Sign in to follow this  
Bliggida

'72 Mustang vs. '98 V6 Camaro

  

  1. 1.

    • 1972 Mustang V8
      12
    • 1998 Camaro V6
      2


27 posts in this topic Register to Ask a Question

Recommended Posts

Bliggida    0

I allready know the answer but I wanted to see what you guys thought.

 

Here's the scenario...

 

1998 Camaro

-V6 3.8L

-5-Speed

-40 series Flowmaster Muffler

-200 HP & 220 Ft/lbs of Torque

245 Potenza's

 

VS.

 

1972 Mustang Grande

-V8 Jasper 340

-2 barrel

-C6 auto with shift kit & ratchet shifter

-Traction bars

235 Road Huggers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Saabman44   
Guest Saabman44

my firend has a 1997 Firebird, same V6, and 5-spd and he can barely chirp the tires. Its a sheep in wolfs clothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mata    0

sabman, one of two things, yor friend does not know how to drive or there iis something wrong with his car since the 97 firebird already gots the 3800 series II engine which belive it or not, is a strong competitor for pre-99 fox body mustangs GT`s (well, at least in stock form)

the times for those cars are anywhere from 14.8-15.5 (which is stang territory)

I once had the oportunity to run a 96 gt convertible automatic in my 4-door grand prix (which has the same engine, and belive it or not, i got him even from the start) and for 17k cars, i would not say that they are a sheep in wolfs clothing

anyway, i choose the camaro since 72 its almost stock and in that year they started detuning vehicles.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Lizard King   
Guest Lizard King

Since when has Ford offered a 340?

 

Is it bored over? (your car innit, Bliggida?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bliggida    0

Saabman, although the '98 motor is slightly different, I can squeal the tires in first and scratch second gear quite nicely. So much so that is it a big compliment for that mid-size V6 to spin a dual set of medium grip 245's!

 

Lizard, Yeah both of these cars are a coupel that are in my stable (look at my signature)

 

The Mustang - I listed it was a Jasper 340 stroker. Jasper makes a very reliable, strong remanufactured engine. (and race engines) It's bored .060 over so if you do the math that equates a 302 into...roughly a 340.

 

Does anyone know if the tranny in the late model Camaro's (V6's) is still using a T-5? Lots of mods could be made to that tranny, or just swap to the V-8 Version, slap in a short throw kit and stonger clutch. I've found that tranny way underated for that V6. Oh if only they came with a T-56 too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tomjakimiak    0

Since this post stated a '72 Mustang, I knew what my vote would have

been. NOW, if it would have stated a 78, I MIGHT have chose the 98 V6

Camaro, since most V8's were hardly pushing 190 horsepower. The V8's in '69 and '70 were of the most powerful. Z28 Camaros were pushing out

like 360 and by 72, it was like 320, and steadily declined. Thank GOD

they brought back horsepower to an awesome level. I don't know WHAT I

would be driving if they didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bliggida    0

Well Tom, they did have some powerful engines at that time, but it wasn't a standard that all of them had the powerfull engines.

 

Ford made the 302 powered Mustang, the Mach1 with a 351 Cleaveland, and the Boss 429. This Mustang though, has the 302. No comparison would be needed with the Mach1 or Boss Mustang. *frown* we'd know who'd win then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Saabman44   
Guest Saabman44

do you have possi? my friend does not, and guess what, he does know how to squeal the tires. Also mata, its Saabman!

 

the V6 firebird is really a sheep in wolfs clothing. It might be an ok performance car, i think 0-60 is like 7.5 seconds. Not bad, but not exacitly muscle car performance!

 

also, are you saying that a V6 camero can run with a GT mustang? I am not sure, and correct me if i am wrong, but dont the GT's have V8's? i am not sure. I am pretty sure a GT mustang would take care of a V6 bird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mata    0

sorry about your nick Saabman, awful typo

and about theperformance of the car....they are in the same ballpark, i course some cont belive me, but just go check the times for some fox-body stangs and you`ll see that a lot of them are in the 15`s and some in the 14`s (defenetlye manual tranny ones)

If you check that magazine called mustangs and fast fords and you see its long term project, its a 90 or so automatic mustang gt or lx and the first run they did with the car they got a 15.8 time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Saabman44   
Guest Saabman44

i will take a look at the numbers a little later, to tired to now. Sorry about correcting you on my name, its been mispelled many times before by many people, and i was in a bad mood at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Back to Top ↑

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this