Most Common Clunkers Deals Did Little To Improve Fuel Efficiency, Ap A

hickoryhouse · November 10, 2009

...Thunderbird was an epic fail. GT40 and Ford GT just couldn't hit the mark.
Next year you can put this up here -
2011 Camaro Z28 >>>>> Ford Mustang Shelby GT500

Even as a die hard GM guy I have to point something out that will further derail this conversation... The Thunderbird was originally built as a counter to the vette in the 50's and failed in that quest, the more recent version was not in any way aimed at that lofty mark.

The GT40 could be compared to older racing corvettes such as the late 69' ZL1 etc, but in all honesty they were different types of cars and by the time GM came up with anything close, the 69 ZL1, the GT40 had ended its reign of supremacy with 4 consecutive Le Mans 24 Hour victories (1966-1969... 1967 was won in a Ford GT MkIV, another version of the GT40). The Corvette competed in the same races but did not come close to the same results:

67' DNF 28th place in a C2 Corvette,

68' DNF 27th place in 68' C3 Corvette,

69' DNF 22nd place in C3 Corvette

In regards to the newer Ford GT, that car was not meant to compete with the modern Vette either, although the performance numbers were strikingly similar when compared to the C6 Z06. The GT was built as a low production number, rare and exclusive "super car", while the Vette continued to be built as a high performance car for the masses. Prices, exclusivity and prestige all go as checks the in the Ford GT's column even though it could be said that the performance bragging rights go to the Vette based strictly on the cost of the two vehicles. Here is a comparison of the 06 Z06, Viper and Ford GT done by Automobile Magazine.

You are right, Ford has never built anything that can compete with the Vette, but other than the original Thunderbird I would argue that they have never tried.

yyz28 · November 10, 2009

Even as a die hard GM guy I have to point something out that will further derail this conversation... The Thunderbird was originally built as a counter to the vette in the 50's and failed in that quest, the more recent version was not in any way aimed at that lofty mark.
The GT40 could be compared to older racing corvettes such as the late 69' ZL1 etc, but in all honesty they were different types of cars and by the time GM came up with anything close, the 69 ZL1, the GT40 had ended its reign of supremacy with 4 consecutive Le Mans 24 Hour victories (1966-1969... 1967 was won in a Ford GT MkIV, another version of the GT40). The Corvette competed in the same races but did not come close to the same results:
67' DNF 28th place in a C2 Corvette,
68' DNF 27th place in 68' C3 Corvette,
69' DNF 22nd place in C3 Corvette
In regards to the newer Ford GT, that car was not meant to compete with the modern Vette either, although the performance numbers were strikingly similar when compared to the C6 Z06. The GT was built as a low production number, rare and exclusive "super car", while the Vette continued to be built as a high performance car for the masses. Prices, exclusivity and prestige all go as checks the in the Ford GT's column even though it could be said that the performance bragging rights go to the Vette based strictly on the cost of the two vehicles. Here is a comparison of the 06 Z06, Viper and Ford GT done by Automobile Magazine.
You are right, Ford has never built anything that can compete with the Vette, but other than the original Thunderbird I would argue that they have never tried.

No, I actually tend to agree with you. The GT/GT40 were never intended as direct Corvette competitors, but they were certainly closer to the 'Vette than any Mustang ever has been. They were Ford's attempt to have a flagship sports car, which is what the 'Vette is for GM.

...you've gotta love the N/A ZO6 blowing the doors off the Blown Ford GT in the quarter, though. LOL!

Cerebus · November 10, 2009

----The real purpose was not to improve gasoline use... It was to help keep the auto companies including dealerships etc. in business and provide jobs for Americans... A side benefit--- when people are working and paying taxes.... they are not receiving un-employment benefits. One company has also been able to return a lot of the bail out money as a result.

Of course, go talk to these dealers now. They are in the biggest sales slump ever. Very few people who would not have bought a car in the next 3 years bought one with this program. What this program mainly did is incentivise buyers to buy cars now, instead of in the near future. Now, of course, most people who were going to buy cars, have. So what happens to the dealerships over the next year or so when there is almost no one left to buy cars in the NEXT year or so?

---Opponents of people and ideas tend to over simplify everything.

Proponents of people and ideas tend to over simplify everything.

For the record, I am not a liberal or a conservative, and don't de jure back either major party, so I have no dog in this fight.

hickoryhouse · November 10, 2009

No, I actually tend to agree with you. The GT/GT40 were never intended as direct Corvette competitors, but they were certainly closer to the 'Vette than any Mustang ever has been. They were Ford's attempt to have a flagship sports car, which is what the 'Vette is for GM.
...you've gotta love the N/A ZO6 blowing the doors off the Blown Ford GT in the quarter, though. LOL!

I had a 98' v6 Camaro many years ago and after about $300 in random cheap mods and free mods, like cutting out the air box for fake "ram air", I was able to embarrass the GT Mustangs of the same year from stop light to stop light, that 4.6 L v8 is a piece of crap and always have been. But then again Ford doesn't really have to get to serious about it because there hasn't been a real competitor in terms of sales volume for years and years... makes me sad that such a waste of engineering is the affordable American sports car that the world sees.

yyz28 · November 11, 2009

I had a 98' v6 Camaro many years ago and after about $300 in random cheap mods and free mods, like cutting out the air box for fake "ram air", I was able to embarrass the GT Mustangs of the same year from stop light to stop light, that 4.6 L v8 is a piece of crap and always have been. But then again Ford doesn't really have to get to serious about it because there hasn't been a real competitor in terms of sales volume for years and years... makes me sad that such a waste of engineering is the affordable American sports car that the world sees.

4.6 Modular Motor is a POS, no doubt. The 5.0 was a FAR superior engine.

Ford was trying to keep up with the "high tech" crowd and went the direction of "pushrod motors are obsolete".

...tell that to the ZO6 or ZR1. LOL!

The new Ford Coyote 5.0 V8 is supposed to be a massive improvement and they claim they are going to be getting near 400HP. It will be the standard V8 in the 2011 Mustang GT.

FirefightnRick · November 11, 2009

I agree about the thought that the Mustang was ever meant to compete with the Vette, simply by the cost that goes with both seems to say they were and still are in different markets.

I drove an 85 GT, the last year of the carburated Mustangs for over 10 years. I refused to ever race mine. It was too nice to tear up and was a fantastic performance commuter car for college. But I hung out at a local track many weekends and watched those who did and watched them regularly embarrass IROC after IROC z's, which were more expensive but somewhat comparable in price. It seemed the Camaro's were too heavy to get a stout launch? And depending on who was driving, the Mustang was often times too light to lock up? This balanced it out somewhat at times and was fun to watch the bantering going on between the two sides.

I think the greatest thing about the 302 Fox Body era mustangs were that they were so easy to improve performance with little effort with an unlimited aftermarket. I want to swap my '66 289 with one now. Another one of those "Mean to's when I get around to it" type of projects.

By the way, MoGreen has a KR 500. He's brought it up for a few games and has promised to let me take a spin in it sometime. Just never have had the time. I look forward to that sometime?

According to our PD traffic patrol who come in and write their tickets every day in our station, the new Chargers can't hold a candle to the early '2000's era Camaro Interceptors. Of course when I ask about the older Coup Fox Body Mustang Interceptors they say there was no comparison by any standard to the Mustangs of that era because they were so light and agile.

Rick

Edited November 11, 2009 by FirefightnRick

Rudy · November 11, 2009

According to our PD traffic patrol who come in and write their tickets every day in our station, the new Chargers can't hold a candle to the early '2000's era Camaro Interceptors. Of course when I ask about the older Coup Fox Body Mustang Interceptors they say there was no comparison by any standard to the Mustangs of that era because they were so light and agile.
Rick

I believe there are two versions of the police issued charger. There is one that looks nice, but doesnt have the power/speed performance you'd expect. That may be the version that FWPD has, I know Henderson SO has that version.

yyz28 · November 11, 2009

I agree about the thought that the Mustang was ever meant to compete with the Vette, simply by the cost that goes with both seems to say they were and still are in different markets.
I drove an 85 GT, the last year of the carburated Mustangs for over 10 years. I refused to ever race mine. It was too nice to tear up and was a fantastic performance commuter car for college. But I hung out at a local track many weekends and watched those who did and watched them regularly embarrass IROC after IROC z's, which were more expensive but somewhat comparable in price. It seemed the Camaro's were too heavy to get a stout launch? And depending on who was driving, the Mustang was often times too light to lock up? This balanced it out somewhat at times and was fun to watch the bantering going on between the two sides.
I think the greatest thing about the 302 Fox Body era mustangs were that they were so easy to improve performance with little effort with an unlimited aftermarket. I want to swap my '66 289 with one now. Another one of those "Mean to's when I get around to it" type of projects.
By the way, MoGreen has a KR 500. He's brought it up for a few games and has promised to let me take a spin in it sometime. Just never have had the time. I look forward to that sometime?
According to our PD traffic patrol who come in and write their tickets every day in our station, the new Chargers can't hold a candle to the early '2000's era Camaro Interceptors. Of course when I ask about the older Coup Fox Body Mustang Interceptors they say there was no comparison by any standard to the Mustangs of that era because they were so light and agile.
Rick

3rd Gen Camaro and Firebirds needed a lot of help from the factory. Ford started making power from their small V8 in an emissions stringent world much quicker than GM did. The 302 5.0 ford motor would own a 305 5.0 Small Block any day of the week. ...the GM 350 was the true small block that you wanted in a Camaro or Firebird if you were going to push the performance of the car. The Camaro of the day was as heavy as the 4th gen cars ended up being, where the Ford had about a 500 LB advantage (in a coupe body, only about a 300 lb advantage with a hatch). Fortunately, at the time, the Small Block Chevy after market was considerably bigger and more developed, so the Chevy guys had more options and a less expensive route to making their cars quick.

The weight actually helped Camaro's to plant the power to the ground, but the weight was a factor down the track. if you have two 250HP cars and one is 400lbs lighter, if they cut the same light you'll see a similar 60' time - it's the top end where it suffers. Also, most 3rd Gen Camaros day had 2.73 and 2.42 gears from the factory, where the ford had a much taller gear set, at 3.42's.

The B4C LS1 Camaros (Interceptors, which were basically stripped down Z28's) were designed for that - to intercept. The LS1, unlike previous Small Blocks, is by nature a high revving engine, so you can pull in one gear forever. 300+ horsepower made them hard to beat for flat ass going quick in a straight line. By far the quickest car I've ever seen in mass in a fleet. I'd put a B4C Camaro up against a Fox Mustang ANY DAY of the week. Stock for Stock, the Mustang doesn't stand a chance.

5.0 however does have huge potential. We recently pulled the motor out of a friend's '91 Mustang, gave it a rebuilt, nice heads and a street cam and he's getting well north of 300HP to the rear wheels now, normally aspirated and with a very mild stock feeling cam. 5.0 Engines LOVE boost, so superchargers and turbos (and Nitrous for that matter) go very well with that motor.

hickoryhouse · November 11, 2009

3rd Gen Camaro and Firebirds needed a lot of help from the factory. Ford started making power from their small V8 in an emissions stringent world much quicker than GM did. The 302 5.0 ford motor would own a 305 5.0 Small Block any day of the week. ...the GM 350 was the true small block that you wanted in a Camaro or Firebird if you were going to push the performance of the car. The Camaro of the day was as heavy as the 4th gen cars ended up being, where the Ford had about a 500 LB advantage (in a coupe body, only about a 300 lb advantage with a hatch). Fortunately, at the time, the Small Block Chevy after market was considerably bigger and more developed, so the Chevy guys had more options and a less expensive route to making their cars quick.
The weight actually helped Camaro's to plant the power to the ground, but the weight was a factor down the track. if you have two 250HP cars and one is 400lbs lighter, if they cut the same light you'll see a similar 60' time - it's the top end where it suffers. Also, most 3rd Gen Camaros day had 2.73 and 2.42 gears from the factory, where the ford had a much taller gear set, at 3.42's.
The B4C LS1 Camaros (Interceptors, which were basically stripped down Z28's) were designed for that - to intercept. The LS1, unlike previous Small Blocks, is by nature a high revving engine, so you can pull in one gear forever. 300+ horsepower made them hard to beat for flat ass going quick in a straight line. By far the quickest car I've ever seen in mass in a fleet. I'd put a B4C Camaro up against a Fox Mustang ANY DAY of the week. Stock for Stock, the Mustang doesn't stand a chance.
5.0 however does have huge potential. We recently pulled the motor out of a friend's '91 Mustang, gave it a rebuilt, nice heads and a street cam and he's getting well north of 300HP to the rear wheels now, normally aspirated and with a very mild stock feeling cam. 5.0 Engines LOVE boost, so superchargers and turbos (and Nitrous for that matter) go very well with that motor.

The funny thing about those 80's Fox Body's and F Body's was that the fastest, stock vs. stock, didn't come from a v8 at all! It came from the 1998 Firebird TTA, a turbocharged V6! I always thought that was entertaining.

The LT1 and LS1 motors quickly gained an aftermarket following that almost rivaled the 5.0's of the time, in fact naturally aspirated and with not much more than a upgraded intake manifold, some computer work, MAF, Thermostat and a custom designed true dual exhaust (pipes bent by yours truly) I was putting 401 on the ground in my 2000 SS Camaro.

As for those cop cars, the Camaros would scare the hell out of you when you saw them behind you and you were hauling a**, I would have a hard time being frightened by one of the Chargers because most of them seem to be made with that anemic V6 that they put in everything.

yyz28 · November 11, 2009

The funny thing about those 80's Fox Body's and F Body's was that the fastest, stock vs. stock, didn't come from a v8 at all! It came from the 1998 Firebird TTA, a turbocharged V6! I always thought that was entertaining.

Courtesy of our friends at Buick and the Grand National...

FirefightnRick · November 12, 2009

Courtesy of our friends at Buick and the Grand National...

..and our friends at S.V.O. in 1984.

By the way, my 85 GT came with a 3:08 gears. It wasn't by any means the quickest on the road. But when I conservatively drove it to Jonesboro for our game against Ark State in '89 I got just a tad bit over 25 mgp. Simply amazing!

Rick

yyz28 · November 12, 2009

..and our friends at S.V.O. in 1984.
By the way, my 85 GT came with a 3:08 gears. It wasn't by any means the quickest on the road. But when I conservatively drove it to Jonesboro for our game against Ark State in '89 I got just a tad bit over 25 mgp. Simply amazing!
Rick

Was your 'Stang an SVO? Rare and neat pony indeed.

...but I have to say, IMHO, the SVO Turbo 4 didn't hold a candle to the Buick Turbo 3800 6 in the Grand National and TTA. Different animals all together. I know Grand National guys with stock bottom ends and upgraded turbos doing 10's in the quarter.