- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

In article <2ea8f4$…@pyrhard2.eng.pyramid.com> and…@pyramid.com (Andre Molyneux) writes:

>c…@cbnews.cb.att.com (conrad.f.matter) writes:
>>In article <cw0990-091293161…@wc17.writer.yorku.ca> cw0…@yorku.ca (Dan
>>Zikovitz) writes:
>>>Do you believe everything you read???? Granted the Camaro is good. But the
>>>Mustang was built with the same motor in order to keep some of its
>>>aftermarket supporters happy.  The 4.6L will eat the new Camaro..

>>Here we go again with another Ford Fan posting meaningless, repetative,
>>statements about an engine/car combination that does not even exist yet in
>>a production form! Please refrain from these "The 4.6L will eat the new
>>Camaro" statements! At least the person that posted before you reads to
>>get the info they post!

>True, the Mustang/4.6L DOHC combination hasn’t been seen yet (outside of
>Ford, anyway) and by most accounts most likely won’t be seen on the street
>until the ’96 model year.  However, one could certainly come up with some
>extimates of how such a car would perform, based on:

>    The weight of the 4.6L motor vs. the current 5.0L.

>    The horsepower and torque curves of the 4.6L motor as it
>    currently is outfitted in the Mark VIII (and it’s reasonable
>    to expect that it will gain a few more horses along the line)

>So, while academic at the moment, there is a basis for discussion.
>However, the 280hp Camaro is available now, while the DOHC Mustang
>is still a couple of years off.  For someone looking at buying a
>car right now, the Camaro obviously wins on performance.  The "Cobra"
>option will make the Mustang more competitive, but I would expect it
>to push the price up substantially.

>>It’s a fact that the BASE Z-28 is a
>>small amount less than the BASE Mustang GT!

>This is true, at least as far as the suggested retail price goes.
>It will be interesting to see how the real street prices compare.

>>When you add the optional
>>anti-lock brakes to the Mustang price to make it EQUAL to the Z-28 in
>>features, then the Mustang is even more expensive.

>One source I’ve read states that anti-lock brakes are standard on the
>Mustang GT, optional otherwise.  Anyone know for sure if this is true?

You are correct, with the GT option anti-lock brakes are standard.
With the base Mustang they are optional.

>>There may even be
>>additional features that are not standard on the Mustang?
>>Rear disk brakes?

>Has them, finally, although they aren’t vented.  Are the Camaro’s
>rear disks vented?

I believe the F-bodies rear rotors ARE vented. I don’t understand why
the Mustang’s aren’t. Is it that much more expensive?

>>DUAL airbags?

>Has them.

>>By the time Ford gets the 4.6L engine in the Stang, we will all be about
>>two years older. That’s right, FORD says it will be the ’96 model year
>>(see Jan Motor Trend). By then, the F-bodies are reported by at least one
>>of the auto rags to have 300 BHP. This would at least match if not exceed
>>the wonderful 4.6L in the Stang! The same article in MT said the 4.6L will
>>have UP TO 300 BHP. Good luck trying to bolt on all that after-market
>>     ^^^^^
>>stuff to the 4.6L engine!!

>If Chevy can make the exhaust on the Camaro equal to that of the ‘Vette,

Since Callaway is making an upgraded exhaust for the Camaro C-8 which uses
an LT-1 (bored .030 over to 383 cu. in.) it is possible. One of the auto
mags has said that GM says they will up the HP to 300 in the F-bodies
once the Vette goes to even higher power. Does anyone know if the Vette’s
higher power will still come from the LT-1 engine?

>the LT1 will be making 300hp.  Bang for the buck, the Camaro right now
>is a very impressive package.  However, the following are the reservations
>that I would have about the Camaro:

>    Reliability: While Ford has been no angel in this area, the
>    people who I know who’ve had _major_ problems with their
>    GM products far outweigh those with Fords.  GM has cleaned
>    up their act with Saturn, but due to their track record
>    during the 80′s they’d have to do a lot of convincing to get
>    me to buy one of their products.  Reliability on their
>    performance cars appears to be especially bad.

You are correct about the past reliability no doubt. It is also your
decision on how long you want to wait based on your past experiences.
I had an ’89 Mustang GT, had problems, didn’t like the overall STOCK
car, and did not want to dump anymore money into a platform that I
did not like doing the mods that all the Ford folks always talk about.
Not only do I not want to spend the time, the car would still be the
same CAR in my perception, so why bother? It’s just my personal opinion.

Therefore, I have my opinion about Fords just like you have yours about
GM cars. It seems perfectly correct to me!

>    The Camaro’s engine bay.  Haven’t tried to get access to
>    anything in there myself, but it looks damned tough.  I
>    understand the motor has to come out from _underneath_
>    the car, since windscreen extends well over the motor.
>    Basic maintenance and performance mods could be problematic.
>    If I planned to do my own maintanence/mods, I’d look at this
>    area very carefully before buying.

I believe that if you are removing the cylinder heads, then the engine
has to come out underneath, which is a pain if you do not have access to
a lift. If you are working with the throttle body (like to install a
blower to get over 400BHP), then you do NOT need to remove the engine
unless your boost is high enough that you need to lower compression.
The blower I saw in the Callaway catalog said that it increased power
by more than 50% and required no other mods. It cost around $2500. How
much are the paxtons for the Mustang anyway?

I still think that the F-bodies will probably have more room to work
on their engines than the Mustang will with that 4.6L. Have you seen
the pictures with it "shoehorned" in there?

>    I’ve read a couple of reports of overheating problems with
>    the LT1 as it’s installed in the Camaro.  The reverse-flow
>    cooling does keep the combustion temperature (and therefore
>    emissions of NOx) down, but apparently puts pretty high
>    demands on the rest of the cooling system.  This may not
>    be the car to flog at the track in the middle of summer.

You could be correct, but I have not heard this confirmed by a
reliable non-Ford source. Have you? I would like to read about it.
Also, everyone doesn’t necessarily take their car to the track, so
they may never put that level of stress on the car even if it is
true. If someone did want to race and the above was a problem, then
are there not ways to improve your cooling system with after-market
parts? Mustangs are ALWAYS modified when raced seriously, so why not
other makes as well?

>That said, I would also have a major reservation aboaut buying a 1994
>’Stang (aside from it’s performance not being up to snuff):  It’s
>in it’s first model year after having undergone a substantial
>re-design.  Let someone else find the worst of the manufacturer’s
>process and materials problems for you – buy a second year or later
>car.  The Camaro now has a track record (be it good or bad) that you
>can judge it by.  The Mustang is an unknown.

I agree 100%, and if the Mustang ended up being the better all-around
car, then I might buy it (if I was in the market for a new car when
it actually became available). I am NOT a GM fan with blinders on that
automatically buys only GM. I have noticed that there are people that
seem to behave that way here on the Net (both Ford and GM).
I do NOT think you are one of them, though.

>I will freely admit that (due to some really bad experiences by friends
>and family) I have a real distrust of GM products.  Not to say I really
>trust Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, etc. – I just distrust GM more than the
>rest.  If you want a "ponycar", GM and Ford’s offerings are your only
>choice – you pays your money and you takes your chances.  And just so
>you know, my current car is a ’92 Mustang, so you can factor in my bias
>factor.
>>Bye, Bye, MUSTANG!  =:)
>>          ^^^^^^^

>Another wonderfully unbiased opinion  ;-)

Since you are being honest, I will be as well. As you noticed above I am
obviously biased in the other direction. After all I have admitted to
getting a Firehawk on the Net! We each have our own histories and opinions
and I don’t think there is anything wrong with that!

>If Chevy can make the current Camaro reasonably reliable and keep the
>price about where it is, they’ve really got something.  Based on past
>performance, however, I have serious doubts on both counts.

>Andre

Again, I respect you views, but disagree with them.

>In article <2ecp89$…@pscgate.progress.com>, dame…@progress.com writes…
>>But HP sells cars, most people don’t have a clue to what really matters.
>>A hot 351W in a Mustang (or 351C if they still made them) is what is
>>needed IMO.

I agree with the above 100%. People will look at the HP figure and not even
take into account other factors like the torque and the RPM points where
the max torque and HP occur. Also, the rear-end, gear, and final drive ratios
as well as HP/weight ratio are often overlooked. It is mainly in the max
torque area that I *predict* the smaller displacement, STOCK 4.6L engine
will come up short compared to the LT-1. You are correct, we will have
to wait to see. In fact, we will be waiting quite a while, and during
that 1.5+ year wait the new f-bodies will be toasting the NEW Stang!
So really there is no point in anyone saying anything more about the
wonderful new 4.6L engine until Ford gets its act together and puts it
into the Almighty Mustang.

Also, not everyone wants to have to modify (read:void warranty) their
brand new car because the engine was "under tweaked". The Ford people
always assume that everyone wants to add this and that to make their
car faster. What a joke! Some people want an engine that is built right
the first time.

>They make a H.O. 351W for the F-150 Lightning.  Since it is emissions legal
>and is an easy swap (a taller hood is needed due to the increase in deck height)
>and should be offered.  Remember, 302 doesn’t equal 350 in cubic inches!

                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So true! This says what I have been trying to say all along. Even when you
start looking into modifying the engines, the new 4.6L is such a tight
fit and is more complex than the old 5.0 Mustang engine. The new Stang
motor won’t be any easier to modify than the LT-1. (IMO)
Even if you modify both, the LT-1 WILL have more cubes!

>The 351C is an Austrailian production motor only.  It is not and will not be
>imported to the U.S. with Ford’s support.

Oh well, too bad for the Mustang folk!

I promise I won’t post anything more on this until the 4.6L is in the Stang
and gets tested as a production car (and comes up short)!

All the Militant Mustang Modifyers can tear the above to shreads, but it
won’t make any difference!   HA! HA! HA! HO! HO! HO! HE! HE! HE!
                                     Happy Holidays!!!

: Jan. Motor Trend says: Ford says that the 4.6L engine will hopefully get
: put in the Stang in the 96 model year. It will have UP TO 300 BHP.
:                                                     ^^^^^
And Autoweek says the 4.6 will produce 320hp. So who you gonna beleive?
The bottom line is there are no "facts" about this engine in the Mustang
yet.

: Note the "up to", you know what that usually means!

It’s easy to get 300hp out of this, or many other engines. Ford is known
for "de-tuning" these engines to get reliability higher. That is one
reason it’s easy to tap into a 302′s potential. The SC T-Bird first dynoed
at over 300hp, but Ford wanted the engine to go over 100K miles, so they
tuned it down. It’s up to you if you want to tweak em’ back up. "Up to"
simply means "How much do we want to warranty these cars".

: Even with the maximum 300 BHP, the Stang will have less torque than the
: LT-1 without major mods that ain’t gonna happen. Compare the torque to HP
: in the Mark VIII with 280BHP. The ratio won’t change that much unless you
: really alter things in the engine. I guess you could change the gear
: ratios, but the thing would top out at 110 mph like some go-cart!

But HP sells cars, most people don’t have a clue to what really matters.
A hot 351W in a Mustang (or 351C if they still made them) is what is
needed IMO.

–

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Steve D’Amelio                          "Just wrap your hands round my engines"
dame…@progress.com                                                    -Bruce

66 Olds88 -> 64 Comet -> 73 Duster -> 69 Chevelle -> 76 Omega -> 82 Ford EXP ->
84 T-Bird -> 83 Mustang -> 85 Bronco -> 69 Mustang -> 88 Mustang -> 70 Mustang
-> 85 Mitsu PU -> 91 Rodeo  (So what’s the pattern???)   Wanted:70-77 Bronco
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

They make a H.O. 351W for the F-150 Lightning.  Since it is emissions legal
and is an easy swap (a taller hood is needed due to the increase in deck height)
and should be offered.  Remember, 302 doesn’t equal 350 in cubic inches!

The 351C is an Austrailian production motor only.  It is not and will not be
imported to the U.S. with Ford’s support.

Dave Rosicke

One good turn gets all the blankets (and all the blame!)

>> The latest issue of Car & Driver has an interesting article comparing the ’94
>> Mustang and the ’94 Camaro.  I’d recommend that all you "Mustang vs VW" thread
>> participants (especially they guy with the blue Mustang up in Canada ) read
>> it.

>Do you believe everything you read???? Granted the Camaro is good. But the
>Mustang was built with the same motor in order to keep some of its
>aftermarket supporters happy.  The 4.6L will eat the new Camaro.. However,
>all said the Camaro is a very good package at a very good price (although
>much higher than an equally equipped Mustang) and the best thing about it
>is it is made right here in Canada……

Here we go again with another Ford Fan posting meaningless, repetative,
statements about an engine/car combination that does not even exist yet in
a production form! Please refrain from these "The 4.6L will eat the new
Camaro" statements! At least the person that posted before you reads to
get the info they post!
I guess you just *know* the 4.6L is better because its gotta be since it’s
a Ford! I am so sick of this crap! The main reason that Ford is putting
the 4.6L engine in the Mustang is for efficiency and emissions reasons,
not performance! Otherwise, they would have left the 5.0 in there for the
reasons you mentioned (aftermarket). It’s a fact that the BASE Z-28 is a
small amount less than the BASE Mustang GT! When you add the optional
anti-lock brakes to the Mustang price to make it EQUAL to the Z-28 in
features, then the Mustang is even more expensive. There may even be
additional features that are not standard on the Mustang?
Rear disk brakes?
DUAL airbags?
I am unsure of the above two features, but they would add more to the
Mustang price if they are not standard.

I would agree that the Firebird Formula base is a little bit higher, but
it has traditionally been a little higher than the Camaro or Mustang.

By the time Ford gets the 4.6L engine in the Stang, we will all be about
two years older. That’s right, FORD says it will be the ’96 model year
(see Jan Motor Trend). By then, the F-bodies are reported by at least one
of the auto rags to have 300 BHP. This would at least match if not exceed
the wonderful 4.6L in the Stang! The same article in MT said the 4.6L will
have UP TO 300 BHP. Good luck trying to bolt on all that after-market
     ^^^^^
stuff to the 4.6L engine!!

Bye, Bye, MUSTANG!  =:)
          ^^^^^^^

>Here we go again with another Ford Fan posting meaningless, repetative,
>statements about an engine/car combination that does not even exist yet in
>a production form! Please refrain from these "The 4.6L will eat the new
>Camaro" statements! At least the person that posted before you reads to
>get the info they post!

True, the Mustang/4.6L DOHC combination hasn’t been seen yet (outside of
Ford, anyway) and by most accounts most likely won’t be seen on the street
until the ’96 model year.  However, one could certainly come up with some
extimates of how such a car would perform, based on:

        The weight of the 4.6L motor vs. the current 5.0L.

        The horsepower and torque curves of the 4.6L motor as it
        currently is outfitted in the Mark VIII (and it’s reasonable
        to expect that it will gain a few more horses along the line)

So, while academic at the moment, there is a basis for discussion.
However, the 280hp Camaro is available now, while the DOHC Mustang
is still a couple of years off.  For someone looking at buying a
car right now, the Camaro obviously wins on performance.  The "Cobra"
option will make the Mustang more competitive, but I would expect it
to push the price up substantially.

>It’s a fact that the BASE Z-28 is a
>small amount less than the BASE Mustang GT!

This is true, at least as far as the suggested retail price goes.
It will be interesting to see how the real street prices compare.

>When you add the optional
>anti-lock brakes to the Mustang price to make it EQUAL to the Z-28 in
>features, then the Mustang is even more expensive.

One source I’ve read states that anti-lock brakes are standard on the
Mustang GT, optional otherwise.  Anyone know for sure if this is true?

>There may even be
>additional features that are not standard on the Mustang?
>Rear disk brakes?

Has them, finally, although they aren’t vented.  Are the Camaro’s
rear disks vented?

>DUAL airbags?

Has them.

>By the time Ford gets the 4.6L engine in the Stang, we will all be about
>two years older. That’s right, FORD says it will be the ’96 model year
>(see Jan Motor Trend). By then, the F-bodies are reported by at least one
>of the auto rags to have 300 BHP. This would at least match if not exceed
>the wonderful 4.6L in the Stang! The same article in MT said the 4.6L will
>have UP TO 300 BHP. Good luck trying to bolt on all that after-market
>     ^^^^^
>stuff to the 4.6L engine!!

If Chevy can make the exhaust on the Camaro equal to that of the ‘Vette,
the LT1 will be making 300hp.  Bang for the buck, the Camaro right now
is a very impressive package.  However, the following are the reservations
that I would have about the Camaro:

        Reliability: While Ford has been no angel in this area, the
        people who I know who’ve had _major_ problems with their
        GM products far outweigh those with Fords.  GM has cleaned
        up their act with Saturn, but due to their track record
        during the 80′s they’d have to do a lot of convincing to get
        me to buy one of their products.  Reliability on their
        performance cars appears to be especially bad.

        The Camaro’s engine bay.  Haven’t tried to get access to
        anything in there myself, but it looks damned tough.  I
        understand the motor has to come out from _underneath_
        the car, since windscreen extends well over the motor.
        Basic maintenance and performance mods could be problematic.
        If I planned to do my own maintanence/mods, I’d look at this
        area very carefully before buying.

        I’ve read a couple of reports of overheating problems with
        the LT1 as it’s installed in the Camaro.  The reverse-flow
        cooling does keep the combustion temperature (and therefore
        emissions of NOx) down, but apparently puts pretty high
        demands on the rest of the cooling system.  This may not
        be the car to flog at the track in the middle of summer.

That said, I would also have a major reservation aboaut buying a 1994
‘Stang (aside from it’s performance not being up to snuff):  It’s
in it’s first model year after having undergone a substantial
re-design.  Let someone else find the worst of the manufacturer’s
process and materials problems for you – buy a second year or later
car.  The Camaro now has a track record (be it good or bad) that you
can judge it by.  The Mustang is an unknown.

I will freely admit that (due to some really bad experiences by friends
and family) I have a real distrust of GM products.  Not to say I really
trust Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, etc. – I just distrust GM more than the
rest.  If you want a "ponycar", GM and Ford’s offerings are your only
choice – you pays your money and you takes your chances.  And just so
you know, my current car is a ’92 Mustang, so you can factor in my bias
factor.

>Bye, Bye, MUSTANG!  =:)
>          ^^^^^^^

Another wonderfully unbiased opinion  ;-)

If Chevy can make the current Camaro reasonably reliable and keep the
price about where it is, they’ve really got something.  Based on past
performance, however, I have serious doubts on both counts.

Andre

: We would have never guessed.

Really?

Marshal (I’m sorry you own a Ford Scott) Perlman
—
  |o| Marshal Perlman                       Internet: perl…@cs.fit.edu |o|
  |o| Academic and Research Computing Services (ARCS)        IRC: Squawk |o|
  |o| Florida Institute of Technology                    FAA: PP-ASEL-IA |o|
  |o| Pager: 407/455-4809          Member: AOPA/AAAE/Goodyear Blimp Club |o|

Stoll) wrote:
> The latest issue of Car & Driver has an interesting article comparing the ’94
> Mustang and the ’94 Camaro.  I’d recommend that all you "Mustang vs VW" thread
> participants (especially they guy with the blue Mustang up in Canada ) read
> it.

Do you believe everything you read???? Granted the Camaro is good. But the
Mustang was built with the same motor in order to keep some of its
aftermarket supporters happy.  The 4.6L will eat the new Camaro.. However,
all said the Camaro is a very good package at a very good price (although
much higher than an equally equipped Mustang) and the best thing about it
is it is made right here in Canada……

–
_______________________________________
=— Dan Zikovitz YKU01…@CWAC.YORKU.CA—=
_______________________________________

: In article <1993Dec7.215259.15…@umr.edu>, sf…@saucer.cc.umr.edu (Scott Ford) writes…
: >Andre Molyneux (and…@pyramid.com) wrote:
: >
: >I’m not making any excuses for Ford this time, Yes it should have been out
: >at the intro of the car, but for all of those who are worried about the
: >mustangs lack of a power, just wait until ’94.  The dual overhead cam, 48
: >valve 4.6 liter 300 horse engine out of the Mark 8 will be available by then.
: >
: From November 1993 Automobile:

:       Base V6 Mustang 3.8L 145 bhp
:       Base V8 Mustang 4.9L 215 bhp
:       V8 Cobra        4.9L 240 bhp (Not available till midyear)

: >And bye the way, the "camarobird" also has the same basic suspension of
: >the previous models.
: >

: It’s different.

: >
: > — Scott (yes I own a) Ford

: We would have never guessed.

: >sf…@saucer.cc.umr.edu             "FRIENDS DON’T LET FRIENDS DRIVE CHEVYS"      
: >                      

–
Scott (yes I own a) Ford
sf…@saucer.cc.umr.edu           "FRIENDS DON’T LET FRIENDS DRIVE CHEVYS"      

>I’m not making any excuses for Ford this time, Yes it should have been out
>at the intro of the car, but for all of those who are worried about the
>mustangs lack of a power, just wait until ’94.  The dual overhead cam, 48
>valve 4.6 liter 300 horse engine out of the Mark 8 will be available by then.

From November 1993 Automobile:

        Base V6 Mustang 3.8L 145 bhp
        Base V8 Mustang 4.9L 215 bhp
        V8 Cobra        4.9L 240 bhp (Not available till midyear)

>And bye the way, the "camarobird" also has the same basic suspension of
>the previous models.

It’s different.

> — Scott (yes I own a) Ford

We would have never guessed.

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

>sf…@saucer.cc.umr.edu               "FRIENDS DON’T LET FRIENDS DRIVE CHEVYS"