More than any other group of American performance iron, these three are the subject of heated discussion, violent debate, and constant street debates. The Ford loyalists are just as adamant as the Chevrolet and Pontiac crowds in defense of their car’s supremacy on the street, and each contingent can claim, to varying degrees, that its favorite is the best American rear-drive pony car on the road today. We’re not here to end that debate; there’s simply no final word on the subject. What we can do is present our opinions and maybe add some fuel to this burning issue.
Pete Pesterre, Jim Losee, and Greg Brown spent many hours behind the wheels of our players, then met for several more hours to discuss the particular positive and negative aspects of each car. What follows is a distillation of those discussions. As you will read, our opinions differ somewhat, but that’s all in the nature of judging three cars similar in concept but quite disparate in execution. Though we promised not to, we begin with a brief description of each car and their similarities and differences.
THE PLAYERS:
FORD MUSTANG GT: Powered by a High-Output 5.0-liter V8, which debuted in 1982, the GT is an unashamed performer, with little pretense to luxury. Restyled for 1987, there are no changes to this most muscular ’88 Mustang. It is only the one of our three players to transmit its power through a five –speed manual transmission (a four-speed automatic is optional). Even though it gives away 48 cubes of displacement to the 5.7-liter V8 of its competition, the Ford engine is rated at 225 horsepower, only five less than the Chevy’s 230, and equal to the Pontiac’s 225. The high output is due mostly to a hotter cam and exemplary cylinder head flow. Peak torque from the 5.0-liter is lower than the 5.7, 300 ft-lb. compared to 330 from GM’s big corporate V8.
Measured against the F-bodies from GM, the Ford is shorter in both wheelbase and overall length, narrower in track and body, but slightly taller. Not suprisingly, the GT also weighs less. Fuel mileage ratings from the EPA put the manual GT at 16/24 mpg, while the IROC and GTA are both rated at 16/25 mpg. Limited warranty coverage runs six years/60,00 miles.
Underneath, the GT is supported by a special “Handling Suspension Package”, which includes a number of tweaks: variable-rate springs, gas-filled front struts, Quadra-Shock rear suspension comprised of gas-filled vertical shocks and horizontal axle dampers, upsized front stabilizer bar, rear stabilizer bar. 15:1 steering ratio, revised ball joints, front strut assembly and mount, lower spring insulator and front and rear spring dampers, and adjusted spring and bushing rates complete the setup.
Contributing to the car’s generally good road-holding abilities are large P225/60VR15 unidirectional Goodyear Eagles on 16-spoke aluminum wheels, while Ford’s Traction-Lok posi rear axle helps the driven wheels spin equally under marginal conditions. Internally vented discs and rear drums provide stopping power.
Other equipment specific to the GT includes Hella fog lamps; articulated sport seats with adjustable thigh support, seat-cushion side bolsters and power inflatable lumber support; tilt steering wheel; tinted glass; and a bodyside molding insert stripe.
The option list includes the automatic overdrive transmission, flip-up open-air roof, T-roof, titanium lower accent treatment (no cost requirement with metallic paints), premium sound system, rear-window defroster (except on the convertible), air conditioning and power front windows (includes power quarter windows on convertibles). But in this kind of car, amenities are secondary to the thumping-quick performance. More on that when we critique the drivetrain.
CAMARO IROC-Z: Even at idle, Chevrolet’s top-level sport hatch could be convicted of a speed exhibition. When equipped with the big V8, the IROC backs up its visual claims through powerful surges from the engine’s vast resources of torque. Because its 230 horsepower flows through a four-speed automatic gearbox, purists might consider the IROC to be something of a wimpmobile. True, the absence of a clutch pedal is missed at first, but good throttle response and smooth upshifts eventually offset the longing for three pedals.
The IROC shares wheelbase, fuel tank, and cargo space dimensions with its corporate sibling…. and that’s about it. The Z is a full 4 inches longer than the GTA, though that is due totally to body overhang. Interior dimensions are virtually identical in both cars. The Camaro weighs in about a hundred pounds less than the GTA. Three equipment packages are available with which to outfit the IROC-Z.
The base car is very much like the base Mustang GT, with few frills, lightweight, and a reasonable price. For the IROC, base means little more than an AM/FM stereo (which may be deleted for credit). Two additional packages include an extensive list of mechanical and accessory upgrades. Noticeable options on our IROC tester begin with the optional Goodyear P245/50VR16 Goodyear Eagle VR50 radials on five-spoke cast aluminum wheels. (The GTA also came with the unidirectional Gatorbacks, though its wheels are comprised of a forged aluminum wheel and a cast cross-lace inner section.) Our IROC also included the four-wheel disc brake option (which includes a limited-slip differential), but the rear axle was the base 2.73 unit. A shorter 3.27 performance axle is optional on the IROC, and it is the only rear end available with the GTA.
Both our GM cars were equipped with the optional engine cooler, which keeps the 5.7 running at an optimum temperature. The IROC rides on a modified MacPherson strut front suspension, with 34mm-diameter stabilizer bar, while the rear rides on a torque-arm setup with coil springs, a 24mm stabilizer and Delco/Bilstein gas-pressure shocks.
GTA’s underpinnings differ in spring rate, shock valving, and bar size. The warranty on the IROC covers powertrain for six years/60,000 miles and includes six-year/100,000 mile rust protection. See your dealer for limitations.
PONTIAC GTA: The best equipped of the Trans Am line, the GTA has a long list of standard equipment, making it the deluxe member of our trio. Included in the base price is the 5.7-liter engine; automatic transmission; four-wheel discs; limited-slip differential; rear defogger; air conditioning; power windows and locks; tinted glass; cruise control; tilt steering column; articulated bucket seats with inflatable lumbar support and thigh bolsters; Pass-Key theft deterrent system; and AM/FM/Cassette stereo with equalizer. However, despite its high content, the GTA’s performance axle made it decidedly quicker than its similar, lighter brother with the taller rear ratio, even though the GTA 5.7 engine’s output is 5 horsepower less than the IROC because of differences in air cleaner design. Also, its road manners differed from the Camaro in several significant respects. More on that later….
Even though it shares an almost identical engine and similar suspension setup with the IROC, the GTA has a distinct character that owes much to its superior interior ergonomics. The only interior options are leather-covered articulated sport seats or liquid-crystal display (LCD) instrumentation. Like the IROC, the GTA is covered by a six year/60,000-mile warranty; restrictions apply.
POWERTRAINS
MUSTANG GT: We all agreed that ford’s pony exhibits most clearly those qualities beloved of muscle car fans: a deep idle rumble, throbbing exhaust note, instant torque, and a set of rear rubber that can serve as a second steering wheel. With its short 3.35 first gear, the Stang launches itself with tire smoking quickness. Well-planned pedal placement augments short shift throws, and the throttle response is directly related to right-foot pressure. With the shift to the 1.93 second gear, that solid engine torque continues to build. Then third gear and, what’s this…. a 1.29 ratio? There goes the firmness of the muscle. And the 1.00 fourth and overdriven 0.68 fifth? Those two are good only for mileage runs; in the cut and thrust of urban traffic the top gears rob the engine of its power…. and its charm.
Still, even with its transmission geared more for economy than outright power, the GT isn’t shy about its role in life. There’s no question that the overhead valve V8 under the hood is a wonderful example of the breed, but no car can be judged solely on its powerplant. Later, we’ll see how well the platform handles the responsibility of putting all the power to good use.
CAMARO IROC-Z: This is another case in which we all agreed that gear choice was the key to the 5.7’s performance. A big, tuned port injected V8 with 230 horsepower and 330 ft-lb. of torque shouldn’t be cause for disappointment, but the fitment of the standard rear end ratio takes away much of this dawg’s bite. The engine itself is a marvelous, smooth power maker that feels well matched to the four-speed automatic transmission. Crisp upshifts and prompt downshifts are so easily elicited that the driver might feel lulled, becoming inattentive to the speedometer, for the IROC reaches extra-legal speeds with little notice or drama. In its overdriven state, the engine turns over with barely a hum, but we’d still opt for the sportier rear end ratio.
PONTIAC GTA: Much of our praise for the IROCs 5.7 should also be applied to what is essentially the same powerplant in the GTA. A difference in how the intake air gets to the manifold accounts for the GTA’s lower net bhp, but you wouldn’t have known it with our test Pontiac. All GTAs come standard with the performance axle, and it really helps via a tauter power band and more accessible torque. The same four-speed automatic transmits the power aft with dispatch and efficiency, allowing the GTA to feel just as quick as the IROC, despite more weight and fewer horses. The GTA also received credit by the staff for being a complete package, including a big motor, four-wheel discs, sport axle, limited slip, and a beautiful body to match its brawn.
DAILY LIFE
MUSTANG GT: At the same time we applaud the V8’s ability to evoke a past era, we complain about the less than controlled way all that power gets used. When we critiques those active components of motoring – suspension, brakes, and driver ergonomics – we agreed that the Mustang shows its age. Start with the inadequate front seats. Lack of lateral support makes turns hold-on-until-it’s-over affairs. The seats look like they work, but under load their side cushions are too soft to control a swaying body.
Move next to the steering wheel. The leather-covered wheel itself present no problems. In fact, both it and the shifter are both very well designed. But at the other end of the steering shaft is a rather uninspiring rack-and-pinion system. Over-assisted, and vague when cranked hard, it lacks the direct feel associated with the best sports cars. That can be over come with time and experience; it’s not like the Mustang goes where it wants. But with so much power on tap and with the rear wheels so willing to lead the way, better steering would definitely be appreciated.
As long as we’re carping, let’s talk about the GT’s suspension. Sure, velvet ride was never associated with muscle car performance, but the Ford’s rough method of dealing with road irregularities definitely left it open to criticism. Though we differed on just how bad we deemed the suspension to be, we all agreed that Steve Saleen’s Mustang has demonstrated the car’s capabilities much better than Ford’s setup. On smooth pavement, the tires get to work as they should, but they spend too much time off the ground over the eroded surfaces of most city streets. Highway strips are no kinder to the underpinnings, especially in the rear. Ka-thump, ka-thump.
Lest we leave you with an impression that this is an unlikable car, let’s assure you we all thought this was as fun an automobile as exists on the market today. Through its faults shines brilliant performance potential. The brakes are great, with big internally vented front discs. Handling is very neutral, the slight understeer easily dissipated in thrilling yet controlled rear throttle steer. Even the gaps in the power delivery created by the tall gear ratios can be over come by an injunctuous right foot (though at some considerable penalty in fuel consumption). With a few mechanical tweaks, primarily to the suspension, and a better set of sport seats, the GT could be brought up to date in virtually every respect. Still, it’s a modern muscle car worthy of respect.
CAMARO IROC-Z: This is a difficult car to generalize about, for several reasons. One, its range of options is vast, and, as we’ve pointed out in our discussion of the Chevy’s rear end ratio, a choice made at the dealership could significantly change the character of the car. Two, the IROC’s flashy image seeks to elicit an emotional response in addition to impressing with its performance. It’s not a subtle message, and it left some of us cold. We all agreed that the Pontiac was better looking (with the lights down, at least). Maybe we’re just not as youthful in spirit as we once were, but the IROC’s aggressive visual nature proved almost a detriment to our enjoyment of the car. As we said, even standing still, the car beckons for notice from law enforcement.
The third reason the Camaro was difficult for us to judge was the presence of the GTA. The Ford is different enough from the other two that comparing them was no problem. But between the two GM siblings, we couldn’t help but measure one against the other – and the Pontiac usually came out on top. But the IROC does have redeeming qualities. Foremost are the smooth power delivery and a stable platform. Much better behaved than the Mustang’s suspension, the IROC’s effectiveness was nevertheless diminished by that old bugaboo created by stiff springs, soft shocks, and big anti-roll bars. Over the smoothness of a skidpad, that setup is ideal. On public roads, it can lead to harshness and wheel hop. Unfortunately, the IROC’s nature is better suited to a test track than the highway. On the plus side, the steering is wonderfully direct, turn-in is crisp, and handling is predictable. It’s a big car, though, and throwing it around, tail out, is touchy business – especially if a pothole looms halfway through the corner.
Braking is very good, the four-wheel discs exhibiting no fade during repeated hard use. Not so good are the front buckets, which lack needed lateral support and are much too short in the leg. Secondary controls and instrumentation are adequate, the primary analog gauges readable and the climate controls excellent. But overall, the interior doesn’t sparkle with style or innovation – especially when contrasted with the car’s spicy exterior.
One final note: Though we understand that a particular car’s faults can’t be applied across a model line, a few of the IROC’s deficiencies cry out for notice. First, the rearview mirrors jiggles to the point that they weren’t very useful for picking up details – like whether that car on the horizon is a cop or not. (To be fair, the Mustang also suffered from almost unusable mirrors.) Second, the rear hatch glass had a pair of glitches that were very annoying. Finally, the overall fit and finish wasn’t close to the quality of the Pontiac F-body. We’re sure Chevrolet can do better…
PONTIAC GTA: The favorite of two of our staffers, it has the most refined feeling of the three cars. Much of its extra weight must have been utilized in sound deadening and more substantial interior materials, for the GTA delivers in quiet, unassuming fashion all the performance of the less-polished IROC. Though its engine is slightly down on power from the IROC, the way in which it is delivered makes it a quicker, more stable runner.
Primary among Pontiac’s particular F-body tweaks is a suspension better tuned to handle the rigors of the road. What it gives up in ultimate cornering power, which isn’t much, it makes up with a silken ride and minimal disturbance from expansion joints, potholes, or tar strips.
Almost as important as the suspension in establishing the GTA’s unique character is the interior layout. Its appearance is much busier than the Camaro, particularly with the mass of radio control buttons on the steering wheel hub. Also, the gauges stretch so far across the dash that a quick glance isn’t quite enough to take t hem all in. Their analog nature is welcome, but the backing graphics aren’t up to the visual level of the rest of the car. Some of the secondary controls are a bit awkward to operate, and a couple of the gauges are hidden by the steering wheel, but overall, the ergonomics are more than acceptable. Especially nice are the articulated adjustable sport seats, which provide excellent support for any type of body. It sits well in relation to the thick-grip steering wheel and shift knob, so that when flogging the GTA, you find yourself in a comfortable, controlled situation.
So, although the GTA tended to be the more impressive of the three, there still wasn’t a clear consensus of opinion as to which was best in every respect. The debate continues, and we look forward to the improvements and refinements that should be coming as long as Ford and GM can be assured of a decent market for their pony cars.
Sidebar: WHERE, OH WHERE ARE THE PONY CARS GOING? by Jim Losee
What direction will GM and Ford be going with their respective pony cars in, say, 1991? The answer depends on whom you to at each corporation. Some of the answers are optimistic, to say the least, some are realistic, and some portray a doomsday scenario.
It seems likely that the GM camp will put its V8 engines out to pasture, while installing some sort of turbocharger or supercharger on a 230 to 270-inch V6. The venerable F-body will ride on a new platform that will supposedly be both lighter and stronger than the current rendition.
Of most concern to people both inside and outside of the hallowed halls of General Motors is the transformation of the next-generation Camaro and Firebird into front-wheel-drivers. According to people in the know at both corporate subsidiaries, the F-body will remain a rear-driver its entire life. We know that heated struggles between those on both sides of the front/rear controversy have taken place at all levels of management, and though rear-drive advocates currently have the upper hand, we’ve heard that the front-drive proponents aren’t finished yet. The only thing that everyone seems to agree on is that there will be an F-body car at GM right into the 21st century.
Over at Ford’s Dearborn headquarters, the fate of the Mustang is not so clear-cut. Plans called for the new Probe, a joint venture between Ford and Mazda, to replace the Mustang in 1989, but we hear now that it’s not going to happen – at least not yet. Sales are brisk for the rear-drive Mustang, so for now Ford corporate is going to let things ride.
A reevaluation will be made before the 1991 model year to decide whether the current Mustang platform will carry the stern-drive configuration into the 21st century, or if a front-driver is to be the future of the Ford Mustang.
There was no shortage of committee meetings and teeth gnashing over the stay of execution given the current Mustang platform for 1989. We expect more of the same over the next few years as Ford officials tackle the tough problem of deciding the future of the Mustang… whether or not it will be front or rear-drive, and whether it will remain all Ford. The sacrilegious suggestion of dropping the lineup altogether has even been bandied about, which leaves us with the unhappy question: What would a Ford car lineup look like without a Mustang in there, in one incarnation or another…?"
1988 PONTIAC TRANS AM GTA
Base Price:.......... $19,299
Engine Type:.......... V-8, OHV, two valves/cylinder
Displacement:.......... 350 cu in.
Bore x Stroke:.......... 4.00 x 3.48
Compression ratio:.......... 9.3:1
Induction system:.......... Tuned-Port Injection
Horsepower (SAE net):.......... 225 hp @ 4400 rpm
Torque (SAE net):.......... 330 lb-ft @ 3200 rpm
Transmission:.......... 4-speed automatic
Suspension, Front:.......... MacPherson strut, coil springs, gas-pressure hydraulic shocks, stabilizer bar
Suspension, Rear:.......... Live axle, lower control arm, torque arms, Panhard rod, coil springs, stabilizer bar
Steering:.......... Recirculating ball, power assist
Ratio:.......... 12.7:1
Turns (lock to lock):.......... 2.26
Brakes:.......... Four-wheel power discs
Wheels:.......... 16 x 8 inch cast aluminum alloy
Tires:.......... P245/50ZR16, Goodyear unidirectional
"Gatorbacks"
Wheelbase, inches:.......... 101
Track, f/r:.......... 60.7/81.6
Overall length:.......... 190.3
Overall height:.......... 49.8
Curb weight, pounds:.......... 3510
Fuel capacity, gallons:.......... 15.5
