1992 Mustang GT vs. 2011 Mustang GT
-
<u>The Hooves</u>
In 1992 you grabbed a plastic knob and shifted five forward gears.By 1992 the Mustang GT was already being severely criticized for its ancient underpinnings. After all, the Fox body architecture from which the Mustang was derived had first appeared as the 1978 Ford Fairmont. Nearly a decade and a half later the 1992 Mustang was still running simple MacPherson struts up front and a solid rear axle on coil springs in the back. Of course, here it is almost 19 years later and the 2011 Mustang GT runs... MacPherson struts up front and a solid rear axle on coil springs in the back.
What the 1992 and 2011 Mustang GTs have in common is that they are simple cars, just like every Mustang has been since the first one was built upon the chassis of the Ford Falcon economy car. Both cars are built with straightforward unibody structures and they both use suspension components engineered for affordability and rugged durability rather than ultimate cornering performance.
This doesn't diminish what Ford engineers have achieved with the 2011 Mustang GT's suspension. Its configuration might be old-fashioned, but the wheels are better located and the damping much better tuned. The new Mustang might be heavier, but it drives lighter and with better feel and precision. With its big tires and electric-assist power steering, it doesn't have the same directness of the 1992 Mustang GT, but it's clearly superior overall.
Back in 1990, Motor Trend tested a Mustang LX 5.0 wearing 225/60VR15 Goodyear Eagle tires and had it going through its 600-foot slalom course (the same dimensions as the one Inside Line uses today) at 64.2 mph, and then managed to get the car to circle its 300-foot skid pad at 0.88g. The 2011 Ford Mustang GT runs Inside Line's slalom at 67.3 mph and sticks to our 200-foot skid pad at 0.91g. That's a solid improvement, and much of the credit goes to the new car's massive Pirelli tires.
<u>Horse Power</u>
With its swollen fenders and iconic running-horse grille, this is one of the most muscular-looking Mustangs ever.While the 5.0 badges on the fenders of these cars both signify the displacement of the V8 engines behind them, the motors are very different.
The 302-cubic-inch Windsor small-block V8 with its iron block and iron cylinder heads makes a great, deep burble in Juan Navarro's '92 Mustang, and the Flowmasters make it sound even more contented. This is a charismatic engine, even if Ford's 225-hp rating seems feeble by 21st-century standards. The Windsor V8 revs quickly for a pushrod motor and makes its 300 pound-feet of peak torque at just 3,200 rpm, while even the redline is only 5,900 rpm.
The new 302-cubic-inch Ford V8 comes out of the same plant in Windsor, Ontario, as the old one did, but there the similarities end. Iron has been tossed aside in favor of all-aluminum construction; there are four cams involved and no pushrods; and each combustion chamber contains four variable-timed valves. The engine develops 390 lb-ft of torque at 4,250 rpm, and the peak output of 412 hp comes at 6,500 rpm, only 600 rpm past the old engine's redline.
As different as these two engines are, they feel like brothers. They're both a blast to rev, easy to keep boiling and have ricochet-action throttle response. Both are entertainers first and workhorses second. But the new engine does have the massive advantage of being hooked up to Getrag's new MT-82 six-speed transmission instead of the old car's Borg-Warner T5 five-speed.
In every way the new 5.0 feels like an amplification of the old 5.0 — the difference between trotting and galloping. Car and Driver measured the 1989 Mustang GT (functionally identical to the '92) to 60 mph in 6.3 seconds and timed the car through the quarter-mile in 14.7 seconds at 94 mph. The 2011 edition hits 60 mph in only 4.8 seconds and runs the quarter in 13.0 seconds at 110.6 mph.
Throw on the 2011 Mustang GT's ABS-equipped optional Brembo binders at 60 mph and the car hauls itself to a stop in just 109 feet. When Motor Trend used the ABS-free front discs and rear drums on its 1989 LX 5.0 to halt from 60 mph, the stop took 145 feet.
<u>The Okay Corral</u>
There's a blue oval right in the front of the '92 Mustang GT; go ahead and try to find one on the 2011 version.It's still a blast to drive an old 1992 Ford Mustang GT 5.0. It's still a car that will burn down its tires when asked, respond eagerly when given some spur and drift easily when asked to perform. It's big fun and, with prices for decent examples like Navarro's now below $5,000, this old Mustang GT is a great used-car value. It was a special car back then and it still is.
But the 2011 Mustang GT 5.0 might be even more special in today's context. This is a car that performs at what were considered supercar levels just a few years ago and yet putters along in everyday situations like a Ford Fusion. The engine is simply the best all-around performance V8 Ford has yet built, and the transmission is nothing less than brilliant.
It's hard to think of the 2011 Ford Mustang GT as a bargain, though. Its price starts at $30,495 and options easily push it past $40K. Back in 1992, the Mustang GT started at just $15,243. That's almost exactly half. And, inflation or not, in retrospect, that looks like the bargain of a lifetime.
Jason Christopherson
Store Manager
Tintmasters -
Nice find! I still love the boxy fox bodys, but a 6 spd would be sweet as hell.
Understeer is when you hit the wall with the front of the car
Oversteer is when you hit the wall with the rear of the car.
Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall
Torque is how far you take the wall with you -
Both cars make my pants tighter.
thrash;309224 wrote:
Huge FTW for Ford putting "R" in the right spot on that gear box
Those aren't developed by Ford, not to diminish the win but Getrag (German company) builds them for Ford, among many others. Its just like Dodge and their axles they're made by Dana, some of the other makes use them too but not exclusively like Chrysler.
> Mitch Hedberg wrote:
> I'm sick of following my dreams, I'm just going to find out where they are going and hook up with them later.ASE certified parts specialist.
2004 Impala LS 3.8 -
i have 3 getrag boxes and all put "R" in that spot
just saying: props to ford for putting "R" where God intended.
I wonder what the mustang purists will say about the getrag box? has ford used them in the past? the G280 in my M5 is stupid expensive to do anything with -- i can't imagine that mustang buyers are going to put up with BMW gearbox prices...
-
thrash;309341 wrote:
i have 3 getrag boxes and all put "R" in that spotjust saying: props to ford for putting "R" where God intended.
I wonder what the mustang purists will say about the getrag box? has ford used them in the past? the G280 in my M5 is stupid expensive to do anything with -- i can't imagine that mustang buyers are going to put up with BMW gearbox prices...
If it's as strong as the Supra getrag, people will pay whatever.
-
-
Sven;309437 wrote:
Awesome find. I miss my Mustang so much. It had uhh...what's it called...torque? Yeah, I miss that.
> Mitch Hedberg wrote:
> I'm sick of following my dreams, I'm just going to find out where they are going and hook up with them later.ASE certified parts specialist.
2004 Impala LS 3.8
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login