I was talking to a guy at work the other day, and the topic of cars came up, and he recently got an '04 Mustang GT. So during our discussion he was dogging on the F-body, and he admitted that I'd spank him in a drag race, but he bought the car for the handling not for drag racing.

So my question is do the GTs really handle any better than an F-body? I was under the impression that they both handled fairly equally, both are addequate and both can be improved on. I don't hear much talk about the rustangs handling, so I don't know much about them.

What is your feeling, knowledge, and/or experience with them handling wise in comparison to an F-body?

Its interesting he should say that. There are a lot of people on this site that could comment on this more qualified than myself, and of course if you were talking about modified cars that would be a whole different discussion, but I think you are talking about factory cars. All I can say is that I have read just about every article in hot rod, car and driver, road and track etc that compared mustang to camaro (and that's a lot). Most of them copped out on choosing one or the other as an overall winner, but most in the end said something like if they had to live with one evey day, they would choose the mustang, if they had to take one to the track, they'd take the f-bod. It would be interesting to just do a search and find factory skid pad numbers on each, track times (I know they are out there- and I think the camaro is persistently faster on the track) etc and have some numbers. I think because the mustang seating position, and suspension set up cater more to the average driver (this has been commented on as one of the major reasons the mustang has better sales, has survived etc) while the camaro has been more focused on performance (tigher suspension, less forgiving ride, more aggresive seating position - hense less sales to the general public). So I guess I don't know why he would say that, unless of course he just doesnt know what he is talking about. You could just get some numbers and hand them to him, along with his as*.

Weight , weight and weght. How much less does the M car weigh?

Steve

LOL! I have never heard of anyone buying a Mustang over an F-body for handling! My experience with driving one on the street was in a V6 auto version I rented, which was a poor excuse for a car both handling and power-wise. At least the F-bod V6 had power and handled decently. I am sure the V8 Mustang version is an improvement over what I drove, I did not like the seating position as well as the F-bod as far as performance went though. The Mustang is toned down to make it more palatable for the banal masses, this is why it survives.

In racing they push more than F-bods and I am told it takes more skill to drive one at the limit as they are also less forgiving than F-bods. In CMC we usually have less mods than folks on the street, so that is probably pretty "real" in the street sense. Most of my info comes from a buddy who has raced in and won consistenly with both marques. To the give F*rd credit, he did say that set-up of them was more tricky, however, once you got it driving it was sweet.

When it comes down to it, it is more expensive to set up a Mustang to handle than an F-bod, which is pretty good right out of the box as we all know here!

(IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/burnout.gif)

Let me put it this way, handling wise a Mustang:

1. Is the only car I know of that you can lower and actually make it handle worse.
2. Has a crappy 4 link rear suspension straight off a 79 Ford Fairmont station wagon
3. Has a rear swaybar that doesn't attach to the chassis anywhere

That said they can be made to handle pretty well, but it takes alot of $$$ to get there. Were as we only really need to tweak our suspension they practically have to re-engineer theirs.

The 05's look to be a vast improvement though.

... the '05 is a biiggg improvement. They're about like our suspension is now.

The '05 GT will be this years 'bang for the buck' car, like our F-body was years ago.

All I can say is that the Mustang guys switch over from a 4 link to a F-body (torque arm) suspension. That's kind of like admitting we're better, no?

Brakes are also important to any good handling car... have you seen the rear rotors on Mustangs? I've seen bigger donuts! (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rotf.gif)

The rear suspension on the "NEW and IMPROVED" 05 Mustang is straight out of a Camaro. Griggs racing has made a lot of money selling torque arms and panhard rods to Fox bodied Mustang owners in an effort to get their cars to handle as well as an F body. Back in 89 I bought an LX Mustang over the Camaro of the day but it was for a better power/wgt ratio, not the handling. Now I own an LT1 and yes it handles better than any Mustang (stock) and is much faster on the track. Any guy who claims that a Fox bodied Mustang can outhandle a stock Camaro/Firebird doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

Surely the reason for crappy sales ( although 55 to 60,000 per year doesn't sound like crap to me) likely had something to do with the minimal to non existant advertising budget the General spared for the F body cars. Too bad GM. You don't make anything for me now. ( Need 4 seats so no vette and can't afford a CTS-V). Hopefully the new Mustang will be a good car. At least we know it has an OK rear suspension.

The '05 Mustang has a 3 link with a panhard bar, but no torque arm so it isn't a direct copy of ours. Close, yes, but not directly out of our cars.

All you have to do to answer this question is look at the CMC rules. First we restrict the Fbodies down to Mustang power levels, and then we still penalize the Fbodies with 125lbs! Out of the box, as you bought them, the Camaro was leaps and bounds better performing than the Mustang (cobras aside since they were considerably more expensive).

Obvious question...

Even though it's been 10 years since the 4th gen emerged, why is the Mustang AX / RR community still so strong?

When the 3rd gen was still in production, the only fundamental suspension difference was in the rear. But then the 4th gen emerged with a double front a-arm design. You would think that most serious gearheads and racers would look at the two platforms and switch to the F-body... especially when the price of buying a used vehicle is about the same for both. But instead, sites like corner-carvers give me the impression that Mustangs are still raced FAR more than F-bodies.

Is it just because of greater overall Mustang sales? Or am I missing something?

Pluses for the Mustang:
cheaper car
more cars out there
larger following
cheaper parts....ala more of them out there
more people that WANT to make parts for them
Fox body cars are way easier to make lighter than a F car
easy to work on
conversion to carbs doesn't require windshield modification
more tranny choices
stronger stock rearend

Where do you wanna quit....if you laid it out all on paper the Mustang is a damn good car to start off with. Not only that they have proved themselves to be pretty damn good at just about everything. Is it perfect....no...but it isn't hard to make one close to being perfect.




*Note
Yes I still own a camaro...and yes I still like them. Just saying its a lot more cost effective to own a Mustang.

I made the jump after owning three mustangs, but only because of luck. I was looking for an 01 Cobra, but I came accross my 99. How often do you find a low miles, hardtop, six speed car on Thanksgiving? (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I have a very understanding wife.

Anyway, when it comes to making the decision, I think it comes down to popularity and perception. Most people don't get a mustang thinking they're going to go autocrossing. It happens somewhere down the line. So people go with what they know and usually they upgrade from a GT to a Cobra, because they think the Cobra is a better autocrosser.

In the hands of a good driver, a Mustang can do quite well, as we have all seen, but the F-body is faster, especially on good race tires as we have also seen, ala Sam at the nationals.

So my .02 is that people just stay with what they know and only a few go searching for something better. It's kind of sad, though, that there aren't more F-body RRAX enthusiasts around. It's a great platform.

There is less aftermarket support for the F-bodies because there are fewer of them. But they don't need as much help, either.

One other observation: Out of all of the Mustangs and the Camaro, my 99GT was the only car I didn't mind as a daily driver. I'd rather take the bus than sit in traffic with my Z. Just my .02.

-John

Although cc.com may not be a dedicated Mustang site I'd guesstimate ~75% of the posters there own a Mustang or have in the past. Mostly because the founders who started cc.com did so to get away from the worthless dribble that passes for tech at most Mustang sites. Hence alot of the discussions tend to be Mustang oriented.

That said I'm sure alot more Mustangs are autoxed/road raced than F-bodies. Why? Because Ford sold a shitload of them and most of the suspension components are interchangeable 79-04 (99+ Cobra excluded).

As I've said before, the Mustang won because women (in general) prefer Mustangs. I'm not saying that only women drive Mustangs, and some enlightened women (such as Julie and Christine (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) ) certainly appreciate the f-body benefits.

However,
1) More women buy Mustangs for themselves
2) More wives will "approve" the purchase of a Mustang
2) Dates complain less about riding in a Mustang

In other words, women often have a strong influence on the purchasing decision even if it isn't going to be their car, and (many) women don't like driving or riding in 4th gens.

The low seating position (which I actually prefer, but ...), long doors, poor visibility, long overhangs, "Smokey and the Bandit" image, etc, don't make the cut, and track performance potential is not necessarily a winning (or wise) argument.

Sure, most of us here either have understanding wives (or husbands), or just don't mind being in the doghouse, or the spouse has a gearhead gene too, or whatever, but I'll bet a LOT of potential sales have been vetoed (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I've never driven a Mustang, but here's a couple of points for you:
1) On my second trip to Hallett, I had no problems keeping up with a 98/99 Cobra through the corners in my 95 Formula (with stock suspension other than an adj panhard bar). The Cobra would walk away on the straights but I'd catch right back up to him in the corners. And this was with the Cobra driver being way more familiar with Hallett than I was, and having some suspenions mods (otherwise I don't see how he could have gotten the negative camber he had on the front).
2) I find it very telling that the new 05 Mustang basically has an f-body rear suspension. Yes there are some minor differences, but overall it's very close to what we already have. My guess is that the Ford engineers were told "We're going to use a live axle", and they then decided to find the best live axle design they could, and start engineering from that point. To me the 05 Mustang setup really looks like a bunch of engineers took the f-body design and tried to improve on it.
3) I never had Mustangs come close to the performance of either of my Vettes on track. There have been several f-bodies though, that have come close or even exceeded their performance (at least the 92s performance).

Most of the fast Mustangs that I have encountered on the track were highly modified ones...both engine and especially suspension.

The exception has been the Cobra R that is a nice all around track car.

Price is a big factor as to why so many are put on the track.

Yeah, and the current TransAm race cars use the same 3 link setup in their cars as well. So its not really a 'copy' of a F car design. Along with that, it is a tad bit different 3 link than the long tq arm of the F car and shock location is much different as well. But yes they are both 3 link cars.

Regarding the new Mustang's suspension. It now has a PHB, but not a torque arm. The "3rd link" isn't a torque arm really, but more like an upper control arm.

Regarding the old cars: SN95's are way better handlers than Fox-bodied cars. SN95's can handle very well, it's all in how you look at it. Having races against and driven a number of SN95 cars in both F-stock and ESP/SM trims, as well a more than *few* F-bodies I think I can elaborate. Here's what I mean....

Bone stock a later Mustang GT, Bullitt or Cobra could very well be faster than a bone stock Camaro (not a 1LE). Why? Simply because Ford did a MUCH better job on shocks than GM did. And the Mustang acutally goes where pointed.

Add good shocks, maybe a swaybar, and the Camaro starts holding a little advantage IMHO. But it's SMALL, and really comes down more to how comfortable you are driving the car.

The F-body is a better base to start with than the Mustang, but GM screwed up the shocks so much you can't tell. Where you start to see it is like in an ESP car. I have to do much less to the suspension on an f-body than a Mustang owner must to his. Good for us, bad for them. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

In the end, both cars will handle about the same if you want to make that happen. The advantages to the Mustang are a few. Lighter, narrower, easier to see out of. The Camaro's are more powerful, but wider and not as user friendly on an everyday basis. Parts are cheaper for Fords, for the most part (some are more like the T2R), but you also might need a lot more of them to do the job.

Winning @ Nationals by so little doesn't really say my car is the fastest. 90 thousanths of 1 second isn't much. Mark's Mustang is fast, and he can drive. Everything was just a little quicker for me over those 2 days. I can tell you that if my car were to break in KS, at least 1 Mustang would have been in the top two I'd have jumped into.