Pelican Parts Forums - Crazy flashback, R&T -> 1982 Camaro vs mustang

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)

- Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)

- - Crazy flashback, R&T -> 1982 Camaro vs mustang (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/925243-crazy-flashback-r-t-1982-camaro-vs-mustang.html)

Crazy flashback, R&T -> 1982 Camaro vs mustang

I read this last night. Wow!

Drive Flashback: 1982 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 vs 1982 Ford Mustang GT

Just a few excerpts

Some of you may wonder at what R&T says about the mustang's engine, here's where that came from earlier in the article "familiar 5-liter (actually 4.9. or 302 cu-in.) Ford V8". You wouldn't want the V-8 to be confused with the 300ci, 4.9L Ford straight 6, so they fudged and called it a 5.0L.

Quote:

For our first full road test of Chevrolet's new baby, it was natural to turn to the Z28, the sportiest version. Because the Camaro's engine and transmission options don't offer a single version directly comparable to the Mustang GT powertrain, we drove two Z28s to bracket the Mustang. The first, and the one represented in our data panel, had the manual 4-speed gearbox and the most powerful engine available with it, a 4-barrel-carbureted 5-liter unit of 145 hp. This is the standard combination in the $9700 Z28, as are power-assisted steering, fat P215/65R-15 tires on 7-inch-wide rims, and the Camaro's sportiest suspension calibration. Additionally, the test car had a limited-slip differential, heavy-duty engine cooling, the custom cloth interior with "Conteur" driver's seat, an AM/FM-stereo cassette system with Delco's Extended Range speakers, air conditioning, tilt wheel, cruise control and a minor host of other items to bring its sticker price up to a still moderate-for-1982 $12,694.

Because you can't get the star Camaro engine, the Cross-Fire fuel injected 5-liter V8 of 165 hp, with manual transmission we also sampled that engine with its mandatory automatic transmis*sion in our second Z28 test car, which was equipped pretty much like the first except that it also had the optional 4-wheel-disc brakes. Its price: $13.635.

The "something new" of the not-so-new Mustang (it's been around in its current form since the 1979 model year) is its 4.9-liter V8, whose new camshaft, larger-but-still-2-barrel carbure*tor and low-restriction exhaust system and air cleaner help it up to 157 hp, 17 more than it generated when it was last available in 1979. The 4-speed gearbox that goes with it is essentially a 3-speed plus overdrive: three widely spaced ratios leading up to a 3rd gear that's already long-legged, plus a 0.70:1 4th that's "so tall it gives you a nosebleed," to quote one of our test drivers. Also included in the GT 5.0 ($8965 base) are a limited-slip differential, power assisted steering, and an appropriately firm handling package with anti-tramp bars bolted to the live rear axle to keep it from becoming as live as it has been in earlier high performance Mustangs. Cast alloy wheels, front and rear spoil* ers. halogen headlights (high and low beams) and foglights. dual aerodynamic mirrors, a center console, full instrumentation and low-back reclining seats complete the package.

The test car had Ford's TR performance suspension, which adds $105 and substitutes 390 x 150-mm (approximately 15 x 6-in.) forged alloy wheels with the Michelin TRX 190/65HR-390 tires that fit them for the standard GT combination, plus specially tailored spring/shock rates and anti-roll bars. Other options on the Mustang test car included air conditioning, an AM/FM stereo radio with premium amplification, a T-bar roof with removable glass panels, and various minor options for a total price of $12,722.

With the newly tuned 5-liter V8, Ford has led the U.S. industry in restoring exhilarating engine performance to the list of options. Starting with a 12-hp advantage over the manually shifted Camaro and 270-lb less curb weight, the Mustang 5.0 overcomes the handicap of its ultra-wide gearing to log in some impressive (at least for the Eighties) acceleration times: 0-60 in 8.0 seconds, 0-100 mph in 25 seconds flat, and the standing quarter-mile in just 16.3. By contrast, the heavier, lower-power Z28 needed 9.7 sec to reach 60 mph, 30.0 to reach 100, and 17.5 to cover the quarter-mile despite its more tightly packed four speeds. With longer gearing—4th in the Camaro is about equivalent to 3rd in the Mustang—it probably could take advan*tage of its undoubtedly superior aerodynamics, but as it is, the Z28 reaches its redline of 5000 rpm at 115 mph. The Mustang, with no redline at all on its tachometer revs happily to 6000 rpm in 1st and 2nd, reaching 118 mph in either 3rd or 4th.

The Z28's available fuel-injected engine shifts the balance somewhat. It is markedly more powerful (an additional 20 hp) and responsive than the carbureted one, so much so that even with its automatic transmission it gives better acceleration times: 0-60 in 9.0 sec, the quarter mile in 16.8 sec and 81.0 mph, and 0-100 in 28.0.

Cars have gotten so much more powerful! I don't know if Kia makes a car with less than 145 horsepower. Also, pretty amusing, that limited slip differential on the Z28. What would be the point?

My Miata is faster and more powerful than those. Certainly handles better too. Not bad for a chick/hairdresser car.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobra (Post 9237962)

My Miata is faster and more powerful than those. Certainly handles better too. Not bad for a chick/hairdresser car.

Absolutely, more powerful, lighter, faster and handles better.

It's shocking that the V-8 performance cars back then had so little power and such small tires.

Shoot, an '82 911 SC wasn't than much more powerful.

I had an early 80's Camaro and it was *****in'. It was also really slow but I could slide it around in the rain like Jim Rockford chasing the bad guys.

^^^bit chin^^^

It must take a special talent to get so little power out of such a large capacity engine. Seriously, 5 liters and 157bhp, or 32bhp per liter? Where did it all go?

The original Mini had an 850cc A-series engine which produced a whopping 34 bhp. That's 40 bhp per liter and that was designed in 1950!

LOL! May there long be the Mustang/Camaro thing. Would there be an automotive press without it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aerkuld (Post 9237989)

Horrible, horrible emissions controls were responsible. Trying to keep emissions down while making power. Fortunately, we've come a very, VERY long way in that respect. (just ask VW ;) :D )

i read a scanned version of R&Ts fastest cars of 1978 or one of those other later 1970's era. among the top of the list was the ford 150, because trucks didnt need as much emissions stuff, and the porsche 924.

and come-on, never, ever in the history of any point in ever ... should the 924 (non turbo) be on anyones list of fast cars, much less top speed based fast cars.

man the late 70s and early 80s sucked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by masraum (Post 9238132)

Horrible, horrible emissions controls were responsible. Trying to keep emissions down while making power. Fortunately, we've come a very, VERY long way in that respect. (just ask VW ;) :D )

we have far far far more emissions controls now than in the 1970s.

poor engineering is what these were. we simply figured out better ways to make cleaner, more powerful engines. AKA progress.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cockerpunk (Post 9238138)

man the late 70s and early 80s sucked.

0-60 in 9.0 sec
165 HP
15 mpg
American Muscle Car :rolleyes:

That said those times definitely did NOT suck for us! Most of us could not afford new cars anyway so we drove 60's era stuff from Detroit, like a '67 Olds 442 by buddy bought for $500, while I focused on trucks and VWs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cockerpunk (Post 9238141)

we have far far far more emissions controls now than in the 1970s.

poor engineering is what these were. we simply figured out better ways to make cleaner, more powerful engines. AKA progress.

My guess is that back in the day the emissions controls were slapped on after the fact and were never part of the original design.

I recently got hooked on all the Retro MotorWeek shows posted on YouTube. It is truly amazing what passed off as powerful back then. I recall a test of a Monte Carlo SS Aerocoupe that posted a 16 second quarter mile. They described the acceleration as "breathtaking":eek:

Here is a MotorWeek on the 82 Z28 and GT Mustang:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RI-lukE09gs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I had a new Fiero GT back in those days. Man, that thing was FAST!!!! I think it had 150HP or so and was fairly light. Anyway, I loved driving it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gorthar (Post 9238539)

I've watched some of those off and on as well. I can only watch a little at a time because the narration is mind-numbing.

It's amazing how far we've come since then. I remember a good friend of mine getting a Z28 and we all thought that was the bomb. What a toad!

Something like a Caprice in the early '80s was like an 11-second 0-60 car. It might have felt quick off the line, but it sure wasn't, and it ran out of whatever breath it had after about 30mph.

A 911 SC, for the time, was really fast.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cockerpunk (Post 9238138)

I remember that issue. Strange as it may seem, the Dodge "little Red Express truck"
was the fasted top speed vehicle one could buy that year...

Quote:

Originally Posted by motion (Post 9238545)

I had a new Fiero GT back in those days. Man, that thing was FAST!!!! I think it had 150HP or so and was fairly light. Anyway, I loved driving it.

Best friend had a 68 GTO with hot 400 in it. He traded it in to the dealer and ordered a new 1984 Fiero or "Fy-ro" as we called it. It was the 4 banger with a 5 speed. Being a total newbie about cars I asked if it will be fast and do cool burnouts like the GTO. Sure, he said. I was sorely disappointed when he got it. What a total POS. Chicks dug it but that's about it.