It wasn’t the fastest American car. And you’d be surprised what 160 horses and especially 240 lb ft of torque does with a smaller car. With a 1/4 mile at 15, it’d still beat more than 90% of all current vehicles being manufactured today.
Luke Sylvester SUVs normally have larger engines with more hp and torque (more per lb to make up for the towing capacity). As such, they’re usually actually quicker than your normal sedan/etc. Heck you can buy a 500 hp Jeep Grand Cherokee that weighs over 5k lbs and does 0-60 in 4 seconds with a 6.4 liter
A lot of the younger posters don't realize that the competition between these two cars starting early 80's brought back the muscle car and revitalized the market. I owned an 85 Mustang GT, brand new. It was my first new vehicle. It was a ton of fun, more than the 2013 one I have now. The only thing I regret is that the cars back then were reachable and geared towards the young 20's market. Now, they're more refined and cost is just so prohibitive for anyone under 40 most likely.
I sure remember these cars. The Foxbody saved rear wheel drive performance cars in the USA. Just like when the Mustang was first introduced back in the 60's. The right car at the right time.
The competition started in 1967, the first model year the Camaro was released. And as always, the most important option was always the nut behind the wheel that made the biggest difference.
Remember when 150 hp felt like a monster? Please upload more of these old retro videos. They bring back tons of memories. I keep looking for cars I've owned.
I wish you would create a second channel and upload a few of these every week. We know you have vaults full of old car reviews, I don't even care if they are some of the more bland cars, I think people will still enjoy the old school vids!
I bought an 82 Mustang GT. First one in the city I lived in. I factory ordered it with Recaro seats. It was a real head turner. My F150 eco boost would outrun it now, but in 82 it was the top dog in America
Being a foxbody guy, I think the 82 body style is underrated. One of the best looking styles of the 80s Mustangs. My favorite is the 85 86 4 eye though. Something about that open grill.
lftdblazer I really like the 82 front end, it looks aggresive!. Thats why Im planning on getting the 82 air dam on my 86 drop. LMR has one that fits on the 82-86 Foxs.
Michael douglas from "falling down". 85-86 is my favorite also. I want a capri coupe with 85-86 front bumper cover. They sadly never made a capri coupe
One thing most who slag these off forget ,for the time they were made they were near the top of the tree for handling and performance against most cars. You are comparing them with todays technology which has obviously been improved. For their time they were what was allowed down to US car restrictions.So compare them against another stock 82 made car.
I find it hysterical reading all the trash talking on two, 30+ year old cars built during the heavily regulated, pollution control era. The fact of those times was that car company hands were tied, and they still had to turn a profit [it is a business FIRST you know] so R&D doesn't happen overnight. There WERE still some good performers in the 80's however. The Grand National and GNX were street sweepers in the day, the later 5.0's were strong for the era too and Camaro had an affordable 1LE package but only if you ordered it... But truly, to look at the era, just look at Auto racing to see what Detroit was capable of without hands tied. Bill Elliott rocketed his stock car to over 212mph on a closed track then, and the speeds at Indy were rising each year.
Haha, good comments. People also forget that these cars sold like HOT CAKES. In '86, Camaros and Mustangs sold 400,000 cars combined (excluding the Firebird). There's photos of Ford dealers from that era with something like 100 Mustangs on the lot in a rainbow of colors and trim levels. Be ashamed, but the cars did what they set out to do - sell really well. The Merkur and Mustang SVO were arguably better, more high-tech cars, but they didn't sell well and were discontinued.
@@sergeantmasson3669 everything in the 80’s was all show and no go except the Grand National if you’re not talking supercars like the 959 and F40. My favorite Camaros are the ‘93-97, and to a lesser extent the ‘98-02 (I prefer the Trans Am in those years) I suppose you always like what you grew up with and couldn’t afford as a teen
@@RobertSmith-le8wp 1981 was the last year that a Pontiac T/A had a Pontiac engine. 1982-2002, Pontiac T/A had SBC engines. Buick G/N , Ford Mustang 5.0 GT, and the Turbo T/A were the only "muscle" caliber cars in the 80's The Turbo T/A used the Buick G/N engine, though. IROC Camaro was supposedly a "muscle" car caliber but it wasn't other than it's looks and sound.
+ITRIEDEL Ford used that lousy 2 barrel carburetor too much. It was a good reliable carburetor for your grandmother's car, but come on...... That 2 barrel still whooped that GM thing, but why was Ford always so stingy with 4 barrel engine options? Even during the muscle car era, you always had to go out of your way to find even a Mustang with a 4 barrel carb under the hood. A Holley 500 4 barrel with vacuum secondaries would have been pure magic as the default carburetor on small block Fords from 1965 to 1973, yet they used that 2 barrel on everything.
+scdevon when they went to the 4bbl in 1986 is when the performance started to open up on the 5.0 stangs. I remember trying to get one of those cars in 1986. I remember people trying to swap onto a 4bbl carb on these Mustangs, and trying to figure out how to still pass emmissions here in Maryland.
I wanted a Mustang GT soooooo bad but I was barely 18 and the insurance was insane. Even with only 157 horses it still felt and sounded so great to drive!
old post but yeah insurance back then was insane!! At 19 I was quoted 350 a mo for liability only. Had to drive for yrs without it just couldnt pay rent bills and ins on the wages back then.
I remember being in high school and I was so confused when a cavalier z24 smoked this guys gorgeous iroc. Then you do some research and realize these 80s "muscle cars" had about as much power as a 4 banger of the 2000s
+ztwntyn8 I have owned a few of these cars and it's apparent a lot of the commentors have never even say in one and sound childish, which is why I stand behind my age assessment for these keyboard drivers . lol
+kjz28 I'm 18 but I respect all the cars in the car reviews. Cars have came a long way and I like learning about how cars used to be when I wasn't around
I am glad you are level headed and objective about it. Most of the people posting comments are not. These cars are fun, and with help of today's technology and performance parts they are pretty awesome by even today's standards.
Here in Ontario, I bought a brand new silver GT in the fall of 82 and paid $10,508!! Only options were cloth seats and Premium sound, no A/C...wonderful car..owned it for 5 years. No diff or trans issues. Upgraded to 220/55r390 TRX's when the others wore out. I still to this day wonder what ever became of it...
This is the era when I was in high school and the cool kids had 60s and early 70s muscle cars. I don't remember much interest in the early 80s American "performance" cars. The focus was on Japanese cars like the Datsun 280 ZX, Toyota Supra, & Mazda RX-7 which were much more fun to drive. It is amazing to see how far auto engineering and technology has evolved from the dark days of the late 70s through the 80s. We can get a high performance Mustang, Camaro or Challenger that handles far better, pollutes far less, has crazy horse power combined with good gas mileage on sale today. We are living in the best of times with performance cars. Thanks MotorWeek for this Throwback Thursday classic showdown.
Stripped of it's smog stuff, and with performance items added, that 2.0 liter four in the Pintos was a great engine.... just in the wrong car. You needed an early 70's Capri with a 4 speed, and it was quite a car/engine combo.
I still own my 1982 Mustang GT I bought band new. It no longer sports the 157 hp or the original 302. It now has a 351W stroker to 392 CI. Still love the iconic car.
I still think the 90’s were the best performance to dollar ratio. I recall in either 95 or 96 you could get a Camaro Z28 for around $17,500 to $18,000 with the very respectable LT1 and a T56 6 speed. My buddy bought a 1 year old at the time 1996 Mustang GT convertible . I think it had 15,000 miles and he paid around $14,500. Even adjusted for inflation that’s not too bad. Only 215hp but with a manual it was a lot of fun. He added an X pipe and some kind of cat back exhaust. I remember it sounded really good. It got smoked by LT1’s and just about every Fox body we raced. We had another friend with an almost identical 1994 5.0. We raced to over 140 and he won pretty handily
Not necessarily. I had a ton of fun in the early and late 1980's. 245 hp was massive, and a hoot to drive. There was plenty of character and drama in the mid-80's Buicks and Mustangs. The excitement was in the fact that the chassis weren't designed for that power. Today with all the refinements, 500hp is nearly boring. Bring on the electrics......similar character, which means none. It's not about just going fast, its how its done.
The 3rd gen Mustang almost looks like a Japanese car. The 3rd gen Camaros and Firebirds look much better - slicker and better proportioned (and this comes from a fan of the first generation of this rivalry and also from a fan of the 1977 Pontiac Trans Am, with the best looking front and rear ends of the whole production run, especially in the Special Edition with the gold pinstriping).
I didn't even know they were Mustangs till I was 20 years old... in 2002! Grew up going to car shows and races, but always figured they were generic econo-cars. No pony badges, very boxy and upright. When I first found out, I just started laughing. Camaro and Firebird looked lightyears better those years (and I've since owned 3 Mustangs).
@transrus1 the back looked very similar given that both were hatchbacks, and there was an Escort EXP at the time that looked like a fox body knockoff. No one here needs glasses but you.
Wow. A 157 hp V8 Mustang that was muscle car back in the day. You could drop the current day basic Mustang V6 into it and double the horsepower and gas mileage.
+hartsickdisciple You can easily make a 305 quick, but people just always go for a 350 instead. It's the opposite with Ford, the smaller 302 was more popular in the Mustang because it was more of a handling car rather than straight line muscle car. The 305 can use the same mods as a 350 but rev a bit higher, and it has nearly the same torque with the same crank. Another thing is how people hate on the old GM Crossfire injection. With a high flowing intake, they actually made more power and torque than the TPI engines. There are a couple aftermarket intakes for them, and they're quick if you use them. It was the intake that held them back, they were great engines with tons of low end.
snakesonaplane2 One of my best friends had a 305 in his Monte Carlo SS. He did everything imaginable to it, short of forced induction, and it barely ran high 13's on drag radials. He put a warmed-over 350 in the same car and it immediately ran mid 12's.
hartsickdisciple A 350 with the same spec parts as a 305 will make more power, but a 305 is still a good engine, they're not worthless junk like some people think. I'd much rather have a 305 vs a 4.3 V6.
I had an 84 Mustang with a 165 hp 5.0. EFI and I was treated well by other drivers. They would pull up next to me on the road point to the 5.0 badging and give me a big thumbs up. It was a fun car but had mechanical issues from time to time.
It took a while for the American manufacturers to get the fuel injection right, to cope with the smog regulations. In '82, they were still struggling with carbs.
now a days when people see that model of mustang they think its some shitty grandma car that belongs to some homeless guy. the camaro still stands out.
+ONEMUNEEB I liked the Camaro and that Firebird, but in pre-1982 generation. '60s looks shitty to me. Late 70's Firebird and Camaro I consider to be the most desirable American cars. Then comes the '80s Mustang. I also love the 1984 Fiero. Corvette C4 is also my favorite Corvette generation. 1982 Camaro is not bad, but it doesn't have the charisma and beauty of the generation just prior to that. The latest generation Camaro is a caricature of a car. Something I would've drawn when I was 5. And I am not proud of my drawings at that age.
yeah 80s and 70s firebirds are pretty nice. i like the 80s one better because of the pop ups. But at the same time i like the 70s bandit one as well. too bad its not a special car, no one really likes them. They were never sold as a super sporty car, they were for those who couldnt afford sporty cars. And most that I see around now a days seem as if they went through a tornado. Ive seen some nice clean ones at car shows though.
+ONEMUNEEB I like the pre-pop up headlights Firebird. In fact the one generation before the Smokey and the Bandit Trans Am edition. I totally dislike anything '60s though. Those things are very ugly.
I love both of these cars, and especially the Mustang. But it's shocking how atrocious the 'stang looks around the course! I have an '83 'vert, and love it, but it's definitely not a modern car. I made a point of looking for one with better brakes and suspension (no panhard bar, but control arms and springs/shocks). It's a terrible car in many ways (tiring to drive and I couldn't count the rattles, lol!) but it totally brings a smile to my face. It's also been a lot of fun to work on it - so many parts for cheap, and everything's so simple and accessible, and I've learned a lot. Laugh if you will at the HP ratings, but nice Foxes and 3rd Gen Camaros are starting to appreciate in value. Also, the 3rd gen Camaros are impressive handling cars; I've seen one post the fastest time of day at the autocross...
Man this brings back memories! I had a 1984 Z28 with 165 HP and did the quarter at Maple Grove Drag way at 85MPH! My Chevy Volt can do that now and get 200 MPGE (LOL) The dealer told me no changes for 1985 which was a lie. They came out with the 5.7 tune port injected engine. I was kicking myself the entire year they released that car for not waiting.
I forgot, that SROD 4 speed was a weak point too. The ratios was like a 5 speed with 3rd gear missing. In town driving at 30mph my 79 Pace Car was either revving too high in 2nd gear or bogging it in 3rd which is a 1:1 ratio. The external shift linkage bolted to side of the transmission case with special shoulder bolts that were metric. I had bolts fall out on a trip out of state. No bolts could be found in 1987 even though they still used that tranny half way through the 1983 model year. Also for the TRX tires, they came on the 1st Ferrari Testarossa's. I think the rim size was 415mm which is 16.34". TRX wheels also came on some Escorts in 360mm which is 14.17". Ford must have been really short on cash at that time, otherwise I'd think they would have had better vehicles. Now it's a rare sight for me to see any 79-86 four eyed Mustang. I'd be happy just to own a 79-82 inline 6 hatchback with little or no rust.
Good stuff and a reminder that these two are linked together forever and one makes the other better. However without the Mustang there is no Camaro and I am not sure that can be said in reverse. Ford did not drop the Mustang even when the Camaro was discontinued a few years back and well the Challenger that's a whole different story.
i like both mustangs and camaros i dont understand why ford guys and gm guys go at each others neck, in my opinion the camaro has always been more innovative and has more engineering going on as far as aerodynamics,suspension,and gadgets, but the mustang has always been faster in a striaght line and they have always looked better (except for these 80s stangs they are ugly) i dont like the new camaros they are to fat and ugly i really wish they hadnt dropped the camaro because now the mustangs are waaaaay better and in my opinion before gm dropped the mustang, the camaro was always living up to its name: (a mexican creature that eats mustangs) until of course now, now its just a big fat barge that happens to handle good, i hate it!! ill go out and buy my first mustang
12cwell *chuckle* the Blue Oval and bowtie guys have had a permanent rivalry going for a literall century. Despite Louis Chevrolet's insistence that his namesake should be a high ender like a Packard or other "insert luxury label here" maker, the "great accumulator" debuted the first bowtie at a LOWER price point than the T. other than the occasional Dodge blowing past everybody just to give a rude gesture out the driver's window at the blue oval boys (Dodge got it's start making rear axles for t's!), the race between Chevy and Ford will go on till the death of one or the other.
I like to think about if you could take an eco boost mustang back in time and show people in the 70s and 80s how much power and how fast 4 cylinders are it would blow their mind
Dev RoseHe meant fall of 1982 for the 83 model year. Maybe they were planing the 350's already for 1983. But as we know, the 5.7 liter engine would be available in fall 1986 for the '87 Z28 IROC-Z & Trans Am GTA.
Vin Petrol There wasn't a Corvette for 1983 and i am sure that had a effect on the delay also . Cross-fire Injection for the loss ...................Just kidding .
5.7L / 350" didn't return to F-bodies until mid year, January 1987... except for possibly some magazine tester demonstrators and and some public tester models.... GM was prolly afraid of the weak 9 bolt Australian 7 5/8" rear ends being used...
The horsepower ratings for both vehicles was an improvement, in comparison to what they had in the mid 1970s, I'm sure most of us remember the Mustang II that came out in 1974.. LOL. :)
Man these cars have come a long way in 30 years. The new turbo 4 cylinder versions of the Mustang and Camaro are WAY faster than the V8s in these old dogs. Always fun to see these old reviews, with what was cutting edge back in the day.
The new ones are heavy junk that won't last , in the 70s and 80s they had to meet emission standard. the new ones have to meet safety standard, that make them way to heavy . Take your pick , a car that holds your hand and weighs to much , or one that doesn't need all that power because it isn't heavy . My 88 RS Camaro only weighs just over 1300 kg stock and with all the parts i removed it weighs less than a McLaren p1 . lol at your new cars , I like my old junk , it has character .
+jerry henderson Both generations had to meet both emission and safety standards, both much less stringent in the 80's... But build quality of the new ones are FAR above their 80's counterparts. Longevity and durability will likely be superior as well. But I do agree that the older ones are easier and more fun to modify.
I still remember when i was a camaro freak until the 83 gt came out an was a street terror! Then in 85 a holley carb, 308 gear, standard, dual exhaust roller cammed 302 was really the car to beat! That one of the showroom floor was blowing away camaros left and right! Chevy could not get their shit together. Then the 87 gt and you know the story after that!!! I was turned into a ford fan!
Joe Trout until 1993 when the LT1 came out, camaro has dominated the 90s and early 2000s. the terminator cobra was badass. but gt vs z28/SS the camaros have been faster for a long time
+Richard Kaltenbach Chevy's ads for the Silverado make me never want to own one. They had these ads with snarky remarks about the F150's features, most recently the F150's aluminum body vs their steel, and then they always end up using those features. They resort to name calling like junior high schoolers until they catch up to the F150. They're good trucks but they're juvenile ads are an insult to anybody of intelligence. They have to dog on the F150, and coming from a Sierra owner, the F150 is the better truck, rather than just talking about what makes their truck great.
If I remember right is was not the shitstang in 1987 that was the terror on the streets, it was GMs Buick Grandnational GNX with less 2 cylinders than your Ford that was the fastest production car. Mustangs didn't have a chance against a v6 g body car lmao.
Tony Trombley Do you know how rare the GNX was? Wasn't many sold, so it's not like you had a fear of running into one every day. Besides, a GN was more expensive so with the money saved you could easily make a 5.0 Mustang just as fast. But we're not talking about the GN, everyone knows how badass those are, we're talking about the trailer trash Camaro.
Yes sorta. The 305 sucked, but the 350 is better than the 302. Have you ever wrenched on a 302? It is fucking retarded compared to how easy the Chevy is to work on. I'm 100% serious.
+Nathan McDonald GM choked the shit out of the L98 and LB9. Removing the baffles out of the intake added an instant 20hp to these engines. You can make 300hp out of these engines pretty easily. The L03/L69/LU5 305 engine options in the Camaro gave it a bad rep. GM simply had too many options out there. The L98/LB9 TPI engines are damn good engines with a lot of performance potential. Proper heads/cam/intake can get you in the 350-400hp area.
You underestimate just how much of a performance killer the 3-speed THM would have been. MotorWeek has a similar comparo staged between an automatic+injected Camaro, a high-output manual T/A and a Mustang. The Camaro gets licked by both in the drag race - even the 25-hp-less Ponti.
The 79 Mustang 5.0 (302) had 140hp and also was offered in 80. 81 the 255 V8 replaced the 302 before it came back in 82. I don't think they changed the suspension from 79 to 82. The TRX tires were made from a very hard compound of rubber and they were horrible in panic stops. Near the limit cornering the transition to under steer or oversteer was abrupt. I hated those tires and the fact that those 390mm (15.35") wheels had very few choices of tires available for many years past the mid 80's. I bought a set of new tires/wheels off of an 89 GT Mustang and the difference in tires was night and day. 2nd worst part was the 4 bar link rear suspension that jumped sideways if you hit a bump in a turn. 3rd worst part was the small brakes and 4 bolt lugs. 4th worst was the soft suspension. Why didn't Ford even consider options in the 80s for better tires, brakes and suspension from the factory is beyond me. At least if you own or buy one of these 80s Mustangs the are a lot of aftermarket upgrade parts available.
Absolutely accurate. Still for me, the fox bodies have a certain charm, and so representative of their era. And as you say, today, the aftermarket cures a lot of mistakes and what ifs from the era.
Having owned a '79 Mustang Ghia ----Driven several 1982-'93 Mustang GT's & a '86 SVO Mustang (The best handling version ), I agree with all you typed .
You can see all the emissions equipment jamming the bay of the Mustang (high Tq low HP), and its sprung so very soft, good for normal roads (I'm sure for 90% of the intended buyers) I'm sure those TRX tires were going for fuel economy and emissions in the late 70's early 80's, set of tires, rip off that pollution pump, a bit more fuel and you've got a proper quick car
Kingsoupturbo The TRX tire and wheel package was actually the top performance tire package offered by a few car manufacturers from '79-'87(?). Saab, BMW, and Peugot were among those that offered it. It was considered "the next great breakthrough" (by Michelin and some significant others at least) in high performance tires and rims. The bad thing is you HAD to use TRX tires on those rims. They had a specific bead design that kept you from putting on any other tires.
I ordered a fully loaded black '82 when I was in HS and it took all school year for it to be delivered, but damn was I thrilled to get it! I LOVED that car! Crazy me, after a few weeks, I pulled the emission crap off of it and installed Edelbrock's Performer kit-- IIRC, four barrel 650 Holley, Performer camshaft and manifold. Combine that with new springs/shocks -- lowered an inch or so with Epsilon wheels and Goodyear NCTs it was a pretty fast car. I think my RX7 might beat it to 60 mph (high 4 second car), but it 'might' lose the 1/4 mile. I'm pretty sure it was a lot quicker than my stock '87 GT. The 82's weak point was that stupid wide ratio 4-speed. I blew out the 2nd gear syncro twice.
157 horsepower, and yet it was capable of low-mid -15s with decent tires? Not that it matters today, but I'm thinking the Mustang might've been a little underrated. 180hp/275 torque~maybe. Mid-90's 4.6 GTs were barely able to break into the high-14s, and they made about 225 horsepower. Pathetic by today's standards, but remember - the Escort made around 65-75 horsepower. The turbo Escort, the 80's answer to the Focus ST, made 120 horsepower. One also needs to remember that these cars, even this garbage Camaro, would be the focal point of the renaissance of muscle cars just a few years later, when the 5.0 was putting down 200+horse to the wheels, the Iroc had the TPI 350 with crazy torque, and both were around lower-mid 14s.
i Agree with you to a point. I have drove a 1982 Mustang GT w/4 spd SROD and i owned a 1996 GT . The weight difference between the two is signicant and the performance difference showed.
I owned a 98'. Stock, with the 3.27 gears, I was around 15 flat, occasionally dipping into the high-14s. I'm sure I could've gotten into the low-14s with some ripple-wall slicks or something, and Also, the foxes weighed around 3100lbs. The SN95 GTs weighed around 3250-3300, so not that big of a diff. Tires being equal, you're talking about a full second difference. That's significant enough.
CHRIS MAC Yeah it does. Drop the new 435hp 5.0 in a fox with some drag radials, and you're looking at low-11s...that is, for one or two passes. After that, I doubt the 7.5" rear end or weak 4-speed manual would still be in optimal working condition from the ~400+lbs of torque.
wonder where these cars got max horsepower. My mother had a 5.0 crown vic mid 80s that never felt slow, but I later found out that it was rated at 3200 rpm (140 or 145 hp). This seems almost unbelievable now. Later had a 2.9 ranger, same HP, but rated rpm 4400. regular driving around it felt great. If you got in a long hill and wanted to drop a gear and charge back up to a higher gear, there wasn't really anything there to get in higher rpms.
The 80s were a good time for muscle cars compared to the mid to late 1970s. Cars Illustrated was getting high 13 second quarter mile times were possible in low option 87 Mustang 5.0 5 speeds, 86 T-Type Buicks and TPI Corvettes. The aftermarket and Ford SVO started offering bolt-on parts to put the EFI 5.0 Mustangs into the 12s or better. Ford developed the GT40 package for the EFI 5.0. The 5.0 Explorers and Mountaineers benefitted from heads, intake manifolds and throttle bodies from that package. The 93-95 Mustang Cobra also got most of that package minus the camshaft.
Not really you would add some small mods and they would move! I got into the 11's in a mostly stock 85 gt 5 speed 3:73's with a 100 shot of nitrous! Still quicker than the 4000 lb tanks nowadays
It's amazing America has gone from making these turds (the best cars of the era no less) to making what we do now. 150hp is base model econobox power now.
@@gordocarbo Early mustangs and Capi's with the 5.0 badging had 255 V8's in them. They were junk motors. Ford reintroduced the 302 with a 2bbl in Fox Bodies with 200HP (well 190) and 210 HP with 285 FtLbs of torque. Sounds like you actually had a 255 or your car wasn't running right.
They still haven't found a way to deliver that low end torque that sets your ass back in the seat like a pushrod American Big Block from the magic era 1965 - 1971 regardless what today's advertised HP/TQ numbers are. Go drive a W30 Olds or a 1970 429 Cobra Jet Torino and see how long the grin stays on your face. ;-)
@@scdevon. Yup I agree. My dad had a 71 mach 1 with a 351 Cleveland and a 69 Torino. Not sure what engine the Torino had but they both pulled like hell. Oh I almost forgot the 1970 Buick GS... my dad bought that used in the late 70s. I think it had a 455... another truly awesome car.... I just wish he had passed on those cars to me.
The 305's cam lobes were probably already rounding off in this video, LOL. How hard was it to make good cams in 1982 especially a weak grind like these 1982 cams?
Lol back in 82 things are just about same as today. Mustang killed the Camaro in a drag race then the Camaro make an come back and win on the track. Smh😁
I remember seeing these cars brand-new on the road. We marveled at how powerful they were given the day. I'm still trying to comprehend how these new Camaros have 600-horsepower. I am not quite used to that, but these car is definitely bring back a lot of very fond memories of my youth.
Dana H technology is nice that way and because of it you can get new cars with lots of power and be able to build up a smog choked engine to put up power not seen since the 60s and be even more reliable. And be able to build a 2000hp motor that you could daily drive without issues, if you have a fat enough wallet.
145HP 5.0 liter V8? 19MPG? OMG this is pathetic! But I think those who say no progress has been made should really be thinking about how the power, safety, refinement, and weight have gone up, and the MPGs have as well, maybe not as much as we'd like, but they are still much improved.
That was "Sergeant Slaughter" driving the Mustang and "Ron Jeremy" driving the Camaro!
Lmao good one
is ron the tongue zombie?
Underrated comment!
@@Nobody-xh5qe Motor Week shoulda had a porno 'stache race - who's best in the curves...
For the sake of fairness both drivers were required to sport a moustache. 3:08
+Richard Kaltenbach mmm....some women might be allowed
+Richard Kaltenbach
Women were allowed only if they agreed to free moustache rides!
Pan Damasque 😁
And both looked like they've never seen a racetrack in their lives!!
I'm not sure how they even kept em on the track with those mustaches and high performance car.
The fastest car in America for 1982 with a head snapping 157 horsepower.
made in america
It wasn’t the fastest American car. And you’d be surprised what 160 horses and especially 240 lb ft of torque does with a smaller car. With a 1/4 mile at 15, it’d still beat more than 90% of all current vehicles being manufactured today.
@@joesmith389 better than an suv
Luke Sylvester yes, made in America in 1982. When Europe and Japan were pumping out little 40 hp toy cars that reached 60 mph in about 2 weeks.
Luke Sylvester SUVs normally have larger engines with more hp and torque (more per lb to make up for the towing capacity). As such, they’re usually actually quicker than your normal sedan/etc. Heck you can buy a 500 hp Jeep Grand Cherokee that weighs over 5k lbs and does 0-60 in 4 seconds with a 6.4 liter
A lot of the younger posters don't realize that the competition between these two cars starting early 80's brought back the muscle car and revitalized the market. I owned an 85 Mustang GT, brand new. It was my first new vehicle. It was a ton of fun, more than the 2013 one I have now. The only thing I regret is that the cars back then were reachable and geared towards the young 20's market. Now, they're more refined and cost is just so prohibitive for anyone under 40 most likely.
I sure remember these cars. The Foxbody saved rear wheel drive performance cars in the USA. Just like when the Mustang was first introduced back in the 60's. The right car at the right time.
I had the 88 Saleen. GOD I MISS THAT CAR!
The competition started in 1967, the first model year the Camaro was released. And as always, the most important option was always the nut behind the wheel that made the biggest difference.
Remember when 150 hp felt like a monster? Please upload more of these old retro videos. They bring back tons of memories. I keep looking for cars I've owned.
Yes! When these cars were new they were so fast compared all other cars at the time. Beast mode.
I am 53 and have never owned a car with more than 132hp.
@@suomenpresidentti Live a little while you can still drive!
a pack of marlboro reds on the dash makes the iroc 2 seconds faster
If the driver has a mullet it's a full 10 seconds quicker
Bad DFW Mid-Cities Drivers add a fuckin dale Earnhardt sticker, hell yeah!!
Bad DFW Mid-Cities Drivers just remember to take them off of the dash if you have your windows down and you take a corner.
Duct tape on the drivers' seat and a Van Halen cassette in the radio gives two tenths to your IROC
😂
Shortly after we got Turbo Buick, Turbo Shelbys, and the SVO. The 80's revived itself 85 onward.
32 years later, the battle rages on!
no. camaro is being discontinued
@@wickedhouston5538 His comment was posted 4 years ago...
@@deletdis6173 you want a cookie?
@@wickedhouston5538 ya chocolate chip or an Oreo please and thanx
2021, Camaro is still being produced
I wish you would create a second channel and upload a few of these every week. We know you have vaults full of old car reviews, I don't even care if they are some of the more bland cars, I think people will still enjoy the old school vids!
X2
I second that Accord.. please listen to us MotorWeek!!
SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY MOTORWEEK!!!!!!
Acc0rd79 they serve as good buyers guide for used vehicles
Camaro DIDN'T get the 5.7L/350" in 1983 as was mentioned... not until mid 1987...
I bought an 82 Mustang GT. First one in the city I lived in. I factory ordered it with Recaro seats. It was a real head turner. My F150 eco boost would outrun it now, but in 82 it was the top dog in America
Id rather drive an 82 GT than a new ford truck
Being a foxbody guy, I think the 82 body style is underrated. One of the best looking styles of the 80s Mustangs. My favorite is the 85 86 4 eye though. Something about that open grill.
lftdblazer I really like the 82 front end, it looks aggresive!. Thats why Im planning on getting the 82 air dam on my 86 drop. LMR has one that fits on the 82-86 Foxs.
Whats more gay than your comment is you put Micheal DOUGLAS for your profile picture
🤣
Michael douglas from "falling down". 85-86 is my favorite also. I want a capri coupe with 85-86 front bumper cover. They sadly never made a capri coupe
I tend to agree. But I'm a 4 eye man myself😎
One thing most who slag these off forget ,for the time they were made they were near the top of the tree for handling and performance against most cars.
You are comparing them with todays technology which has obviously been improved.
For their time they were what was allowed down to US car restrictions.So compare them against another stock 82 made car.
They also forget how stupid easy these cars are to hop up.
If I lived in the states I would drive a 80's LS swap Z-28 I just love the look of it.
One of my favorite cars.
I find it hysterical reading all the trash talking on two, 30+ year old cars built during the heavily regulated, pollution control era. The fact of those times was that car company hands were tied, and they still had to turn a profit [it is a business FIRST you know] so R&D doesn't happen overnight. There WERE still some good performers in the 80's however. The Grand National and GNX were street sweepers in the day, the later 5.0's were strong for the era too and Camaro had an affordable 1LE package but only if you ordered it... But truly, to look at the era, just look at Auto racing to see what Detroit was capable of without hands tied. Bill Elliott rocketed his stock car to over 212mph on a closed track then, and the speeds at Indy were rising each year.
Haha, good comments.
People also forget that these cars sold like HOT CAKES. In '86, Camaros and Mustangs sold 400,000 cars combined (excluding the Firebird). There's photos of Ford dealers from that era with something like 100 Mustangs on the lot in a rainbow of colors and trim levels.
Be ashamed, but the cars did what they set out to do - sell really well.
The Merkur and Mustang SVO were arguably better, more high-tech cars, but they didn't sell well and were discontinued.
Yes... Also... See what Dodge had out that year... ZERO...
The GN & GNX's were dogs after a 1/4 mile of pavement. Neither would bust 125 mph top end.
The Dodge Daytona would pass them both on the interstate.
@@danielfair4675It's almost like they were designed for a specific purpose and it wasn't top end... Odd.
That lap in the Mustang looked terrifying! It was bouncing all over the place!
Lol.. the fabulous 80's ...
Like driving a water bed.
LOL exactly...
Because of the ancient rear axle.
Mike Mitchell That’s why so many hot wrapped around trees. They go great in a straight line...
Looks wise, the early 80's Camaros were pretty nice looking cars
All show and no go.
That generation was the best looking Camaro's ever made.
@@sergeantmasson3669 everything in the 80’s was all show and no go except the Grand National if you’re not talking supercars like the 959 and F40. My favorite Camaros are the ‘93-97, and to a lesser extent the ‘98-02 (I prefer the Trans Am in those years) I suppose you always like what you grew up with and couldn’t afford as a teen
@@RobertSmith-le8wp 1981 was the last year that a Pontiac T/A had a Pontiac engine. 1982-2002, Pontiac T/A had SBC engines. Buick G/N , Ford Mustang 5.0 GT, and the Turbo T/A were the only "muscle" caliber cars in the 80's The Turbo T/A used the Buick G/N engine, though. IROC Camaro was supposedly a "muscle" car caliber but it wasn't other than it's looks and sound.
@@sergeantmasson3669 you could just build the motor but stock yea they were pretty slouchey
Summit Point looked so different back then lol. Thanks so much for sharing this Motor Week! Would love to see more vintage '80s material.
I recognized it from a pc video game i used to have. Very surprising and nostalgic to see it in this video.
"Huge 2 barrel carb" lol
+ITRIEDEL
Ford used that lousy 2 barrel carburetor too much. It was a good reliable carburetor for your grandmother's car, but come on......
That 2 barrel still whooped that GM thing, but why was Ford always so stingy with 4 barrel engine options? Even during the muscle car era, you always had to go out of your way to find even a Mustang with a 4 barrel carb under the hood. A Holley 500 4 barrel with vacuum secondaries would have been pure magic as the default carburetor on small block Fords from 1965 to 1973, yet they used that 2 barrel on everything.
+scdevon when they went to the 4bbl in 1986 is when the performance started to open up on the 5.0 stangs. I remember trying to get one of those cars in 1986. I remember people trying to swap onto a 4bbl carb on these Mustangs, and trying to figure out how to still pass emmissions here in Maryland.
+w41duvernay 86 5.0l's didn't have carbs. In 86 is when it went to fuel injection.
+w41duvernay
I heard that 86 GT was a killer. It had over 200 horsepower or so.
+Aussie Noonga the 86's were kind of slow. 85's were faster. In 87 is when they became terrors
I wanted a Mustang GT soooooo bad but I was barely 18 and the insurance was insane. Even with only 157 horses it still felt and sounded so great to drive!
old post but yeah insurance back then was insane!! At 19 I was quoted 350 a mo for liability only. Had to drive for yrs without it just couldnt pay rent bills and ins on the wages back then.
Vega on blocks and no wheels on the side of racecourse: priceless...
it's natural habitat
@5:29 if anyone missed it.
@@billschlafly4107 Thank you. Given that location it looks like they're there as a crash barrier, which is a perfect use for those things.
I had an '82 Mustang and loved it. It was reliable and tough.
I remember being in high school and I was so confused when a cavalier z24 smoked this guys gorgeous iroc. Then you do some research and realize these 80s "muscle cars" had about as much power as a 4 banger of the 2000s
The metric Michelin TRX's on the Mustang were expensive and didn't last long. One of the first upgrades I did to my 83 GT was to get rid of them.
The scariest things about the video is the comments. It is obvious the ages of commenters is between 12-18.
I would guess around 30 to 40. That is the age group who would remember these cars......
+ztwntyn8 I have owned a few of these cars and it's apparent a lot of the commentors have never even say in one and sound childish, which is why I stand behind my age assessment for these keyboard drivers . lol
gotchya and agree.
+kjz28 I'm 18 but I respect all the cars in the car reviews. Cars have came a long way and I like learning about how cars used to be when I wasn't around
I am glad you are level headed and objective about it. Most of the people posting comments are not. These cars are fun, and with help of today's technology and performance parts they are pretty awesome by even today's standards.
I like Mustangs but the Camaro was so much better looking back then.
Super Kyle
Still is. The Rustang has always been Fugly since it’s 2nd or 3rd generation.
145 hp hahahaha
Super Kyle The Camaro looked like shit !! Mustang all the way.😎
@@CobraChipper i love mustang but camaro is better than mustang for look until 2005
Christian Sarrazin The mustang looked meaner !! And really easy to modify !😎
It's funny how times haven't changed. The bigger and slower camaro still outhandles the better power to weight mustang.
The Mustang is too light for its own good.
Still does to this day 😂
@@dariog36th Newer mustangs are anything but light
Thanks for bringing this one back Ben!This was the 1st episode of MW that I ever watched.
Here in Ontario, I bought a brand new silver GT in the fall of 82 and paid $10,508!! Only options were cloth seats and Premium sound, no A/C...wonderful car..owned it for 5 years. No diff or trans issues. Upgraded to 220/55r390 TRX's when the others wore out. I still to this day wonder what ever became of it...
I love the look of the 82 gt. I remember them rusting and oxidized by 86 when I got my 85 svo.
Red 80s Fords would fade to a gross looking dark pinkish color within a few years
This is the era when I was in high school and the cool kids had 60s and early 70s muscle cars. I don't remember much interest in the early 80s American "performance" cars. The focus was on Japanese cars like the Datsun 280 ZX, Toyota Supra, & Mazda RX-7 which were much more fun to drive. It is amazing to see how far auto engineering and technology has evolved from the dark days of the late 70s through the 80s. We can get a high performance Mustang, Camaro or Challenger that handles far better, pollutes far less, has crazy horse power combined with good gas mileage on sale today. We are living in the best of times with performance cars. Thanks MotorWeek for this Throwback Thursday classic showdown.
Too bad there isn't more options like in the 70s
Should have done the Pinto Motor vs Iron Duke, just for laughs
Stripped of it's smog stuff, and with performance items added, that 2.0 liter four in the Pintos was a great engine.... just in the wrong car. You needed an early 70's Capri with a 4 speed, and it was quite a car/engine combo.
I still own my 1982 Mustang GT I bought band new. It no longer sports the 157 hp or the original 302. It now has a 351W stroker to 392 CI. Still love the iconic car.
Car people: we live in a very, VERY good time to be a performance enthusiast
5 years later* epa be like “yea well see”. Go sign the rpm act everyone
As long as you have $45,000 or better to drop..
I still think the 90’s were the best performance to dollar ratio. I recall in either 95 or 96 you could get a Camaro Z28 for around $17,500 to $18,000 with the very respectable LT1 and a T56 6 speed. My buddy bought a 1 year old at the time 1996 Mustang GT convertible . I think it had 15,000 miles and he paid around $14,500. Even adjusted for inflation that’s not too bad. Only 215hp but with a manual it was a lot of fun. He added an X pipe and some kind of cat back exhaust. I remember it sounded really good. It got smoked by LT1’s and just about every Fox body we raced. We had another friend with an almost identical 1994 5.0. We raced to over 140 and he won pretty handily
Not necessarily. I had a ton of fun in the early and late 1980's. 245 hp was massive, and a hoot to drive. There was plenty of character and drama in the mid-80's Buicks and Mustangs. The excitement was in the fact that the chassis weren't designed for that power. Today with all the refinements, 500hp is nearly boring. Bring on the electrics......similar character, which means none. It's not about just going fast, its how its done.
It’s all electric, though.
I've always loved John, Pat and the MotorWeek crew. God love you guys!
I love these thanks for uploading them! Great fun to watch, please keep them coming!
16 seconds is what my 85 Monte Carlo SS ran. It wasn't too fast, but sure was fun. I wish I still had it.
Back then, under 18 was quick and under 15 seconds down the quarter was serious business.
This was the restart of the muscle car horsepower wars continued to this day!
I bought a brand new dark blue Z28 in 82, still think it was a great looking car (and for the day was fairly quick).
Those mustangs looked like an overgrown ford escort
Get some glasses ?
Yeah those Fox Bodies never looked very sporty IMO, especially when the GM stuff looked so fighter jet-ish
The 3rd gen Mustang almost looks like a Japanese car. The 3rd gen Camaros and Firebirds look much better - slicker and better proportioned (and this comes from a fan of the first generation of this rivalry and also from a fan of the 1977 Pontiac Trans Am, with the best looking front and rear ends of the whole production run, especially in the Special Edition with the gold pinstriping).
I didn't even know they were Mustangs till I was 20 years old... in 2002! Grew up going to car shows and races, but always figured they were generic econo-cars. No pony badges, very boxy and upright. When I first found out, I just started laughing. Camaro and Firebird looked lightyears better those years (and I've since owned 3 Mustangs).
@transrus1 the back looked very similar given that both were hatchbacks, and there was an Escort EXP at the time that looked like a fox body knockoff. No one here needs glasses but you.
this video puts a pleasant smile on my face. this was the start of some very fun years for both of these cars. thanks, mw! =)
Wow. A 157 hp V8 Mustang that was muscle car back in the day. You could drop the current day basic Mustang V6 into it and double the horsepower and gas mileage.
joeuncoolio Thanks captain obvious
That was a good laugh. This really shows how rapidly cars have progressed.
Gotta love these old shows
The Ralph Nader Jimmy Carter race is on! Lol thank God we had Reagan.
These cars were such dogs. I'm glad this era is long over. The 302 had some potential, but the 305 was always a dog.
+hartsickdisciple You can easily make a 305 quick, but people just always go for a 350 instead. It's the opposite with Ford, the smaller 302 was more popular in the Mustang because it was more of a handling car rather than straight line muscle car. The 305 can use the same mods as a 350 but rev a bit higher, and it has nearly the same torque with the same crank.
Another thing is how people hate on the old GM Crossfire injection. With a high flowing intake, they actually made more power and torque than the TPI engines. There are a couple aftermarket intakes for them, and they're quick if you use them. It was the intake that held them back, they were great engines with tons of low end.
snakesonaplane2 One of my best friends had a 305 in his Monte Carlo SS. He did everything imaginable to it, short of forced induction, and it barely ran high 13's on drag radials. He put a warmed-over 350 in the same car and it immediately ran mid 12's.
hartsickdisciple A 350 with the same spec parts as a 305 will make more power, but a 305 is still a good engine, they're not worthless junk like some people think. I'd much rather have a 305 vs a 4.3 V6.
+hartsickdisciple not so 1991s z28 305 had a decent hp level but then they killed it off the moment they got it right
Hot80s 230 hp. Not exactly setting the world on fire for a 305 cubic inch engine.
love that 82 gt! stylish as hell for that time, cast iron intake, 2bbl carb, louvers on back, true dual exhaust didn't come out till next year or two.
Dual exhaust in the holley 4 barreled 1985 gt
actually, it was an alum. intake. I thinks mines still in the top of the garage. I know the air cleaner is still there, saw it the other day.
😎
@@Joetrout The 85 had a Y pipe that went to dual mufflers and tailpipes. In 1986 the 5.0 got the 4 cat H pipe feeding into those dual mufflers.
I had an 84 Mustang with a 165 hp 5.0. EFI and I was treated well by other drivers. They would pull up next to me on the road point to the 5.0 badging and give me a big thumbs up. It was a fun car but had mechanical issues from time to time.
Same here!
I had an 82 mustang GT in Hawaii, it had an edelbrock intake with a holly 660 4 barrel carb. It was Fun! And I averaged 20mpg. same color too!
and this mustang was a great improvement over the Model T!!!!
It’s amazing how HP has increased through the years!
It took a while for the American manufacturers to get the fuel injection right, to cope with the smog regulations. In '82, they were still struggling with carbs.
today we get a family sedan producing 1100 hp (Tesla Plaid) and running a 9.2 quarter mile...... insane
It was for the end of the oil crisis, there were around 500hp pick ups, sedans and coupes in the 60s.
@@agusw4720 Which truck had 500hp from the dealer? none
@@gordocarbo look up for the real power of the Chevrolet chevelle 454 and not the oficial one, you will be amazed
Glad to see bubbles as a motorweek test driver!
I really enjoyed this old school car video. Thanks.
I like the Mustang. Quite beautiful.
now a days when people see that model of mustang they think its some shitty grandma car that belongs to some homeless guy. the camaro still stands out.
+ONEMUNEEB I liked the Camaro and that Firebird, but in pre-1982 generation. '60s looks shitty to me. Late 70's Firebird and Camaro I consider to be the most desirable American cars. Then comes the '80s Mustang. I also love the 1984 Fiero. Corvette C4 is also my favorite Corvette generation. 1982 Camaro is not bad, but it doesn't have the charisma and beauty of the generation just prior to that. The latest generation Camaro is a caricature of a car. Something I would've drawn when I was 5. And I am not proud of my drawings at that age.
yeah 80s and 70s firebirds are pretty nice. i like the 80s one better because of the pop ups. But at the same time i like the 70s bandit one as well. too bad its not a special car, no one really likes them. They were never sold as a super sporty car, they were for those who couldnt afford sporty cars. And most that I see around now a days seem as if they went through a tornado. Ive seen some nice clean ones at car shows though.
+ONEMUNEEB I like the pre-pop up headlights Firebird. In fact the one generation before the Smokey and the Bandit Trans Am edition. I totally dislike anything '60s though. Those things are very ugly.
just buy a vw and slap a mustang badge on it then
I love both of these cars, and especially the Mustang. But it's shocking how atrocious the 'stang looks around the course!
I have an '83 'vert, and love it, but it's definitely not a modern car. I made a point of looking for one with better brakes and suspension (no panhard bar, but control arms and springs/shocks). It's a terrible car in many ways (tiring to drive and I couldn't count the rattles, lol!) but it totally brings a smile to my face. It's also been a lot of fun to work on it - so many parts for cheap, and everything's so simple and accessible, and I've learned a lot.
Laugh if you will at the HP ratings, but nice Foxes and 3rd Gen Camaros are starting to appreciate in value. Also, the 3rd gen Camaros are impressive handling cars; I've seen one post the fastest time of day at the autocross...
Man this brings back memories! I had a 1984 Z28 with 165 HP and did the quarter at Maple Grove Drag way at 85MPH! My Chevy Volt can do that now and get 200 MPGE (LOL) The dealer told me no changes for 1985 which was a lie. They came out with the 5.7 tune port injected engine. I was kicking myself the entire year they released that car for not waiting.
I forgot, that SROD 4 speed was a weak point too. The ratios was like a 5 speed with 3rd gear missing. In town driving at 30mph my 79 Pace Car was either revving too high in 2nd gear or bogging it in 3rd which is a 1:1 ratio. The external shift linkage bolted to side of the transmission case with special shoulder bolts that were metric. I had bolts fall out on a trip out of state. No bolts could be found in 1987 even though they still used that tranny half way through the 1983 model year.
Also for the TRX tires, they came on the 1st Ferrari Testarossa's. I think the rim size was 415mm which is 16.34". TRX wheels also came on some Escorts in 360mm which is 14.17". Ford must have been really short on cash at that time, otherwise I'd think they would have had better vehicles. Now it's a rare sight for me to see any 79-86 four eyed Mustang. I'd be happy just to own a 79-82 inline 6 hatchback with little or no rust.
Good stuff and a reminder that these two are linked together forever and one makes the other better. However without the Mustang there is no Camaro and I am not sure that can be said in reverse. Ford did not drop the Mustang even when the Camaro was discontinued a few years back and well the Challenger that's a whole different story.
i like both mustangs and camaros i dont understand why ford guys and gm guys go at each others neck, in my opinion the camaro has always been more innovative and has more engineering going on as far as aerodynamics,suspension,and gadgets, but the mustang has always been faster in a striaght line and they have always looked better (except for these 80s stangs they are ugly) i dont like the new camaros they are to fat and ugly i really wish they hadnt dropped the camaro because now the mustangs are waaaaay better and in my opinion before gm dropped the mustang, the camaro was always living up to its name: (a mexican creature that eats mustangs) until of course now, now its just a big fat barge that happens to handle good, i hate it!! ill go out and buy my first mustang
before gm dropped the camaro. not mustang XD
12cwell
*chuckle* the Blue Oval and bowtie guys have had a permanent rivalry going for a literall century. Despite Louis Chevrolet's insistence that his namesake should be a high ender like a Packard or other "insert luxury label here" maker, the "great accumulator" debuted the first bowtie at a LOWER price point than the T. other than the occasional Dodge blowing past everybody just to give a rude gesture out the driver's window at the blue oval boys (Dodge got it's start making rear axles for t's!), the race between Chevy and Ford will go on till the death of one or the other.
That's right bud!!!
I like to think about if you could take an eco boost mustang back in time and show people in the 70s and 80s how much power and how fast 4 cylinders are it would blow their mind
I was born in 1981. Mustang for the win because drag time always beats track time in the good ol USA. I’m a camaro fan at heart by the way.
Thats amazing how far things have come
5.7 liter coming next fall in 1983? What happened? Did he mean the fall of 1987? lol
Dev RoseHe meant fall of 1982 for the 83 model year. Maybe they were planing the 350's already for 1983. But as we know, the 5.7 liter engine would be available in fall 1986 for the '87 Z28 IROC-Z & Trans Am GTA.
Vin Petrol There wasn't a Corvette for 1983 and i am sure that had a effect on the delay also . Cross-fire Injection for the loss ...................Just kidding .
5.7L / 350" didn't return to F-bodies until mid year, January 1987... except for possibly some magazine tester demonstrators and and some public tester models.... GM was prolly afraid of the weak 9 bolt Australian 7 5/8" rear ends being used...
Ahhhh.....the choked up, fuel starved, high emission hot rods of the 80's. I don't miss em
George McFly all you need is your 5 series Beemer freshly double waxed by Biff
George McFly I don’t miss them either..
Early 1970's far worse!
The horsepower ratings for both vehicles was an improvement, in comparison to what they had in the mid 1970s, I'm sure most of us remember the Mustang II that came out in 1974.. LOL. :)
Man these cars have come a long way in 30 years. The new turbo 4 cylinder versions of the Mustang and Camaro are WAY faster than the V8s in these old dogs. Always fun to see these old reviews, with what was cutting edge back in the day.
The new ones are heavy junk that won't last , in the 70s and 80s they had to meet emission standard. the new ones have to meet safety standard, that make them way to heavy . Take your pick , a car that holds your hand and weighs to much , or one that doesn't need all that power because it isn't heavy . My 88 RS Camaro only weighs just over 1300 kg stock and with all the parts i removed it weighs less than a McLaren p1 . lol at your new cars , I like my old junk , it has character .
+jerry henderson
Both generations had to meet both emission and safety standards, both much less stringent in the 80's...
But build quality of the new ones are FAR above their 80's counterparts.
Longevity and durability will likely be superior as well.
But I do agree that the older ones are easier and more fun to modify.
I still remember when i was a camaro freak until the 83 gt came out an was a street terror! Then in 85 a holley carb, 308 gear, standard, dual exhaust roller cammed 302 was really the car to beat! That one of the showroom floor was blowing away camaros left and right! Chevy could not get their shit together. Then the 87 gt and you know the story after that!!! I was turned into a ford fan!
Joe Trout until 1993 when the LT1 came out, camaro has dominated the 90s and early 2000s. the terminator cobra was badass. but gt vs z28/SS the camaros have been faster for a long time
Yeah But Nowadays Everybody Has To Answer To The Chevrolet SILVERADO👿👿👿!!!
+Richard Kaltenbach Chevy's ads for the Silverado make me never want to own one. They had these ads with snarky remarks about the F150's features, most recently the F150's aluminum body vs their steel, and then they always end up using those features. They resort to name calling like junior high schoolers until they catch up to the F150. They're good trucks but they're juvenile ads are an insult to anybody of intelligence. They have to dog on the F150, and coming from a Sierra owner, the F150 is the better truck, rather than just talking about what makes their truck great.
If I remember right is was not the shitstang in 1987 that was the terror on the streets, it was GMs Buick Grandnational GNX with less 2 cylinders than your Ford that was the fastest production car. Mustangs didn't have a chance against a v6 g body car lmao.
Tony Trombley Do you know how rare the GNX was? Wasn't many sold, so it's not like you had a fear of running into one every day. Besides, a GN was more expensive so with the money saved you could easily make a 5.0 Mustang just as fast. But we're not talking about the GN, everyone knows how badass those are, we're talking about the trailer trash Camaro.
The 302 always was better than the 305.
Yes sorta. The 305 sucked, but the 350 is better than the 302. Have you ever wrenched on a 302? It is fucking retarded compared to how easy the Chevy is to work on. I'm 100% serious.
+Ian Thompson
A 5.0 Ford? Hard to work on? You'd go into a psychological emergency if you spent any time working on the newer crap that's out there.
scdevon Its harder than an SBC for sure... But yes, newer crap sucks! generally... I find Subarus to be very easy..
+Nathan McDonald GM choked the shit out of the L98 and LB9. Removing the baffles out of the intake added an instant 20hp to these engines. You can make 300hp out of these engines pretty easily. The L03/L69/LU5 305 engine options in the Camaro gave it a bad rep. GM simply had too many options out there. The L98/LB9 TPI engines are damn good engines with a lot of performance potential. Proper heads/cam/intake can get you in the 350-400hp area.
+Ian Thompson i bet its easier to swap out the distributor in a 302 than a 350 chevy!
I love my 82 GT
KEEP THESE COMING !!! 1983 Mustang GT vs 1983 Camaro Z/28 was even better.
The fuel injected Camaro made more power than the Mustang in this test. Even with the automatic, it probably would have been faster.
You underestimate just how much of a performance killer the 3-speed THM would have been. MotorWeek has a similar comparo staged between an automatic+injected Camaro, a high-output manual T/A and a Mustang. The Camaro gets licked by both in the drag race - even the 25-hp-less Ponti.
The 79 Mustang 5.0 (302) had 140hp and also was offered in 80. 81 the 255 V8 replaced the 302 before it came back in 82. I don't think they changed the suspension from 79 to 82. The TRX tires were made from a very hard compound of rubber and they were horrible in panic stops. Near the limit cornering the transition to under steer or oversteer was abrupt. I hated those tires and the fact that those 390mm (15.35") wheels had very few choices of tires available for many years past the mid 80's. I bought a set of new tires/wheels off of an 89 GT Mustang and the difference in tires was night and day. 2nd worst part was the 4 bar link rear suspension that jumped sideways if you hit a bump in a turn. 3rd worst part was the small brakes and 4 bolt lugs. 4th worst was the soft suspension. Why didn't Ford even consider options in the 80s for better tires, brakes and suspension from the factory is beyond me. At least if you own or buy one of these 80s Mustangs the are a lot of aftermarket upgrade parts available.
Totally correct observations . I have owned or drove several foxbody mustangs '79-'93 model years and what you describe is true of them all.
Absolutely accurate. Still for me, the fox bodies have a certain charm, and so representative of their era.
And as you say, today, the aftermarket cures a lot of mistakes and what ifs from the era.
Having owned a '79 Mustang Ghia ----Driven several 1982-'93 Mustang GT's & a '86 SVO Mustang (The best handling version ), I agree with all you typed .
You can see all the emissions equipment jamming the bay of the Mustang (high Tq low HP), and its sprung so very soft, good for normal roads (I'm sure for 90% of the intended buyers) I'm sure those TRX tires were going for fuel economy and emissions in the late 70's early 80's, set of tires, rip off that pollution pump, a bit more fuel and you've got a proper quick car
Kingsoupturbo The TRX tire and wheel package was actually the top performance tire package offered by a few car manufacturers from '79-'87(?). Saab, BMW, and Peugot were among those that offered it. It was considered "the next great breakthrough" (by Michelin and some significant others at least) in high performance tires and rims. The bad thing is you HAD to use TRX tires on those rims. They had a specific bead design that kept you from putting on any other tires.
Wow! I remember these cars brand new!!!
I ordered a fully loaded black '82 when I was in HS and it took all school year for it to be delivered, but damn was I thrilled to get it! I LOVED that car! Crazy me, after a few weeks, I pulled the emission crap off of it and installed Edelbrock's Performer kit-- IIRC, four barrel 650 Holley, Performer camshaft and manifold. Combine that with new springs/shocks -- lowered an inch or so with Epsilon wheels and Goodyear NCTs it was a pretty fast car. I think my RX7 might beat it to 60 mph (high 4 second car), but it 'might' lose the 1/4 mile. I'm pretty sure it was a lot quicker than my stock '87 GT. The 82's weak point was that stupid wide ratio 4-speed. I blew out the 2nd gear syncro twice.
4:00 - Looks like flames LOL
157 horsepower, and yet it was capable of low-mid -15s with decent tires?
Not that it matters today, but I'm thinking the Mustang might've been a little underrated. 180hp/275 torque~maybe. Mid-90's 4.6 GTs were barely able to break into the high-14s, and they made about 225 horsepower.
Pathetic by today's standards, but remember - the Escort made around 65-75 horsepower. The turbo Escort, the 80's answer to the Focus ST, made 120 horsepower. One also needs to remember that these cars, even this garbage Camaro, would be the focal point of the renaissance of muscle cars just a few years later, when the 5.0 was putting down 200+horse to the wheels, the Iroc had the TPI 350 with crazy torque, and both were around lower-mid 14s.
i Agree with you to a point. I have drove a 1982 Mustang GT w/4 spd SROD and i owned a 1996 GT . The weight difference between the two is signicant and the performance difference showed.
I owned a 98'. Stock, with the 3.27 gears, I was around 15 flat, occasionally dipping into the high-14s. I'm sure I could've gotten into the low-14s with some ripple-wall slicks or something, and Also, the foxes weighed around 3100lbs. The SN95 GTs weighed around 3250-3300, so not that big of a diff. Tires being equal, you're talking about a full second difference. That's significant enough.
Yeah but 240 lbs-torque is pretty decent.
Dr.Beef With a updated Fox4
chassis , air bags , computers , abs , larger and heavier modular 4.6 V-8 etc , the weight adds up quickly.
CHRIS MAC Yeah it does. Drop the new 435hp 5.0 in a fox with some drag radials, and you're looking at low-11s...that is, for one or two passes. After that, I doubt the 7.5" rear end or weak 4-speed manual would still be in optimal working condition from the ~400+lbs of torque.
wonder where these cars got max horsepower. My mother had a 5.0 crown vic mid 80s that never felt slow, but I later found out that it was rated at 3200 rpm (140 or 145 hp). This seems almost unbelievable now. Later had a 2.9 ranger, same HP, but rated rpm 4400. regular driving around it felt great. If you got in a long hill and wanted to drop a gear and charge back up to a higher gear, there wasn't really anything there to get in higher rpms.
I'm not going to lie, it was hard watching that drag race.
man the 80'where a bad time for cars
1976 - 1984 were probably the worst in terms of performance.
Early 1970's vastly worse!
@@BuzzLOLOL not 1970-73.
@@BuzzLOLOL Nah early 70's were good. it was mid 70's when it started to get back. around 74.
The 80s were a good time for muscle cars compared to the mid to late 1970s. Cars Illustrated was getting high 13 second quarter mile times were possible in low option 87 Mustang 5.0 5 speeds, 86 T-Type Buicks and TPI Corvettes. The aftermarket and Ford SVO started offering bolt-on parts to put the EFI 5.0 Mustangs into the 12s or better. Ford developed the GT40 package for the EFI 5.0. The 5.0 Explorers and Mountaineers benefitted from heads, intake manifolds and throttle bodies from that package. The 93-95 Mustang Cobra also got most of that package minus the camshaft.
'82 GT, the first Mustang I ever owned. Great car back then, but laughable by today's standards.
Hi Output on a 302, 2V, BEATING the Z/28, AH THE MEMORIES, LOL.
I got a 1984 and I love it, Eldebrock Carb, Msd ignition, aluminum heads, and bald tires from burnouts! 😂🤣
those were sad days for cars
Not really you would add some small mods and they would move! I got into the 11's in a mostly stock 85 gt 5 speed 3:73's with a 100 shot of nitrous! Still quicker than the 4000 lb tanks nowadays
The dark ages of American cars. 1974 to roughly 1990.
1974 through 1985 were flat out depressing.
ynical these cars were so choked down, literally every mod made power you could feel. these cars are the reason theres an aftermarket today
What a sad time for cars. Both of those cars would get smoked by any base model 2016 car with a 4-cylinder.
Need? Who buys a muscle car based on needs? They're all about desire. Hehe.
It's amazing America has gone from making these turds (the best cars of the era no less) to making what we do now. 150hp is base model econobox power now.
Obviously
I like how ford redesigned the front end to its own style in 83' and left this front end with the Mercury Capri.
I had an orange 5.0 Capri back in the day. Talk about a turd...a 305 tpi would eat its lunch
@@gordocarbo Early mustangs and Capi's with the 5.0 badging had 255 V8's in them. They were junk motors. Ford reintroduced the 302 with a 2bbl in Fox Bodies with 200HP (well 190) and 210 HP with 285 FtLbs of torque.
Sounds like you actually had a 255 or your car wasn't running right.
Amazing that now you can get 455 hp from a base 2019 v8 camaro, and 460 hp from a mustang GT. American muscle is back!
And a 300 HP four cylinder in a regular Mustang
They still haven't found a way to deliver that low end torque that sets your ass back in the seat like a pushrod American Big Block from the magic era 1965 - 1971 regardless what today's advertised HP/TQ numbers are. Go drive a W30 Olds or a 1970 429 Cobra Jet Torino and see how long the grin stays on your face. ;-)
@@scdevon. Yup I agree. My dad had a 71 mach 1 with a 351 Cleveland and a 69 Torino. Not sure what engine the Torino had but they both pulled like hell. Oh I almost forgot the 1970 Buick GS... my dad bought that used in the late 70s. I think it had a 455... another truly awesome car.... I just wish he had passed on those cars to me.
My dream car is a camaro iroc z
+MyRaptorz LOL, you mean nightmare??
+MyRaptorz Your dream must include fixing the thing more than you drive it. Those cars are notorious for quite literally falling apart around you.
+Adam Kadmon your an idiot, I have only owned irocs and none of them fell apart whatsoever, and I thrash on them.
+lokihallow That's all you ever drive?
+Clark W it's all I have owned, I have driven many other cars, but I love third gens, it's just my thing
A HUGE 2 barrel carb!
All you got to do is port and polish the heads , add an aggressive cam & put headers on either of these cars and be making plenty of respectable hp.
The 305's cam lobes were probably already rounding off in this video, LOL. How hard was it to make good cams in 1982 especially a weak grind like these 1982 cams?
Lol back in 82 things are just about same as today. Mustang killed the Camaro in a drag race then the Camaro make an come back and win on the track. Smh😁
Still would take the stang
Stang all day long.
+Mr. R. Jones Not anymore. The new GT350R just pecker-slapped the new Z/28, wholesale.
Swervin309 yes sir the 350R murdered the Z/28
+Swervin309 Hellcat Challenger
I love these retro reviews ... a 2018 Camry is probably faster than either of these by a sizable margin.
Youre kidding right?
Ill take either car in the vid over having to drive a grandma car
awesome vid, thanks!
I remember seeing these cars brand-new on the road. We marveled at how powerful they were given the day. I'm still trying to comprehend how these new Camaros have 600-horsepower. I am not quite used to that, but these car is definitely bring back a lot of very fond memories of my youth.
Dana H technology is nice that way and because of it you can get new cars with lots of power and be able to build up a smog choked engine to put up power not seen since the 60s and be even more reliable. And be able to build a 2000hp motor that you could daily drive without issues, if you have a fat enough wallet.
@2:24 - 2:41 I can barely hear the V8 revving behind John's words! That's a shame, because it sounds good even with all its 145hp!
That mustang look it was bouncing around a lot.
I had a 1982 Z28. The crossfire injection sounded mean. My daughter’s 2.0 VW Beetle would leave it behind. It was a fun car though.
80 and 81 it was 255 cubic inch v8 lot of folks don't realize that, gt returned in 82, love to have one
145HP 5.0 liter V8? 19MPG? OMG this is pathetic! But I think those who say no progress has been made should really be thinking about how the power, safety, refinement, and weight have gone up, and the MPGs have as well, maybe not as much as we'd like, but they are still much improved.
2:06 that mustang looks MEAN!?!?! How does that look more mean then the camaro?
The third gen camaro definitely makes a great ls swap project!
Pretty neat that this was fillmed just outside where i live