I have a brother that had a 1985 GT conv. 5.0



I have a 3.2L Acura CL-type S and he clains that he would have been faster. I KNOW that I look like a dip **** because I am a new poster but the #s on the 85, N/A stang don't stack up. Even with it being lighter being a convertible, I have never taken my car to the track but stock I have a (bbooooo) 14.8 sec 1/4 mile. Friends with my mods say 14.3. The 1985 lists over 15s? Clarification would be nice.

 

I do have a firend that has a 13sec. 'stang. I am NOT questioning Mustangs.

 

cricket= cricket=



nevermind.



You want a real forum come to acl.com

 

Maybe you should compare apples to apples. Race him with an older Acura... he would win. Or try racing a new mustang. You definately would not win.



A 13 sec. mustang is not very fast.



Look at cost. A comparable Ford to your car would be more like a cobra or Lightning. Either of which would simply leave you crying. And the Lightning is a PICKUP TRUCK!!!

 

That's what I'm sayin converted!

 

The 4.6L Mustangs are pretty fast but not much faster than my Acura from a roll. I have played with them on the highway and never lost. The displacement helps off the line since the stang had more torque. Don't even get me started on those weak *** V6 Mustangs. Acura V6 vs. Mustang V6 would leave the MUSTANG crying.



As for the sport shift, if you knew how to use it, it is VERY VERY easy to hit the redline.



I would never screw with a Lightning truck. Just since I am not a Ford owner doesn't mean that I don't respect faster cars.



Anyhow, thanks for a little but of info but I have found enough info other places that says that I would rape the 1985 GT if he still had it.

 

Not only that, but the PRICE difference between the CL and the mustang. You paid too much damn money for what? Obviously not speed, but you contend that your car is fast. There are a couple of tricks that cost pretty much nothing for a GT that will improve the 5.0's too.FYI, the older 4.6's are slower than the older 5.0 cars stock. And the 85's were before the F.I. cars. Like I said, compare apples to apples.

 

Don't talk about what you don't know...with the sport shift you can bounce off the rev limiter very easily. Admittedly they won't let you do that in first but any other gear and you can hit the limiter and the car robs you of gas to drop the rpms down.



This whole thread started because I just wanted a Mustang forum's opinion about what is faster, the 1985GT conv or the CL-S. What I got was people thinking that I was picking on their cars. I wasn't. I wasn't saying mine was faster because it cost more, I wasn't saying that mine was faster because it was a Honda (I really like the **** on Honda avatar....whatever). I didn't even come in here trying to say that I can keep up with or beat a 4.6L GT. This spun out of control into ***** measuring and it was never meant to be that. I am a huge fan of people loving their cars...even if they drive a Saturn or a Kia. I couldn't give a sh*t. If it works for you, then go for it.



It is easy to get the "my car is faster than his car" on the Acura forum. I wanted to come here and see what you guys had to say and I get told that I am not comparing the right things. Car vs. car is all I was comparing. If you go to the track do you only line up against other Mustangs? On the highway if someone picks a "fight" with your car do you only hit the gas when it is another large displacement car? Jeez....there are Civics out there that will spank many of the cars on either foum. Okay...not N/A but that doesn't change what you might run into on the road.



I admit that I came in with a bit of attitude. Sorry. But I was looking for a yeds or no answer and I got a bunch of justification about why Mustangs are better than Acuras.



As for what I paid my money for, I have a nice luxury coupe. All the bells and whistles. Trust me...everyone that I talk to with a similar car is dying for a RWD Acura coupe but Honda is making a judgement call and we live with it.



The best time I have found for the 1985 GT stock is around 15.1s 1/4 mile. The CL-S type S stock is around 14.6. My bro didn't believe that #s so I wanted to get som independent opinions not start a Ford vs. Acura war. Jeez...the Acura NSX is a 6 cyl and would spank a Cobra but who the @#$$% cares? Displacement is a factor, and admittedly the NSX and the S2000 the only RWD Hondas but don't lump all of the FWD cars into the joke catagory.



Sorry to **** some of you guys off. That wasn't why I came in here even if that is what ended up happening.



We all love our cars. Maybe you'll find a CL-S on the highway someday and you'll gain a bit of appreciation for the car. FWIW, it was designed and built in Marysville OH...it is all American.

 

It's not all American if the profits go back to Japan and out of our economy.



Don't you EVER try and pass off an import for being domestic.

 

You are right, in fact the tranny is Japanese. Don't kid yourself about Honda or the fact that Ford owns over 50% of Mazda. Or did you think that all of the Mustang parts were Amreican and not even put together in...dunno...like a jeep in either Canada or Mexico. Please. The Civic and Accord you drive by on the street employ as many or more Americans than the Mustang or the Jeep. The Japanese Hondas are few...S2000, Prelude (now gone), RSX, NSX, and that is about it. If you want USA hands on your car then you got it, and if you think that there is a difference between Honda, Nissan, Mazda, Ford, etc at this point then you are crazy. Whether it is German cars or Japanese almost ever US car maker is allied with a japanese or European car maker. The Saturn Vue is buying engines off of Honda and that is GM. It is one big happy family. If you are worried about jobs, buyong one car or the other, import NAME or domestic doesn't really work anymore. You are still skirting the question.



cheers.