Ford Mustang Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
thinking about buying a 200 mustang or a 2000 camaro, im a ford guy having a hard time deciding wat to get? ive have heard the 4.6l is realy weak. i need some good reasons, like wich would be easier to work on?

I was thinking about getting me a mustang for my next sport. I want to spend 5-10k maybe more if it somthing i really like. Im not realy sure if i want to go 5.0 or 4.6. are the 4.6 a little weak, it seems like a lot of people are putting engine in there 4.6 at 100k or so. more hp the better. I like both body styles

thinking about getting a 4.6, are there any issues that i should know about? Like too much body flex, runing hot or ????


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,859 Posts
How much cash do you want to spend? A 00 Camaro Z28 has something like 310-320 horse. A 00 Mustang GT has 260. Stock for stock the Camaro is faster, but a nice one will cost more than a GT. The LS1 Camaro engine has to be removed from the bottom, I hear its no easy task. The 4.6 isn't the easiest to work on either, but I think its easier than the LS1. This is going to start a bunch of different opinions flying to be prepared. IMO, buy a nice stang and mod the crap out it! :eyepoppin
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,579 Posts
Camaro: Better engine but cheesier interior and not as good looking in my opinion.

Mustang: Better looking (in my opinion), slightly better interior, better aftermarket support, especially with chassis and suspension parts (I'm sure some of you will disagree with me), but the engine is smaller.

The 4.6 is by no means weak, it just doesn't have the displacement to compete with the LS1. You can make power with both engines. The Mustang's 8.8 rear end is slightly stronger than the GM 10 bolt, so you should also take that into consideration. Also, the Camaro is available with a 6 speed and will get better gas mileage. My advice would be to test drive both and see which one you like better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,907 Posts
The Mustangs seem to hold up better in the long run from what I've seen. The interior is way more comfortable and easier to get in and out of. I like the handling of the Mustang better too. The early 4.6L engines were somewhat wimpy, but they're much better now and respond to mods well, especially forced induction. the aftermarket is vast for bolt on parts. And now my favorite part, the Mustang just sounds way cooler with a good exhaust. The Camaro's sound way ******* and just crappy to me.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,069 Posts
Everything around the LS1 engine in a Camaro is junk ! Thats all your getting , a fast engine !

If you like looking at that 4foot long dash , and sitting on the floor, get the Camaro !

And it you like hearing the best exhaust of any V8 , and the great looks of a Mustang ! then there you go , take your pick !

But this is a Mustang web site , what did you think I was going to say :winks !

Any way , good luck shopping , hope you find what you want !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
342 Posts
jayk2k3 said:
thinking about buying a 200 mustang or a 2000 camaro, im a ford guy having a hard time deciding wat to get? ive have heard the 4.6l is realy weak. i need some good reasons, like wich would be easier to work on?
I still would like to know the definition of weak.

As far as which ones easier to work on just pop the hood on the crapmaro and imagine removing the heads.

Half of that motor is under the windshield.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
918 Posts
get on aim and hit me at svt4u2try and i will go over the facts with you, and not someones opinion on here.
I have had both cars and getting another LS1 with my Cobra, and found a few for a decent price now that they are dropping in price.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
626 Posts
In my opinion... You shouldn't need anyone to "convince you" to buy one car or the other. Go drive one, go drive the other. Sit down and figure out which one you want more. Honestly, my advice is that if you don't get a Mustang go find a nice trans-am. Same engine as the Camaro, but in my opinion so much better looking.

I also agree with what you guys said... There are faster cars... but nothing sounds nearly as mean as a Mustang.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
364 Posts
Don't feed the trolls.
This is the 2nd thread this guy has made about how weak the 4.6 is.

Ignore him and maybe he'll go away.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
2000 Camaro*:

0-60: 5.3 sec.
1/4 mile: 13.7 sec
lbs/HP: 10.7
Tranny: 6-Speed

2000 Mustang GT*:

0-60: 6.0 sec.
1/4 mile: 14.5 sec
lbs/HP: 13.1
Tranny: 5-Speed

* Data from theautochannel.com


I had to make the same decission. By Numbers, I would buy the Camaro.
I bought the Mustang GT, just because I like the looks WAY MORE!!!

If you are looking into mods, it doesn't really matter any more. Get a Kenne Bell Intercooled Supercharger Kit and you'll be flying.
In general: Since there are so many people who want to do mods on their Mustangs, it keeps manufacturing costs for all the aftermarket parts low - because of the high volume.
I am not 100% sure but I would say that the 99 - 04 is among the most "moded" cars on the streets.
 
G

·
I would agree the mustangs do sound better then almost any camaro or T/A. Also i have heard lots about the quality of the camaro (interior wise mostly) and T/a and its mostly not good. The 4.6 is a solid motor. Think about it, taxis and police cars have them, and they get beat on for hours, idling for hours ever day and they are still going. Also looking under the hood of an ls1, i relize my once "hard" to work on 4.6 is not near as tough. With that said, i do love the T/As and the camaros ss's and i think they look sweet. Also that engine is a beast and t-tops are awesome. I had then on my 83 stang and Ford should have never discontinued them. As of right now i love my stang and will keep it and pay it off for another 2 years. Had it not been for negative equity i would have had a trans am a few months ago when i was trying. Yes I admit, but i came to the conclusion i love my stang and everyone knows me as the stang guy in my family and friends, so i will pay her off and then pay on some bills for a while, and probably will get me a 00-02 Trans Am ws6 for a daily driver and mod it slightly. Ill have my saturn for the winter cuz i am sure it will be going still and teh mustang will be street legal but geared more for track by then and hopefully faster then the T/a :tongue
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,185 Posts
I had a Trans Am drive by me last night (going the opposite direction while I was at a red light...so no racing here) and it sounded sweet, but I have heard many mustangs sound just as good. I always wanted a Camaro when I was a kid, but I guess I am wising up with age. I would agree That the T/A looks better than the Camaro, but the stang tops them both, IMO. If money allows, look for a 2000 Cobra, thats what I would do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,432 Posts
FunkyBoss said:
I had a Trans Am drive by me last night (going the opposite direction while I was at a red light...so no racing here) and it sounded sweet, but I have heard many mustangs sound just as good. I always wanted a Camaro when I was a kid, but I guess I am wising up with age. I would agree That the T/A looks better than the Camaro, but the stang tops them both, IMO. If money allows, look for a 2000 Cobra, thats what I would do.
You mean the Cobra R?!?!?!

Or a 2001 Cobra?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,185 Posts
My fault, I didn't realize they didn't make the cobra in 2000, I thought it was only 2002. I guess I would be looking for a long time :sterb:.


Lets just say I meant Cobra R :winks . Dont those things cost a fortune?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,069 Posts
engineer76 said:
2000 Camaro*:

0-60: 5.3 sec.
1/4 mile: 13.7 sec
lbs/HP: 10.7
Tranny: 6-Speed

2000 Mustang GT*:

0-60: 6.0 sec.
1/4 mile: 14.5 sec
lbs/HP: 13.1
Tranny: 5-Speed



.
Man those numbers suck ! Must have had a bad driver to get 14.5 and a 13.7 out of those cars !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,432 Posts
ran260gt said:
Man those numbers suck ! Must have had a bad driver to get 14.5 and a 13.7 out of those cars !
No, that's factory stock, with the spare, factory tires at factory spec, etc. The variable would be the atmospheric conditions, -also remember they were verts. For the 1999 model year they tested the coupes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,859 Posts
This is from carstats.com....Car-Stats.com Report for 1999 Ford Mustang GT
Obtained from C&D February, 1999
0-60: 5.5 Transmission: Manual
1/4 Mile: 14.2
1/4 Speed: 98
Car-Stats.com Report for 1999 Chevrolet Camaro Z28
Obtained from C&D February, 1999
0-60: 5.2 Transmission: Unknown
1/4 Mile: 13.8
1/4 Speed: 104
Car-Stats.com Report for 2002 Chevrolet Camaro SS
Obtained from MT December, 2001
0-60: 5.2 Transmission: Manual
1/4 Mile: 13.5
1/4 Speed: 107
Car-Stats.com Report for 2003 Ford Mustang Mach 1
Obtained from MT December, 2002
0-60: 5.3 Transmission: Manual
1/4 Mile: 13.8
1/4 Speed: 103
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,907 Posts
I've been a Ford man all my life and there's no way I would ever buy an F-body newer than 69. If someone offered me a mint 69 or older for a hell of a deal, I'd take it only for the nostalgia. I'd still drive my Mustang everyday.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
918 Posts
Come on people, lets stop comparing magazine times as all those times suck for those cars and we have seen people pull better times.
I have seen low 13 second stock LS1's and Mach 1's and 13.8 bone stock GT's
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,432 Posts
blackfang said:
Come on people, lets stop comparing magazine times as all those times suck for those cars and we have seen people pull better times.
I have seen low 13 second stock LS1's and Mach 1's and 13.8 bone stock GT's
different cars can vary by a couple of tenths, and altitude & humidy can add or subtract a couple of tenths, and once they're broken in they'll pick up a couple of tenths

So depending on the car, and where it is, & how old it is, the times can vary by as much as 0.5+
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top