We used to call em 5 O slow...

I had 2 5.0's, an 85 Mustang GT convertible, and an '89 F150, both with 5-speeds, and they both started shaking before 5K rpm. You could feel it through the shifter big time. Course, both had a lot of miles when I got them, so maybe the motor mounts were worn or something.

If I had $10-12K back in those days, I would have bought a 2 yr old used car that was formerly worth $15-18K. Such as an RX7, Taurus SHO, or a million other things more refined than a Mustang. Knowing what I know today, of course. Back when I was a kid, sure Mustangs "seemed" cool. Until you drove them and then compared them to other cars.

The draw of the 5 liter to me is the aftermarket.

I've never driven one, so my opinion doesn't hold a ton of weight, but from what I hear its easy and cheap to bolt on power.


And slice, some of enjoy fighting to keep traction and the tq it can provide. Top end in a car? That's not very important to me. I don't speed too much, but I love acceleration.

Despite the fanboys RX-7 was a POS.
You would be posting up how you loved it but you were always sinking money into it. Lets not forget that for the most part of the decade the RX-7 was a bit of a dog unless it had the turbo.

Taurus SHO didn't show up until the end of the decade and there was no way you'd find a used one before the end of the 80's. Remember the SHO was just about DOUBLE the price of a mustang (points though for putting it on your list. Didn't think you'd list it because of the styling: Body cladding on a first gen Taurus)

Seriously lets think about it.
1981-1989
New car @ same price point as a Mustang 5.0
or a used car available in the 80's (so that excludes cars sold in 89 and even 88)

What cars (besides the RX7?)

Plus one!

Mustangs of the 80s sold in the millions for good reasons. they were affordable, good looking, fast, comfortable and for the time, refined.
Rx7s in the 80s were not very refined either. Sure the motor was smooth, but they would leave a pool of oil everywhere they went, and the turbo model, which was still slower than a 5.0 mustang, cost twice as much to buy and twice as much to maintain. On top of that, Mazdas build quality was pretty crappy(don't even mention the cost of replacement parts back then) before ford bought them.

dodge daytona shelby z. stock for stock they were right next to each other in the quarter (15.3/15.4). dodge had better brakes (1.00 g of force in 1987!), could likely best the stang on the skidpad and would be far cheaper to up the power on in the short run. commence crying about how its wrong wheel drive

The old oil burning RX-7s were no match in reliability for the mustangs of that era either!

You guys are making me nostalgic for my 93gt that I sold last year, it evolved from my only car when I bought it in 94 to fully modded-money pit with a 12:1 solid cam 377 cubic inch motor making in excess of 600 hp naturally aspirated.

I still have a 93lx that is a project car to be finished by the time my son can drive and I also have an 86gt project car as well.

I could have sworn that the Mustang was into the 14's by the time Dodge slapped a turbo on the Daytona and the Daytona was slower (15 sec car). Sounds like you are referencing the GT automatic.
Daytona was still a decent scoot though especially the last gen with 224HP motor but by then it cost a decent amount more than the Stang.
Stock I don't think the Daytona kept up with the Mustang year for year. However, I think it did have better handling.
Going back to Homeslice's point....was the drivetrain more refined?

Keep in mind that the Mustang to get during the late 80's was the LX 5.0...not the GT. So careful with the comparisons.

I wouldn't mind picking up a LX notchback.