Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Mustang\s+vs\s+Camaro\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Mustang\s+vs\s+Camaro\s*$/: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. Mustang vs Camaro (score: 1): Author: Jeff Cashmore <cashmo@execpc.com>; Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 01:27:21 -0600; The April Road & Track has an article comparing the new Mustang Cobra to the Camaro SS. The Chevy has more torque while the Ford is a little peakier (it's all relative to us HS'ers). The IRS wouldn't; /html/autox/1999-03/msg00238.html (7,650 bytes)
2. Re: Mustang vs Camaro (score: 1): Author: John Whitling <alliancemillsoft@worldnet.att.net>; Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 09:56:44 -0500; Actually, Jeff, the IRS should help the Mustang considerably on even glass smooth surfaces. This is because the inside tire won't be unloaded nearly so much. This means better hook up out of corners,; /html/autox/1999-03/msg00249.html (8,258 bytes)
3. Re: Mustang vs Camaro (score: 1): Author: "Jay Mitchell" <jemitchell@compuserve.com>; Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 10:00:08 -0600; even glass unloaded nearly so Is there a difference in wheel rates between live axle and IRS cars? This would be the only means whereby this could happen. There's nothing intrinsic in IRS that would; /html/autox/1999-03/msg00254.html (8,104 bytes)
4. Re: Mustang vs Camaro (score: 1): Author: Jeff Cashmore <cashmo@execpc.com>; Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 12:28:52 -0600; "it is my impression that the Mustang's biggest problems in FS came from the front end, not the rear, ergo the IRS won't be all that helpful." The article says the new Cobra motor is lighter and the; /html/autox/1999-03/msg00267.html (7,567 bytes)
5. Re: Mustang vs Camaro (score: 1): Author: Tommy Regan <tommy_regan@yahoo.com>; Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 11:46:06 -0800 (PST); Okalee dokalee... :-) Jay, you're right that the front end needs help on a Mustang...it's far from perfect. But, the SN-95 chassis has better geometry than the older Fox bodies up front so it's not a; /html/autox/1999-03/msg00269.html (8,904 bytes)
6. Re: Mustang vs Camaro (score: 1): Author: "Fedja Jeleskovic" <Fedja_Jeleskovic@pictel.com>; Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 15:18:15 -0500; C'mon there. New Cobra should stay in FS. At least something to make it more interesting there. Camaros will still have more power though, and it should be much more fun than it is now! Even it they; /html/autox/1999-03/msg00271.html (7,728 bytes)
7. Re: Mustang vs Camaro (score: 1): Author: "Mike Smith" <msmith2@columbus.rr.com>; Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 02:53:37 -0500; The funny thing is, the magazine article doesn't reflect the matchup in FS, unless they've re-classed the SS/WS6 cars back to FS. We're back to the $30,000+ Cobra IRS vs. a $20,000 standard Z28/Formu; /html/autox/1999-03/msg00305.html (8,742 bytes)
8. Re: Mustang vs Camaro (score: 1): Author: Jeff Cashmore <cashmo@execpc.com>; Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 13:51:04 -0600; Tommy wrote... "I tell you this, though. If this car goes into F-Stock, then someone at the SCCA should lose their job! If the Camaro SS is thrown into Super Stock, so should the Cobra. Of course, th; /html/autox/1999-03/msg00337.html (7,973 bytes)
9. Re: Mustang vs Camaro (score: 1): Author: "Fedja Jeleskovic" <Fedja_Jeleskovic@pictel.com>; Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 15:22:18 -0500; has Well, I was told that 1LE Camaro is actually better then SS camaro in stock form. You do have more power from SS, but 1LE guys can use it much better (put more down)! So, in this case you don't; /html/autox/1999-03/msg00343.html (8,097 bytes)
10. Re: Mustang vs Camaro (score: 1): Author: Tommy Regan <tommy_regan@yahoo.com>; Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 12:28:07 -0800 (PST); FWIW, the Camaro SS doesn't have any more power than an F-Stock Camaro can get. The intake hasn't proven to be any better than the non-SS stuff. The only advantages are (debatably) 17" wheels which a; /html/autox/1999-03/msg00344.html (8,989 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 10
Page: [1]