I know im randomly asking but does anyone know a way to get back into an instagram account? I was stupid lost the login password. I appreciate any tricks you can offer me!
@Nelson Enzo i really appreciate your reply. I got to the site thru google and Im waiting for the hacking stuff now. Takes a while so I will get back to you later with my results.
I AM A HUGE CAR GUY I HAVE 9 MUSTANGS AND ONE CHEVY CAMERO BUT I HAVE TOO BE HONEST THE 94 MUSTANG GT WAS PATHETIC SLOW LOL MY 87 MUSTANG GT WOULD HAND THE 94 MUSTANG A BEATING LOL FOR THE CARS FOR THE EARLY 90S MY VIBRANT RED 93 COBRA WAS A LEGIT 13 SECOND CAR AND FOR 93 THAT WAS VERY FAST LOL EVEN THE 94 AND 95 COBRA WAS A DOG MY 93 COBRA BACK THEN SMOKED BOTH YEARS AND THE BEST PART ABOUT MY 93 COBRA IS ALL THE WAY BACK IN 93 I SAID SOMEDAY THE COBRA WOULD BE VALUABLE AND I HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD.
@@brtek09 2v engine with smog. Making room for aftermarket. Plus you don't drive on the HP PEAK you drive 2000-4500 and the torque there is equivalent to a 300 HP engine. Ford was trying to keep too many kids from killing themselves and their friends - but many died in the towns around me. I just remembered, ford couldn't make a tight exhaust back then. I owned either three or four of these back in the 80- 90s including Mercury Capri RS. I just remembered, ford couldn't make a tight exhaust back then - always leaking at the manifold donut or somewhere.
@@brtek09 its very restricted in factory form. A decent set of heads, cam, and intake even mild ones can gain you 100+ whp on these cars. They also have close to 300 torque stock which helps get the 3200 lbs car moving. Nothing compared today stock vs stock but quicker than what it sounds like it would be just hearing 215 hp.
Love my 95 GT. Been in the family 16 years, pushing 300k miles. I drive it 80+ miles a day and it doesn't miss a beat. Hard to beat those old push rod 5.0's in terms of reliability.
@@timhornswaggle1243 Yes I still have it. I will own that car until I'm dead. I daily drove it until the spring of 2022 when gas prices spiked. I was driving it 125 miles a day at the time and it just didn't make sense anymore. It now has 417,000 and still runs fines.
Motorweek's times are always slower than anyone else because they give real times - they press the pedal and go. There's no 3-foot roll out, not rolling start, no burnouts and revving the engines like an idiot, it's a real test of the car, not the driver. That's why I really like the way they do things. Also, in this particular case, they even said the times were slower than their previous test - and watching the video its pretty easy to see why, the tires were not hooking up at all off the launch. They just got beater review cars, and I'm guessing the tires were not in that great of shape, or they already burned them up earlier in testing.
@@rodmunch69 because everyone's best launches are right off idle? This isn't "real times" at all. They should be trying to get the best launch without wheelspin.
@@dub537h5 99.999% of people just press the pedal and go - so yes, that is realistic. Being some douche bag doing burnouts at a stop light, jumping up and down in your seat, yelling LETS GOOOOOO, that's stupid, no one does that except people that sleep with their sister, which is apparently something you're in to.
@@rodmunch69 where do you come up this stuff? I said nothing about burnouts or yelling anything lol Why don't you try to grow up a bit before sharing your lack of reading comprehension with everyone, you prick.
Me. It’s crazy to think that the current turbo 4 camaro has the same horsepower as this older 5.7 v8 but a quicker acceleration 5.4 or 5.5 compared to the 6.4 in this 94 camaro with the v8. And for the mustang gt 94 the current high performance ecoboost and the standard ecoboost or even just the 2011-2016 v6 would beat it in a race
@@jeremyreese9663 I totally get what you are saying, but the joy in these old cars is that yeah, the performance numbers are low, but they are so cheap to work on and tune. That year mustang, is one of the last years for the old 5.0, so you have decades of good old fashioned known how to make it faster. Same with the z28 that lt-1 is a beast, without all the mumbo jumbo attached to these new cars. Sure the newer cars have every bell and whistle known to man, but good luck giving it a tune without practically having a degree in computer science (and hell, you probably have one lol). Even today, I would rather have that weak 5.0 mustang (or a v8 firebird formula) than the current versions, just cause...I’m not trying to race anybody or anything, just to cruise around.
Ian Thompson i never saw many on tv either, just a hit or miss thing if I ever saw them, I was in my young teens and of course, watching them later on the website wasnt available yet.
I had that exact Z28, 1994, 6sp manual with the same color and all. I bought it pre-owned in 1998. It was an incredibly fast car for being 100% bone stock. Very tough to keep the rear wheels from spinning on wet ground. The only thing I hated was working on the engine, basic maintenance like plugs and wires was an all day nightmare. That said, the car was amazing on long road trips, in 6th gear doing 80 MPH the engine was barely at 1000 RPM's which gave the car very impressive highway fuel economy. I drove the car from Miami to Tallahassee and back dozens of times and the fuel cost was not much more than the Honda Accord I had before this. It was a 1994 Accord EX, 4 cylinder V-Tec with 5 speed manual.
Mr. Tibbs I did too but it was mostly due to GMs gas gauge calibration. No low fuel light and if you are on E, you are completely out of gas. Some are out just before the needle hits E.
I'm currently rebuilding an all black 94' in my garage. I grew up in that car and wanted to put some cash back in it. But damn if you're not right. Everything in the engine bay is so close together and I've considered more than once just pulling out the headers just to get to the plugs. Can't bring myself to throw away the old girl, though.
Those Z28s were, and still are, amazing cars to drive. Throw a nice exhaust on there and you got a fun car for less than 4 grand. Best bang for buck car in America.
I’ve owned the exact same Vibrant Red ‘94 Mustang GT since it was a couple years old and couldn’t ask for a more solid or reliable car. Still going with 270K miles.
The 1/4 mile time for the camaro is super high I ran 14.0 with a bone stock 96 z28 at 99 mph. Then with exhaust and intake got it down to 13.8 at 101. I love these old reviews I have a 95 z28 m6 with full bolt ons and she's still a blast to drive!
I was in the car business back when these were new. The camaro's fell apart and had lots of problems. The mustang was built well but lacked power. That's why the Ford racing aftermarket is still going strong today.
That's why putting gt40ps off a explorer 5.0 is a good swap ups the compression and hp they were struggling with emissions at the time and the4.6 was already on the way
I agree they should have had the cobra r engine in the regular cobra at the very least if not having the option in the gt as well. It always pissed me off then they went even smaller with the 4.6 they started to gain performance but it gave chevy the advantage for years because of having such larger displacement now. Going to the mod motor paid off because now we have the coyote and we all know how beastly that engine is for 5 liters
Michael Harris You said,man.The svt cobra motor was within one cubic inch of the LT1...that wouldve been a better comparison if this was to be a fair shoot-out.
Aspie Otaku gm built the better performance machine for sure but ford won the decade by building a better car. the mustang made sense even as a v6 commuter while the f body was a borderline exotic with all the drawbacks that implies. that being said I would by far rather have my ws6 back than any similar trim mustang. practical or not it just doesnt grab my like the bird does!
I liked the looks better of the Camaro and Trans Ams better than the Mustangs of the 1990's and in Januaryt of 1996, I went to a dealer to buy a Trans Am - until I drove it. They are very long vehicles with most of that space wasted on body and looks with no head room, back seat space or trunk space. If you are 5' 7 they are fine. But at 6' 3", no way. I ended up buying a Grand Prix GTP that although smaller, had far better room, bigger trunk and same acceleration unless both were on the floor. It was also far nicer with a heads up display, nicer interior, etc. Oh, and cheaper! But none of those 90's vehicles had the accelerations of the big block mustangs and camaros of the late 60's, especially the '68-'70 428CJ mustangs and Mach 1's.
I remember my friend came over all excited about his new 94 Gt. Let's race he said. I had an 89 5.0 with a set of Flowmasters and it had 100,000 miles already. I beat that thing by like 2 car lengths, what a pig they were. My friend was mad as hell! Gotta love the Foxbodies!
I had a '94 Camaro for about a year and it was a lot of fun. You could tell it had some weight to it, but it still was faster than most cars on the road.
88' Iroc Z-28 owner here. 5.7L TPI. Loved it. Fastest? Nope. Did I care? Nope. It's not about being the fastest by specs in tenths of a second. It's about loving your car! That's what being American is all about!
damn W. I don't think foo gets your wit. Unsprung weight adds a great weight savings and will contribute to more wheel horsepower. If a car weighs 3000lbs and produces 200hp, reducing 10 pounds unsprung weight would give you about 1 to 3 more wheel horsepower depending on if its a standard trans or auto. Diff ratios considered. Math isn't that hard guys.
difference of opinion. Until 05 for the Mustang and 07 for the camaro, fit and finish was always questionable for both. The f body door hinges and t tops were a joke. the huge glass rear windows melted rear seats and consoles literally fell apart but sometimes held our longer than the bubbled up dashes. I owned a 99GT vert for 15 years and literally did not have a fit and finish issue. My 03 Cobra has close to 100k and is as tight as day one. Perspective I guess
Door hinges on my LT1 were replaced, T-tops on every car suck, never had interior issues, but the cars were always garaged & didn't sit in a parking lot all day. My experience was with '87-'93 Mustangs. They all have flaws.
+click bait i don't know about that, mustang dominated the camaro/ formula/ t.a. back in the 80's part of the '90's with foxbody. forced gm to go to 5.7tpi. that 5liter ford was terror on street
I remember these , drove both as dealer demos when I sold cars. They were about equal overall with the Camaro being faster, however the 94 Stang handled better and had a much nicer interior.They are both good looking cars even today.!
Ah, 1994 was one of the greatest years of my childhood. A lot happened that year, much bad, but some good. For some reason, this year sticks out, and always enjoy the good feels of that year. My mother almost bought a Z28 with the manual this year but she decided against it at the last minute and got a 94 Cutlass coupe. I believe 1994 was my 5th or 6th-grade year.
love the way the sn95 looks i have mine since 2011 till now with only few mods but man i love the raspy sound she makes when down shifting thinks to my offroad x pipe and exhaust system
had a 94 z28 and I loved it.. sold it when I bought my house.. lt1 had it issues but you cant deny the power output for back then. id like to get another one some day.
car & driver tested an LT-1 Z/28 and got a 14.1@98mph..love motor week, but throughout the years their drag racing capabilities have not gotten any better.
siamiam really good question you have..a shame really as they didn't do either car here any justice..and didn't the rims on the Z look dirty as hell or was that just me ???
Back in March 2016 the Mustang outsold both the Challenger and Camaro put together. It's been outselling them individually since the introduction of the 6th Gen. Camaro's 6th Gen was supposed to tip the scales back in GMs favor but lukewarm reception to Camaro 6 made that but a pipe dream
+derzx 479 True, Ford internally called it the Fox-4 platform, also known as the SN95 chassis. It's basically a redressed Fox platform with stiffening upgrades to make it a stronger rigidity wise.
I loved the 5.0 302 mustang GT but the LT1 5.7 Camaro was such a faster car. The 89 Fox Body mustang I had was slightly faster than my 04 4.6 liter mustang I have now and did amazing burnouts. Still the Camaro was king.
yep, and damn .. it really was the ugliest generation ever! this is coming from a huge Camaro/f-body fan. early 4th gens were ugly, later were ok, but none had the lines and clean look of the later year third gens, I think the thirds were the nicest looking of them all.
@Sin City Bargains Yea, we're actually getting divorced soon, so maybe I can get another Z! I like the new ones but they are about half the price of a house!
I bought a brand new Z28 in Blue with a Bone Color interior and was so excited as it was my 1st GM hot rod. I left the dealership in this car on 3 separate occasions and never did get it home. Left rear wheel bearing locked up on the 1st attempt, front brakes locked on the 2nd and the engine blew on the 3rd try. After the dealer returned my money I went back to Ford and bought another Mustang. I’ve never left the Blue Oval again and never will.
Today, with 20-some years gone by, people tend to laugh at the 4th gen cars for their (admittedly, fair number of) faults. But, in 1994 when the 4th-gen F-bodies came out, their performance to dollar ratio made a HUGE splash. I'd love to find a good early 4th gen 6-speed Camaro and do some brake/wheel and tire/suspension/body stiffness upgrades to it.
I have a 4th gen ls1 z28 with bolt-ons, its fun to see people in newer sports cars get pulled by a 16 year old car. the build quality is horrific tho, things rattle and break all the time, I feel like I need new interior parts every week. the engine (ls1) is rock solid and strong and will always put a smile on your face when you step on it at 50mph and the tires break loose
+Harakudoshi904 You obviously have never driven one. not only are they fast straight line, but they probably are the best handling live axle cars ever made.
+andxx0r_the_second These cars are a blank canvass. With a few of the right mods they can be made to outrun the current crop of muscle cars and you will have some change let over to shine up the faded paint and fix the interior issues they all have these days.
I noticed they didn't mention tire width when describing the Mustang's tires. That's my only gripe about MotorWeek, sometimes the most important information isn't mentioned. I've noticed this with engine size as well, as there has been a couple episodes where Jon Davis will mention the number of pistons and valves, but make no mention of displacement. It's a little puzzling considering they're obviously very well in tune with car people. They give great observations of the cars they test.
I personally own a 94 Camaro that is Bright Red with Black Soft Top Convertible. The Camaro came with a 3.4 SFI V-6 with Automatic transmission, but it's one damn good car and very tough for a V-6 Camaro. I never care too much for the LZ-1 or Z-28 Camaro's. I just love the sound of a V-6 engine.
I like the 4th generation Camaro better than the new ones. I owned both a Z28 and a Trans Am. Both were great performers, and got good mileage. Now these cars are going up in price. I would love to find a 2001 or 02 model in good shape, for a reasonable price.
Wow its not even a contest. The mustang 5.0 only had 215hp compared to the z28 275hp thats a big difference. The z28 (allot) improved while the 5.0 got weaker from the previous year. And on top of that the 5.0 is more expensive, doesn't make any sense to me.
I had a 94 and a 96 GT loved them both, but they were relative dogs in power. Fast forward, I could not wait for the 99 Cobra. It was supposed to be a beast etc but once again was a let down. So, I stretched my wallet and got an LS1 vette that year. Ford has always had some great cars, but they've always shot themselves in the foot. The Thunderbird SC was amazing and no clue how they screwed that up. The 01 Cobra was a massive let down. The Terminator Cobras were all time incredible, so they stopped making them. I realize it's a business, but Ford shoots themselves in the foot, when it comes to what could have been, more often than not. It's a shame.
Ford outsells Chevy n Dodge so it's no wonder they always used smaller engines n lower hp n trq numbers, take a lil, give a lil is how the big 3 work, man, remember that.. If Ford didn't ever play nice guy Chevy n Dodge wouldn't exist anymore..lol
@@P71ScrewHead you're cringe, making crappy cars isn't playing nice guy and Ford won't ever sell enough cars to put GM and MOPAR out of business, the market is too vast, buyer's preference is too diverse.
@@BrainFuck10 Well, the gov bailed them out so they'll stay a while.. I'm a Ford guy but I prefer the more the merrier.. I wouldn't want there to just be Fords, where's the fun in that?? Lol.. Japan 🇯🇵 has 12 car brands, more countries should get in the game 🎮..
I remember when i was a kid, probably 9. There was this guy in highschool w a white foxbody. It was loud and sounded like nothing my kid mind had ever heard. I was to young for these cars. I do like a new edge cobra though. And the sn94 cobra is a solid car imo
95 is the last year before the 4.6. 94 and 95 also had those horizontal lines on the taillights before they went vertical. I have a 95 GT. Good car and cheap to build
matthewmullins55 I'm a year late answering but humidity kills times. A few years ago on a cool spring day I ran my stock 02 Mustang GT 5spd in the 1/4 mile in 14.1 96mph. Later that summer in humid conditions the best I could do was 14.6 93mph.
real world numbers. magazines like car and driver never get the numbers they report as they use a standardized correction factor to adjust everything they get.
The mustang ran dead on what the sloth mid 15 second sn95 ran. The camaro was way off its time. Motor week use to have a giant boner for mustangs videos like this show it. They did a massive 1st and 2nd gear burn out in the 0-60/quarter mile test in the z28 to make the times closer. Wouldnt look good having a high to low 14 second car putting a 1 1/2 seconds beat down on the mustang of its same year. In 95 the 3.8l v6 camaro was faster than the 94 mustang gt, and the 95 mustang gt..... Had there been a 3.8l v6 option in 94 it would have been faster than the gt. Make all the excuses you want 1 car here is well over a second faster than the other one but it didnt show....
These Camaros started to vanish from the roads within a few years of the warranty going out. A lot of that probably has to do with how they made is to you have to drop the entire subframe and front suspension to remove the engine. Access to the engine was so bad you could not do much with it still in the car. Those Mustangs survived longer but were pretty bad in terms of quality. Still, both were priced nicely for the new car buyer that was under warranty and got rid of them before the troubles started. In those days 4 cyl FWD Japanese cars like the FWD Celica or RWD 240SX were selling for similar money so to get a RWD V8 domestic that made the V8 sound and went "sort of fast" for those days was a good deal. The premium Japanese sports cars like the 300ZX, Supra, and 3000GT were all $30K+ and shot up to the high $40Ks for the top of the line models. These 2 cars were a bargain.
+texan176 ... and it's still really a premise that happens today. Its nice being in the USofA with plenty of truck V8 engines being made that we can siphon off a few to justify a $20,000 (now $40,000 in 2016 dollars) sporty looking car ... that really only sells at most 25k examples a year. God bless America!
+texan176 Responding just to the Subframe design... Its not bad at all, pretty sweet actually. In my Fiero I can drop the whole cradle, engine/trans/rear suspension in 45 mins. In my 2 car garage, with a floor jack, no hoist.
+texan176 LOL! Some one had the balls to say it how it is! Those things are such plastic headaches. And underneath of them is so mundane and the engineering level is dismal. Like texan176 said its all about right. LT1 Camaro never seen one make it much past 150,000 miles. They also rot underneath and you don't even know because the plastic body panels don't show and one day the rear axle control arms just rip out of their rotted mounts. I've seen Mustangs go well into 200,000 miles territory without major issues, but here in the rustbelt the rust is the silent killer.
+dsavish Haha funny! Mine has 230,000 miles. You guys seriously don't have a clue what you are talking about. I see plenty of these cars still on the road. I rarely see old Mustangs.
I remember when the GM F bodies came out with the LT1 and the 6 speed. Some magazines had then running in the high 13's but almost everyone had them at least in the low 14's. After years of the lame TPI cars getting spanked by Fox bodies the Camaro and Firebird were suddenly fast. Then the LS came out and they were even faster. That was a fun era. Cars today are incredible though compared with cars from the 90's.
i ran a 13.98 in my 93 z28 bone stock 6spd hardtop 3.42 gears with 90k miles. a 89 lx coupe mustang 5spd with headers, exhaust, 4.10 gears and some south side machine lift bars and drag radials on fat n skinny weld wheels ran a 12.99
I had a 93 f body that just hit 188k miles when I sold it. Engine wouldn't die on the car. Interior was complete shit though. Everything broke and rattled. The whole center of the dash moved a few inches back and forth. Still love the car and miss it.
I don't know what's up here, but I ordered a 1995 1LE Z28 and (when it was new) ran high 13's at Indianapolis Raceway Park bone stock in the summer heat.
I love these retro reviews. I drove a 97 Z-28 Camaro for years. The LT-1 in stock form wasn't fantastic, mechanically, *cough optispark cough* but mated to that T56 transmission it was still a great car to drive. I owned a 99 Mustang GT for a while. While it wasn't the 5.0 SN95 car it had the same interior. Which i thought was garbage. But otherwise, that T5 made for a decent cruiser.
The 4th gen F body (an upgrade of the 3rd generation) looks like a stealth fighter jet and back in the 1990s beats the Mustang hands down in power and performance
I had a 94 GT that i bought in 1999 with 50k miles. Bine stick and super reliable. Sold it to my brother who kept it just as nice. He sold it 8 years ago to purchase a 93 Cobra. He searched for it recently and it came up for sale in Miami, completely trashed. :(
Both of those 0-60 times were with at least 1 full second of blowing the tires off. Motorweek always had way slower 0-60 times than anyone else. I'm assuming its just floor it and hold on versus the other review companies actually trying to launch the best they can. I had a 96 trans am and got 5.8 seconds with an auto trans without being used to the car yet. Probably would have been at least 5.5 with practice.
Yeah, those 8-speed or CVT 300hp turbos, we'll see how long that will last. Still got the video of a 270hp 2015? Acura TL trying to show off on highway @ 100mph+ while my SS passes him like he's still, I only have ~375hp. Most new sedans are still well behind these, even with 300hp or more, since heavy as hell.
Theo Pigis Ford also had the time. And since when do sales figures have anything to do with it? People buy cars for many reasons other than which one performs better stock.
Had a 97 z28 I worked from stock. Stock it ran a 13.9 and 60 in 5.5ish range. Got it running 12.8 pretty easy. My friend bought it and drives it daily. The 5.0 need a good deal more work to go 12s, the parts are cheaper and easier it's to work on. Did the same with my 88 mustang. Also the LT1 will leak oil no matter what. The reverse cooling like to spit out the back of the manifold in hard downshifts.
@@ONTHEEDGEFRED Mad because it's true little triggered fanboy? Did your petty ass feelings get hurt? Are you going to cry? Do you need a safe place little bitch?
The 60 horsepower difference between the 5.0 and 5.7 LT1 must have seen huge back in the day and the torque difference is quite noticeable Also who ever launched that Camaro did not know what they were doing because high five seconds 0 to 60 and mid 14 second quarter mile times were what you should be getting from an early fourth-gen z28 At the time the Camaro was clearly the better performance car but in the end the Mustang was still a much better overall product and no matter what Chevrolet did to the Camaro they couldn't get people to buy them because of the horrible interior and The styling which was even weird for its day.
back in 2003, i had a mint z28. hardtop, 6spd man, 3.42 gears. bone stock 90k miles from orig. owner. I paid 5k for it. went to my local drag strip and ran a 13.98@101 mph.
You're a dope. GM sold a ton of those cars, that's why they were sold for a decade. Only someone who finds that boring bland Mustang Camary to be good looking would think the Camaro is too much for them.
@@rodmunch69 "dope" wow that's a bit harsh Listen here you pine cone I had a 96 Camaro and I'll tell you this not everybody wanted a car that looked like a teenager's fantasy and my family members and even a few of my friends hated getting in and out of the car cuz it was so damn low. I'm not seeing these horrible cars but Ford sold more mustangs than Camaros and Firebirds combined GM couldn't justify keeping the cars in production and the body was discontinued in 2002 those are facts I'll tell you this though my 96 Camaro handled like a dream it was low it stayed planted and I can't help but Wonder if the IRS and the SVT Cobra that cometh in 99 wasn't drastically better than the three link live axle in the Camaro and firebird because the Mustang still had a higher center of gravity To end it this post I'm going to tell you this the interior plastics in my Camaro horrible the center dashboard cracking during a free temperature change in 2009 and like I said I have seen this war from both sides and my 2001 Mustang which I replaced my 96 Camaro with was a lot better liked by friends and family
@@jehb8945 Ford sold more = most popular sport on earth is soccer = most people on earth wipe with their hand. Just because more people do it, doesn't mean it's the best. Also I owned an 82 Mustang, was a terrible car. I mean literally terrible, it used a quart of oil a week (literally) and was nearly as slow as the Hyundai Excel that I owned before it.
@@rodmunch69 let's try this again customers preferred The styling and the seating position of the Mustang over the Camaro and the interior materials were just a pinch better in the Mustang Look there are days where I miss my 96 Camaro as well as the girlfriend that I got on the same day that I bought it but unfortunately both car and woman have some issues which I just couldn't live with where my 2001 Mustang was unremarkable but at least it didn't have any serious glitches Also your 82 Mustang was about 20 years removed from the final years that there was a Camaro and Mustang where they got the car up to reliable but not spectacular The American car customer talks out both sides of their face saying one moment they want the fastest thing on the road but ending up buying the opposite and going for a slightly prettier slightly more comfortable interior And why do I feel like I'm in the middle of a political argument here even though we're talking about cars?
I remember being impressed by the Camaro and disappointed by the Mustang. I was a Mustang fan at the time. They gave it less power and a ugly interior in my opinion. Ford interiors in the mid nineties we're horrible. Though the 95 Cobra R was excellent. And the 96 Cobra 32 valve was pretty sweet.
I had a 94 Z/28 brand new 6sp and 3:55's in the rear I had a blast with that car good bang for my buck....only complaint the opt-spark ignition if you wet it it was a matter of time till kaput. in 04 was when I traded in the z for a terminator cobra I phuckin loved it then and still do
Granted the Mustang wouldn't have been the better performance choice in 1995, but clearly we can see which car has held up better by which one you still see frequently on the road now. SN-95s are everywhere still and the Camaros of this era seem to have disappeared completely.
Idk where you live, but in the Detroit area I see more LT1s in the summer than mid 90s Mustangs. Besides, why else would you buy these cars. It's all about the performance. And I get t-tops, no wonder I owned 5 Fbodies.
@@camclarke9952 the v6 mustang annihilated the camaro. It annihilated it so bad that chevy cancelled the camaro because nobody bought them. Then came the terminators...
I had a brand new 1996 V6 t-top 5 speed Camaro, and my buddy had a 1996 5 speed mustang GT. We always raced around and his GT was only faster by a fender. Until I decided to do a cold air intake, cat back exhaust with hollow cat, and 3.42 gears with zexel limited slip diff. I had a few car lengths on him after that.....WITH MY V6!!! HAHAHA
Those LT1's were SO fun and fast....the pure torque is intoxicating, plus it had Impressive High-end too..... they really don't make 'em like that anymore(push-rod, reverse cooling system)
+Reality Dealer Hear ye, hear ye!!! According to reality dealer, 15.6 and 14.9 are practically identical, even though they mentioned the Camaro's time was lower than what they usually get! Ford foamers...
+Reality Dealer Hear ye, hear ye!!! According to reality dealer, 15.6 and 14.9 are practically identical, even though they mentioned the Camaro's time was lower than what they usually get! Ford foamers...
I had a 1993 Z/28 back in 1996. Funny how my 19 GTI beats it on paper but there was something about the Z/28s rawness. I was way to young for it so it did see a few ditches. I had to sell it when the 100k mike tune up came. I couldn’t afford to pull the motor to change the plugs.
Cool review chevy did have us ford fans beat in those years in hp because for some dumb reason ford sent there 1980s through 1990s ford 5.0l below the hp they were making in the 60s and 70s i think ford thpugh has always been about lots of power but with a higher focus on durability over chevy
+misamisatv I think the last 02 camaro ss/ws6 trans ams were made in canada? didn't they shut down that plant right after? i could be wrong but maybe gm was just too lazy back then and wasn't making as much money
+misamisatv Had a lot to do with sales. Mustang was selling better mainly because of women actually. The F-body structure was long in the tooth and no real update was scheduled after the 2002 year. Also, the Mustang was Fords only real performance machine so it couldn't die. GM had the corvette so the camaro/firebird was allowed to fade out unfortunately
+misamisatv The terrible driving position and bad visibility. Overall the mustang was just a better car to live with day to day. THE Camaro was positioned to close to the corvette in terms of performance.
Had a parts guy talking how BAD he had beat a '94 MustangGT. Until I said I don't remember you ever race me ! {He was talking adout me.} BTW, I'll be at the track this weekend on SATURDAY NIGHT, show-up ! I RACED HIM 4X'S DOWN THE 1/4 MILE TRACK & WON 🏆 EVERY TIME... His friends were there too 😂
