# Whats is better? 300ZX, Camaro or Mustang



## Myfirst240 (Jun 10, 2003)

What is the better '90's sports car? Now be fair, dont say 300zx is a V6. I chooseing to buy 300ZX NA turbo or 1992 Camaro Z-28 or 5.0 Mustang.


----------



## Winterz (Jun 3, 2003)

You come to a Nissan forum and expect anyone to say anything other than the Z? hope not.

Dollar for dollar, in 1991-96?, the 300z was one of the top 3 sports cars in the sub $50k price range. The twin turbo Z was compared to the Corvette, not it's little brothers. Think the Z might have even run with a 911 in one comparo. 

Don't let some big block mullet-headed freak talk you up about the 'stang or camaro...Go with the Z and enjoy your ride.

Side note, if you're on a tight budget, then the two domestics should be the only two you consider. 90's Z parts ain't cheap 
On the other hand, they'll probably break parts 3x as often as the Z.

*shrugs*

-W


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2003)

*vg30dett is an awsome motor!!*

yaeh, the tt 300's are fast! i'd take one over a camaro or stang anyday.(not to hurt anyone's feelings!)


----------



## Centurion (Sep 5, 2002)

I'm a Ford guy but I would definitely go for the tt 300. I mean, Is there anything hotter for the price? They turn heads as well as perform plus you see the other 2 so often it makes you sick (almost).


----------



## De La Rocha (Apr 4, 2003)

They're right, nobody will really tell you to go for anything but the Z here.

However, a Camaro will probably beat a 300zx tt in a straight line. I hate Camaros just as much as the nissan junkie, but straight from the factory, a Camaro will haul ass on the quarter. However, neither the Camaro nor the Mustang has the potentially upgradeable power of the 300zx. Winterz is right that you'll be buying more replacement parts, because lets face it, a '92 american car will give you its share of problems, while the 300zx is a very sturdily built ride. Even though the Camaro is beefier, on any real race it would get murdered by the 300, Camaros turn like RVs, except they're uglier . The 300 is the clear better choice, much more fun to drive, will last you longer, and you can do more stuff with it.

(and even though looks are in the eye of the beholder...300zx has twenty times the bling bling of the other two)

-Matt


----------



## RedSER93 (Apr 11, 2003)

what year Z are you talkin bout buying, cause a twin turbo 300zx would beat any of those other cars you mention with a good driver, i would have bought a 300ZX Twin Turbo but i couldnt afford it


----------



## 2SR20DE (May 17, 2003)

De La Rocha said:


> *They're right, nobody will really tell you to go for anything but the Z here.
> 
> However, a Camaro will probably beat a 300zx tt in a straight line. I hate Camaros just as much as the nissan junkie, but straight from the factory, a Camaro will haul ass on the quarter. However, neither the Camaro nor the Mustang has the potentially upgradeable power of the 300zx. Winterz is right that you'll be buying more replacement parts, because lets face it, a '92 american car will give you its share of problems, while the 300zx is a very sturdily built ride. Even though the Camaro is beefier, on any real race it would get murdered by the 300, Camaros turn like RVs, except they're uglier . The 300 is the clear better choice, much more fun to drive, will last you longer, and you can do more stuff with it.
> 
> ...



Yeah... that's BS. If we were talking 93+camaro then it might have a fighting chance in a straight line but 92 and below were slowww. The most the z-28 ever made was a 350 w/ ~230hp. And they only offered that w/ an automatic. I think the fastest 3rd gen camaro was the 305ci, 215hp w/ the stick. If I remember my F-bodies correctly. As far as the mustang goes. Again, not likely. 225 hp, best quarter time was the notch back at 14.7. Where the GT's would run ~15.2. LX 5.0 somewhere in the middle. Mustangs didn't make sereious power until 96 w/ DOHC cobra, 305hp.

BTW- Check out my car history link in my sig... look at my old 3rd gen Camaro and Fox body mustang


----------



## sr20racer (Jun 29, 2002)

Let me send you a link (when my buddy gets it up) of my se-r pulling on a SVT Cobra and I think your mind will be made. Nissan all the way.


----------



## 2SR20DE (May 17, 2003)

sr20racer said:


> *Let me send you a link (when my buddy gets it up) of my se-r pulling on a SVT Cobra and I think your mind will be made. Nissan all the way. *


We are talking stock camaro's and mustangs and 300zx.... you have a freaking turbo on a 2400lb car and you think this should make up his mind? I could put a blower on a cobra and walk all over your ass. So what's your point? Don't mean to be harsh but hey?


----------



## 98_1LE (Mar 30, 2003)

I am going to reply to this while trying to keep it "flame free". First, any of the cars mentioned has merits.

The 300 is a beuatiful car. The N/A version is underpowered. If autocross is an indication of handling, the N/A 300 is in the same stock class as all V8 F-bodies (FS) and doesn't stand a chance. Too much weight and not enough tire. The turbo 300 has a lot of mod potential, but mods are neither cheap nor easy to install. Other parts for these cars are expensive, and they are not as reliable as some would have you think. As for turbo performance, a stock '92 Z28 with the 350 (245 hp btw, and 345 torque) is a mid 14 second car right along side the turbo 300. The interior on the 300 is a lot nicer than the other cars mentioned. I would definately get a 300 with T-tops (but I am a T-top junkie).

The 5.0L Mustang has the most straight line potential, but handling suffers. These cars are extremely easy to work on, and parts are cheap.

The F-body (Camaro and Trans Am) are cars that I consider myself and expert on. I will start with thirdgens, but since you said "90's" I will stick to '90-'92. Assuming you are talking one with a TPI motor (the V6 and TBI motors suck), they are all capable of 14 second time. Back in 2000 I bought an unmodified '87 Formula 350, which was only rated at 215 hp. Bone stock on July 3 in Dallas (can you say HOT) it ran 14.81 on 8 year old Western Auto tires. With a few minor (and cheap) mods, it ran high 13's. I had the car for a year and a half, and the only things that went wrong were the ac and MAF died, but it was a 14 year old car. Other than that it was more reliable than my '93 NX2000 which only has 90K miles today and currently needs a new door handle and HVAC controls. Anyway, the '90-'92 TPI cars were deep in the 14's, and were listed as one of the 10 best handling cars in '92. Yes, they can turn corners. Unless you are talking about a rare 1LE car, the brakes are too small on these cars. The chassis on the thirdgens is weak, so I would avoid T-top cars. The '93-'97 F-bodies are high 13/low 14 second cars all stock. The chassis are a lot stiffer, and handling is great. The '98-'02 V8 F-bodies are low 13 second cars stock. My '01 T/A ran [email protected] with the lone mod being Nitto road race tires (which I also use for daily driver tires). Unless it was for a track race car, I would make sure to get a '93+ with T-tops. The interior in the Camaro is pretty plain, the T/A is a step up, but neither are as nice or durable inside as the 300. Because these cars were considerably cheaper new, and subsequently used, finding one that has been taken care of is more of an issue than the with the 300 from my experience.

I run autox and track events regurarly, and I have only seen a few 300's come out. They have never been competitive, but that may be the driver and not the car.

If you have any specific questions about the F-body, please post them and PM me as I probably won't follow this thread as I see flames in my crystal ball.

All that being said, I would like to find a nice 300 turbo to play with in the next couple years.

Chuck


----------



## 98_1LE (Mar 30, 2003)

sr20racer said:


> *Let me send you a link (when my buddy gets it up) of my se-r pulling on a SVT Cobra and I think your mind will be made. Nissan all the way. *


And I can post a video of my old stock '98 Z28 passing a horde of BMW M3's and Porsche 911's on a road course, but what does that mean? My answer would be nothing relative to this conversation; which is the same thing I would tell you, except that my video at least has ONE of the cars in question in it.


----------



## himilefrontier (Jan 21, 2003)

I would say it all depends on what you are looking to acomplish.The 300 is the best handling car, followed by the F-body and then the Mustang.Mustang is the fastest if you get the right one, and can be hopped up very cheaply,the F-Body also has a lot of potential since it is a Small Block Chevy And the 300zxTT can also be made very powerful, but it is an expensive car to modify because it's engine was only used in a few select models very few of which are ever seriously modified.The Ford and Chevy engine designs date to 1962 for the Ford Windsor small block(221 powered Fairlane) and 1955 for the small Chevy(265 cu in),so they are cheap to modify by the weight of sheer numbers produced.


----------



## 2SR20DE (May 17, 2003)

98_1LE said:


> *I am going to reply to this while trying to keep it "flame free". First, any of the cars mentioned has merits.
> 
> The 300 is a beuatiful car. The N/A version is underpowered. If autocross is an indication of handling, the N/A 300 is in the same stock class as all V8 F-bodies (FS) and doesn't stand a chance. Too much weight and not enough tire. The turbo 300 has a lot of mod potential, but mods are neither cheap nor easy to install. Other parts for these cars are expensive, and they are not as reliable as some would have you think. As for turbo performance, a stock '92 Z28 with the 350 (245 hp btw, and 345 torque) is a mid 14 second car right along side the turbo 300. The interior on the 300 is a lot nicer than the other cars mentioned. I would definately get a 300 with T-tops (but I am a T-top junkie).
> 
> ...


I was thinking he was talking about the turbo 300 not the NA but his question as I look again is unclear. Your right they did make a 245hp, I had forgotton. That would definately get into the 14's. Most however did not break 15's. If I had money to spend I would go 300z but if not I would go with the 5.0. So much you do to them. It is also possible to make them handle well. It's not a lost cause. If you go camaro go 93' and up. Very quick cars.


----------



## 82_280ZX (Jul 21, 2003)

i would go with the tt just because im a turbo kind of guy ( love the spolling noise)


----------



## lovemysan (Jan 31, 2003)

Its been said before. I'll say it again.

IMO

87-92 Mustang LX notch.
ligtweight, tough and underrated 302, fun to drive.

My brother and I have both owned on of these. His was a 87. It had a rebuilt 302(stock)mystery cam, roller rockers,headers. It had no a/C. It weighed 2900 pounds. It was a low 13sec car. Did I mention we never got around to changing the factory gears. 


The notchback to which I refer is becoming a rare breed. It is getting hard to find even a hackjob. The clean low mileage ones don't sell cheap. For instance I saw last year a 92, auto, 51k cranberry, pony's, overdrive going out $6000. I found some with under 30k going for over $10000. The manual trans cars are even harder. Its nearly impossible to find a nice interior anymore. You are going to have to swallow overall build quality.
But its not as bad as some make it out to be. So it needs a little straitening and a ash tray door. My bro paid $1200 for his not running. It took a fuel pump, a valve adjustment, and a tune up and it turned into a monster. Gone was the stereotype of cheap american junk. Turned to "boy do I like powerslides". You drive hunting for cars to pass. Now the stang is long gone(broke the trans)But the memories are still fresh. It wasn't very dependable at first but when he got the bugs worked out it was a good car. It was a fun car. And the people who knew respected it. He sold it for $25 less than he paid for it and has regretted ever since.

Now remember this is my opinion. I prefer nissans. But I know the stang. Maybe If I was to drive the 300 it would change my mind. 

In Febuary in the memphis paper there was a 91 300 zx TT 5sp, lady driven, 110k, white, that sold for $5700 she was asking $6500. I thought that was a good deal. 


"Again, not likely. 225 hp, best quarter time was the notch back at 14.7. Where the GT's would run ~15.2. LX 5.0 somewhere in the middle. Mustangs didn't make sereious power until 96 w/ DOHC cobra, 305hp."


Yeah, like those people know how to drive. Any good condition LX with the 5sp is going to run high 13s.


----------



## Myfirst240 (Jun 10, 2003)

Wow, I havent check this link in a while. Well I did check out the tt 300zx fast and nice! But I moved about 40 minutes from my school. And I needed something that be more confortable and something with 4-wd drive, because of the snow. So I got the new Mitsu EVO 8. Its fast but still ins't a pimp machine like a Z. But my dad has his eye on the 350Z. THank you guys for all the advice and I am greatful I didnt by a Slowstang or Slomaro.


----------



## lovemysan (Jan 31, 2003)

slowstang. I don't think so.

Cheapstang maybe.


Cheapshot.


----------



## 2SR20DE (May 17, 2003)

lovemysan said:


> *
> 
> "Again, not likely. 225 hp, best quarter time was the notch back at 14.7. Where the GT's would run ~15.2. LX 5.0 somewhere in the middle. Mustangs didn't make sereious power until 96 w/ DOHC cobra, 305hp."
> 
> ...


BS will not. 13s no way. My stang which was built (link on my sig) would break into the 13's but no way a stock notch. My friend had a 95' that had gears, hard top, 5sp passed at 14.8 and he is an excellent driver.


----------



## 98_1LE (Mar 30, 2003)

When they say notch, they are referring to the '87-'93 Fox platform, which is considerably lighter than your friends SN95.


----------



## lovemysan (Jan 31, 2003)

your stang was hatch with seventeen inch rims. considerably heavier than a notch.

225hp stock w/mild bolt ons maybe 260hp. 330tq. 2900pounds w/driver. 13s not possible? You do the math or let me do a comparision.

91 SER 200 whp 2500lbs 12.8s

To be honest an LX notch w no air and a 5sp. The ten minute tune up and some slicks is a 12 second player. YOu can call what you what but I can produce documented evidence.


----------



## lovemysan (Jan 31, 2003)

We never took andys notch to the track but here are some kills
00 GT 5sp might I add this wasn't a close race. A stock GT will run 13.7-13.9
WS6 auto
WS6 6sp win one lose one
slk kompressor
02 C5
93,95,97 camaros some of both
many many hatch gt's


----------



## 2SR20DE (May 17, 2003)

lovemysan said:


> *your stang was hatch with seventeen inch rims. considerably heavier than a notch.
> 
> 225hp stock w/mild bolt ons maybe 260hp. 330tq. 2900pounds w/driver. 13s not possible? You do the math or let me do a comparision.
> 
> ...


I don't doubt that your car did it w/ bolt ons. I was talking about stock cars. 
Show it to me. I've done the mustang thing, my friend had the SN95, my other friend a 96' novi2000 SC. Great, fun cars, we never saw a 12 in any of those cars. All the times were an street tires though. Also in FWD cars you loose less hp through the drive train. If you've seen those times in those cars that's impressive. I've never seen them though.


----------



## 2SR20DE (May 17, 2003)

lovemysan said:


> *We never took andys notch to the track but here are some kills
> 00 GT 5sp might I add this wasn't a close race. A stock GT will run 13.7-13.9
> WS6 auto
> WS6 6sp win one lose one
> ...


WS6 shoulda won everytime. 325 hp. MM&FF put the 2001 bullitt at 13.91. the 2001 SS at 12.9(should be similar to WS6). I don't know man... i mean i don't doubt you beat these cars, there is alot to a drag race and not many people who can drive well.


----------



## lovemysan (Jan 31, 2003)

http://www.turbochargedse-r.com/home.html

Check this link for the 12sec SER



I looked on the www.mucslemustangfastford.com for the 12 second notch info but the archives didn't go back that far. I'm Saying 12.90s are possible with lightened Notch, shortbelt,high octane gas,gears,slicks. period 

When I find the info I'm looking for I'll post it. As you can see there is the 12 second ser


----------



## 2SR20DE (May 17, 2003)

98_1LE said:


> *When they say notch, they are referring to the '87-'93 Fox platform, which is considerably lighter than your friends SN95. *


 Yeah... I know what notchback is, I was trying to buy one before I found my mustang. It's been a while but isn't the chassis the same between the SN95's and the Fox body?w/ a few minor changes. Not much weight change I would imagine.


----------



## 2SR20DE (May 17, 2003)

lovemysan said:


> *http://www.turbochargedse-r.com/home.html
> 
> Check this link for the 12sec SER
> 
> ...


I never said there isn't a 12 sec SER


----------



## lovemysan (Jan 31, 2003)

As I said before one of the kills in the notch was a 01 GT 
This was with mild bolt ons. Headers,roller rockers, glass packs, stock gears. We are talking 2930 pounds with a 160lb man on the scale 1/2 tank of gas. LIght LIght. Imagine a 240 with a v8 and a traction lok solid axle that likes to dig in.

You'll see that in this article this particular one ran a 13.71

What Altitude are you at. If you are getting your numbers from an elevated track then numbers you give would be correct.


----------



## lovemysan (Jan 31, 2003)

I guess you want the link
http://www.musclemustangfastfords.com/features/0205mmff_shootout/index.html

I never said you said the wasn't a 12 second SER.


----------



## GIANNI (Apr 28, 2003)

mustangs suck! my dad has a 86 5.0 lx 5spd that my 03 spec v spanks on o regular basis. all mustangs before 96 were crap. the ones after 96 are still crap just less stinky!!


----------



## 98_1LE (Mar 30, 2003)

GIANNI, I am going to try to be nice. Stock in good running condition, your dads LX should run mid/upper 14 second ET's if it is a manual, and upper 14/low 15's if it is an automatic. Either should be quick enough to take out most Spec V's. Next, the '87-'93 Mustang V8's were much quicker than the '94-'95, and even they were quicker than the '96-'98 (which were the slowest since ~85, but still somewhat quick. Some of the fastest street cars in the country are '86-'93 Mustangs.

Now I realize your dads car is 17 years old, but it should still give your V a run for it's money.


----------



## Spongerider (Nov 18, 2002)

GIANNI said:


> *mustangs suck! my dad has a 86 5.0 lx 5spd that my 03 spec v spanks on o regular basis. all mustangs before 96 were crap. the ones after 96 are still crap just less stinky!! *


*GIANNI*, it's fine to debate but starting to flame will only get this thread locked, be nice like the others please? And *98_1LE* thank you for your mature reply,


----------



## 2SR20DE (May 17, 2003)

98_1LE said:


> *Some of the fastest street cars in the country are '86-'93 Mustangs.
> 
> Now I realize your dads car is 17 years old, but it should still give your V a run for it's money. *


The EFI started in 87 along w/ the better looking body pieces.

I'm glad that GIANNI has shed some light on this topic... "Mustangs suck"

Your dad must not know how to drive... Spec-V's are cool but not a quarter mile terror. I've beat them in my 93' SE-R so... by your reasoning.... "SPEC-V's Suck!!!"


----------



## 98_1LE (Mar 30, 2003)

Actually '86 5.0's *(and anniversary '84's) had EFI, but '87 brought several refinements such as a roller cam for more power. 

Also, Ford sold a fuel injected, turbocharged, intercooled Mustang from '84-'86 that was sporting a trick suspension with Koni's and big for the day 16" wheels.

And thanks for the backup Spongerider


----------

