if you had your choice between these two cars...

hondaguy2582

hondaguy2582

New member
Ok guys, me and my dad are going to be looking for a sports car to rebuild in a couple years, and Ive narrowed it down to the 94-98 mustang gt and the 94-97 trans am and formula(either has to be a manual transmission, not an auto). Out of these two cars, which one would you get and why? #2, which engine is easier to work on?
 
I'd get the Firebird because they look cooler, are much more powerful, and you can get T-tops. It also will likely get better mileage than the GT.



The Firebird has the engine set pretty far back, so working on it may be a little more difficult, but it depends on what you are doing to it. Not sure what "rebuild" means...
 
are u going to race it or show it. if ur going to show it, are going for the oem everthing original, or are u going for custom. i prefer mustangs. i personally am looking for a clean 92- 93 lx. as for engine mods, the 94 -98 mustang has 2 different engines depending on year. 94 - 95 is the 5.0 is overhead valve, but the 96+ is the overhead cam. while there are waaaaay more parts for the 94- 95, the 96+ engine are stronger because the are a 6 bolt main where as the pre 96 are 4 bolt mains(i pretty sure on those numbers, might be off but i am definelty sure the 96+ blocks are stronger). another thing is there might be 1 or 2 aftermarket heads for 96+, whereas the pre 96 have an almost infinite amount of choices available. and ford changed the 96+ head i believe in 98(not sure on the year), to PI (power improved) heads. and that greatly improved the power showing that that motor has great potential, the aftermarket has to catch up imo. which ever u decide, subscribe to some magazine for that car, if you go the blue oval route then definetly subscribe to muscle mustangs/fast fords. btw, i'm not a chevy hater......if u go trans am, try and get the 5.7 formula(i believe that what it is):xyxthumbs
 
Yes also you will probably get superior handling out the box from the Trans Am 5.7L. Mustangs are less aerodynamic as well. Just my .02cents! Wish you great luck w/ either!
 
hondaguy2582- Yeah, the big questions are "what do you really plan to do with the car?" and "which one feels best to YOU?".



Do you have much seat-time in either car? You might be surprised which one YOU actually like DRIVING better, or which one you perform better in. I always (greatly) preferred the GM F-bodies (and like you, I liked the Formulas and TAs best), but I could DRIVE Mustangs a LOT better. For me, much to my surprise, the Mustang would've been the "better" choice.



The factory and aftermarket parts industries make it pretty easy to get great results with EITHER car. As I recall, you can generally get more performance out of the GM offerings. But in the real world (as opposed to in magazines), it's always about the driver and the car working together as a team. As far as which is easier to work on, I bet that if you ask a Ford/GM mechanic, you'd get a Ford/GM response. EVERY car is gonna have its eccentricities and both of those sound like good choices for you and your Dad to make a project out of. BTW, I think it's VERY cool that the two of you are gonna do such a thing together :xyxthumbs
 
IMO Ford cars drive a lot better than GM cars just because of the way they are designed. I have driven both a '99 Stang and a '97 Formula and the Formula seems to be VERY disconected and you definately do not have any feel for the car or the road.



The Stang on the oter hand is a more rough riding car, but it also would outhandle an F-Body any day and the steering donsent leave you guesing what its going to do. Stangs are lighter cars as well and again, IMO a Ford V8 will outlast a GM V8. But im a little biased and have only had problems with any GM I have owned.



So no flaming. Thats my 2 cents.
 
I didnt even see the 2nd question.



They will both be easy to work on. The 4.6 in the Mustang is also used in several other Ford/Lincoln/Jag/Land Rover cars and is little changed today so if you were to get that engine in the GT that would be your best bet. But, the LS1/LT1 engines are also pretty well desined so its a personal desision.
 
well, the only mustang ive driven is a 99 v6 5 spd, and the only firebird ive driven is a 98 v6 auto. I also drove a 98 z28 auto, but i did not like the handling of either the firebird or the camaro, as it is harder to manuever than the mustang. I understand the power is there with the chevys stock, but the only thing that is stopping me from getting a ta or formula is the lack of handling.



You guys also commented on how both 5.7 and the 4.6 and 5.0s are easy to work on. In your opinion, which one is the easiest to work on?
 
You know, there's times I wish I lived in the US - we don't get to make choices like "Mustang or Trans Am" here in the UK. That's not to say we don't have some cool cars but we're a bit lacking in the thumping V8 dept!



Ford in the UK was known, until quite recently, to stand for "F****d On Rainy Days"
 
As said, it depends on what you plan to do with the car, but I would look more closely at which car I like the looks of better, and also join some Mustang and F-body forums to research the mod potential each of them has.



Lately I've been more handling biased in my interests, so I'd look more into the F-body, which I had read on a few occasions being fitted with insanely wide tires. :D



A test drive or two might be in order as well.
 
As much as it pains me to say it (especially since I used to have a Chevelle and hated Fords for a long time), I'd go with the Mustang. The interior pieces of the F-Bird are horrible. Same cheap console material as the Cavalier and lots of those ugly gray switches. They are also a lot harder to see out of.



Stock vs stock, the F-Bird is quicker, but there is a plethora of aftermarket parts available for each car, so closing the gap isn't too hard.



If you can swing a 99 Mustang though, get that. They start at 260 hp, a nice improvement over the 94-98s.



The Mustang is easier to work on since the engine bay is more open.
 
The only problem i have with the Mustangs is the fact they're so front end heavy, this makes them not handel very well. I would go with the F-body for that reason.
 
This from jcdouglas: Rule of thumb.... Ford makes great TRUCKS

Chevy makes great CARS



Seems to me that if this were true, GM would have sold more Camaro's and NOT scrapped the line altogether. While GM floundered, FORD ruled with the Mustang GT, Cobra and Bullitt!:p
 
ok, from what I understand the Mustang is more "user-friendly" in terms of daily driveabilty where as the F-body is a more "in your face" type of car (better looking, quicker stock etc) but you will feel every bump in the road with it.



My choice--I'd take the F-body (Trans Am, not a Camaro) because its already pretty quick to begin with and just plain better looking than a Mustang.
 
UGh, the great chevy vs. ford debate.



First off...I went through this myself recently, and while I am different from you, I'm sure you can learn from my experiences.



Secondly, the reason the F-body died and the mustang lived on has nothing to do with which was the better car, it had to do with branding and marketing, as well as sales of the v6 to, you guessed it, young women (FYI I have no problem with young women at all, they were just not the target market of the F-body, and that is what killed it)



With that said, lets clear up some confusion.



Stock for stock, the Pontiac is the better muscle car. It will outhandle, outbrake, and outaccelerate the Mustang.



However, that is not the extent of a car purchase. The mustang seems to be the "easier" car to drive, and it is. this is because the mustang's upright position and stature are very similar to a "regular" car. The F-Body is long, low, and wide - quite clumsy on first approach. It definetely takes more skill to drive an F-Body fast (around a road course), than a mustang. But, in reality, the F-Body has higher limits.



A problem that plagues all but the highest F-body models is crappy springs/shocks. I drove a trans am back to back with a firehawk, and the difference is night and day - the trans am felt like a fast caprice, the firehawk felt like a sports car. Very different.



The mustang GT, however, from the factory, comes with a "sportier" setup, more in line with, I'd say, a Trans Am WS-6. Comparing base Trans/Firebird to GT, the GT will always seem much better handling.



Engine-wise, I feel there is no comparison. The LT1/LS1 engine makes more power from the get-go, is nearly bulletproof, and can make INSANE power with Head/Cam swaps. The Mustang engine is also a fantastic engine, but I feel the aftermarket hasn't quite caught up, and OHC engines are peakier, heavier, and require alot more parts (2/4 cams versus 1). The best mustang results seem to come with a power adder (SUpercharger/turbo). OF course this is in reference to the modular mustang engines, the 5.0 is a whole different story and benefits from a massive aftermarket and reputation. I prefer the 5.0 to the 4.6.



That said, depending on use, my choice was the Pontiac. For everyday driving I'd probably have chosen the mustang, but as a "project/weekend" car, I wanted to have the most performance money could buy, and for me, that was the Pontiac.



-Tom
 
If you are not planning to modify the car then go with the F-body. In stock trim it is a faster car. If you plan on modifications then go with the mustang. The mustang is more reliable, much easier to work on, and has an extensive aftermarket available. Furthermore, the cost of the aftermarket parts are cheaper for the mustang versus the F-body. (supercharger kits are on average $700-$1000 less)



There are many companies that make complete suspension kits that turn the poor handling stocker into a 1g car.



Brakes are no problem as well with more than 4 major race kits that I can think of.



You should check out www.stangnet.com and www.corral.net.

Also muscle mustangs and fast fords magazine.



In NJ 10 second RELIABLE daily driver mustangs are everywhere.



Good luck
 
thats another question that im unsure of. If I ever got a 5.0 mustang, it would have to be a 94 or a 95. Also, for the formula and trans am, Im debating between the lt1 and ls1. Obviously the ls1 is a faster engine, but the lt1 makes its max torque at 2400 rpms. So again, there are things I like about both cars, and I know the pontiac is faster stock, but in general, Im sure ill swap in a crate engine to the mustang, or get a ta or formula and just rebuild the 350.
 
Having owned a '95 Camaro I found a couple of things that annoyed me about the last gen F-body. One was the hump in the passenger floor board. It just got into the way and I never could find a comfortable seating position for my legs and feet. The other was the steep rake of the windshield which made it a major PITA to clean.



Even though I've always perferred GM, I think a 92-93 Mustang LX Coupe 5.0 could be turned into a really bad a$$ ride. Because this car has a real trunk you can hide a NOS system in there, relocate the battery for better weight distribution, poke in some killer stereo gear or tub the thing and put some real fat tires on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top