on until the 2000s when engine management systems started getting cheaper and more popular.

hookay, for starters i thought we were comparing to the gt. The shelby z was your luxury sport and as such was a direct competitior. You guys wanna talk lx we had the c/s ags lightweight stripped out competition model. As for black magic, in those days ma mopar sold quite a few goodies for those cars via their direct connection catalog the most potent being the super 60 kit which included a larger turbo, cam, +40 injectors, 3 bar map sensor, ecu, and a higher flowing intercooler that punched output up close to 300 hp. Iirc it was fully available by '88

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by Dave

hookay, for starters i thought we were comparing to the gt. The shelby z was your luxury sport and as such was a direct competitior. You guys wanna talk lx we had the c/s ags lightweight stripped out competition model. As for black magic, in those days ma mopar sold quite a few goodies for those cars via their direct connection catalog the most potent being the super 60 kit which included a larger turbo, cam, +40 injectors, 3 bar map sensor, ecu, and a higher flowing intercooler that punched output up close to 300 hp. Iirc it was fully available by '88

It was gneral Mustang comparisons so the basis is the best stang for the money per year.
Overall, I consider the LX's the better bang for the buck though the pre 87 GT's were still good.

The Daytona was marketed as a competitor and definately had some advantages over the stang.
Wasn't any shame in picking a Daytona over a Stang back then.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by pauldun170

What you'd buy at the same level of performance...


A CRX or Accord from that era had a smoother engine but it was no where near the level of performance a Mustang was.

A Supra brand new cost a lot more than a comparable year Mustang, the earlier Supras being cushy dogs and if you were shopping in the 80's and you had to choose a used Supra or a new Mustang you would choose a 4-5 year old Supra?
I don't think so.

Who was picking a CRX or Accord? I said Prelude.

And I said used Supra, not new. The Mustang didn't become a legitimate performance car until 1985, and by that point there were 3-yr old Supras on the market. Were they slower, sure, but they were better-looking and better-handling. And a Prelude was even better-handling.

Whatever...... There were a lot of other cars I would have rather spent the same $11,000 on than a Mustang. Are you saying that EVERYONE back in 1985 should have bought a Mustang, or else they weren't a true performance enthusiast? Why is speed alone the measure of performance? What about handling?

I guess speed isn't my biggest criteria. Guess I'm not a true performance enthusiast.

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Who was picking a CRX or Accord? I said Prelude.

And I said used Supra, not new. The Mustang didn't become a legitimate performance car until 1985, and by that point there were 3-yr old Supras on the market. Were they slower, sure, but they were better-looking and better-handling. And a Prelude was even better-handling.

Whatever...... There were a lot of other cars I would have rather spent the same $11,000 on than a Mustang. Are you saying that EVERYONE back in 1985 should have bought a Mustang, or else they weren't a true car enthusiast?

I guess speed isn't my biggest criteria. Handling and refinement are. Guess I'm not a true performance enthusiast.

So you are saying you cannot answer the question.

At a sub-15k price point during 80's, What vehicle offered the performance of the Mustang and offered a smoother high breathing engine?

You have come back with some vehicles with smoother powertrains but you have not offered anything that came at a comparable price point or comparable level of performance.

The question isn't what new or used car you would choose over the mustang.

[Dave]

id really love to bring up the starion/conquest but those things were practically unmoddable due to the boneheaded choice of tbi. not sure on price either. Maybe an mr2 supercharged? I know those were solid 14s when they decided to engage the clutched blower

[z06boy]

CRX's... Boy that sure brings back the memories.

I've owned 4 of them.

1984...the first year. Carberated so we took all the smog stuff off...75 lbs. worth...went with Webber carb..cam...header.

1987 SI

1988 SI

1991 SI

Man I love all types of cars.

The CRX was shaped like an egg but very light...fun to modify and a decent stereo would thump in one of those things.