Camaro/firebird Heritiage vs Mustang Heritage...who has more??

[KatarHol]

Originally Posted by Bumble Bee '77

Well no, its your opinion. Stripes on a 67 fastback is just that a striped 67. doesn't make it a new model. I can go to autozone and buy a bunch of stick on crap like scoops, vents, trim, ect and put them on my '01 Camaro but that doesn't make it a new model. Mustang my have more models but Camaro most definatly has a more Prestigious Heritage. Just watch a Barret Jackson auction. Camaros go for far more then Mustangs. That is a fact.

NOOOOOO,it's fact,not my opinion that the Mustang always ranks higher on historical importance,it came out first,no Mustang,no Camaro. FACT. Read a book about the Camaro sometime,GM had no similar car in the pipeline,they thought the Corvair would match the Mustang in salesand were sent scrambling when they were caught with their pants down. FACT. You nust have also picked the wrong thing to quote,you reply doesn't match my statement,but for that................a Boss 302,for example,would hardly qualify as just a striped '69 Sportsroof,you know better than that. A '69 Z28 is hardly a striped Camaro now is it,that was a lame argument.
Barrett Jackson is irrelevent. If you're going by that,then a HEMI Cuda is the most important pony car,which it hardly was. They're not exactly giving away Bosses and Shelbys at that place you know.

[KatarHol]

Originally Posted by chevydude26

steve mcqueen does not outrank burt reynolds...more people know who burt reynolds is....

besides burt personifies the 70's

OMG,yeah Burt Reynolds would be cooler..................if he died in 1977 also,but alas,he sank into rubber-faced,pauchy,creepy purple suited,wig wearing,jim nabors befriending,Cannonball run 2,self parody which he never recovered.

[nbjczk71]

Originally Posted by Txturbo

Nice early Mustangs are a dime a dozen. Early Camaros are not.

Not true. Fastback and convertibles fetch good money. A K code fastback will get stupid money. It's the regular coupes that are cheap.

Don't get me wrong, I am definitely a camaro guy (I own a 69 SS/RS Conv. big block car), but the mustangs do fetch some good money now adays.

[nbjczk71]

One more thing. I have owned both old mustangs and camaros. All I can say is there is NO DOUBT that the camaros drove WAY better. They felt way ahead of the mustang in all areas, engine, suspension, interior, steering, etc. Jump in a 68 mustang, and then a 68 camaro and you'll know what I mean.

[chadrcr]

So, there have been more years of mustangs----fact.

There have been more years of Camaros being better than mustangs......opinion (mine)
yes you have to count the 5 years that ford wrote mustang on the pinto
(1974-1978)

[KatarHol]

Originally Posted by chadrcr

So, there have been more years of mustangs----fact.

There have been more years of Camaros being better than mustangs......opinion (mine)
yes you have to count the 5 years that ford wrote mustang on the pinto
(1974-1978)

Oh,is that when GM killed the Z28 for '75-76 and you could get some awesome 145-155HP V8's? Whoa,wait,if you're patient,you could find a 185HP late '70s Z28.... Hey,you guys were in the same boat,it's not much of an argument to say your car was less lackluster than ours(our cars were a higher type of bland).................and yet,record sales for both F-bodies and Mustangs for that era...hmmmmm,maybe people don't want performance,maybe they're happy with tape stripes
If you want a car that held up the flag for that era,it's not the Camaro or Mustang or even the Corvette,it's the Trans Am,you option a '78 right and you had 220HP.Holy crap,not to mention the SD in '74 with 290+HP,you could get a big block until '79...........hmmmmmmmm,in '74 i could get a Mustang with no V8 option, a loser Camaro with ugly stripes and graceless bumpers or a bad-ass big block Trans Am. Pontiac ruled.

[chadrcr]

Originally Posted by KatarHol

Oh,is that when GM killed the Z28 for '75-76 and you could get some awesome 145-155HP V8's? Whoa,wait,if you're patient,you could find a 185HP late '70s Z28.... Hey,you guys were in the same boat,it's not much of an argument to say your car was less lackluster than ours(our cars were a higher type of bland).................and yet,record sales for both F-bodies and Mustangs for that era...hmmmmm,maybe people don't want performance,maybe they're happy with tape stripes
If you want a car that held up the flag for that era,it's not the Camaro or Mustang or even the Corvette,it's the Trans Am,you option a '78 right and you had 220HP.Holy crap,not to mention the SD in '74 with 290+HP,you could get a big block until '79...........hmmmmmmmm,in '74 i could get a Mustang with no V8 option, a loser Camaro with ugly stripes and graceless bumpers or a bad-ass big block Trans Am. Pontiac ruled.

you must really layoff the mustang exhaust......
THIS

COMPARED TO THIS


And yea, Trans Am had a 6.6 (400) while the Camaro had a 5.7 (350)
and those years were low hp for all AND low mpg while perfoming poorly...icing on the cake.

[2KZ28_For_Now]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Heritage in terms of what? pop culture appearances? racing? sales? models? general recognition by the public? Impact on the automotive industry? Generally speaking, I think that the mustang has the edge over the camaro and firebird individually.

EXACTLY. The man has a point.

By what criterion?

If you mean "more embedded in the American Psyche" then, the Stang has the edge ---- FOR NOW-----

Read 'em and weep. (this can change).

[Sterling]

I could never see myself driving a ford, but Eleanor from Gone in 60 seconds is a Mustang Icon that I will never forget.

[radz28]

Ooooo... A Cobra Pinto!!! Awesome!!!

[garagelogic]

I'm a fan of both cars. As far as heritage goes, that's really a matter of opinion. Both cars have their die-hard followers and both have made memorable pop-culture appearances.

History shows that the Ford Mustang was not the very first car with the long hood/short deck styling, but it was the one that created the massive desire for those types of cars. (Why do you think cars that fall into a similar style are called "ponycars"? ) After Ford was seen selling every Mustang they could produce in 1965 and even had to retool a second plant to keep up with the demand, GM scrambled to get something similar to market. Meet the 1967 Camaro. (Unlike today, concept to production times were much, much less due to the relatively simple chassis/interior components in use/accepted at the time.) I agree that the Camaro improved on what Ford was offering in the Mustang. I think this has always been the case and will be in the future.

As for being secretary cars, yes, in their wisdom, Ford did create adds designed to bring women, particularly young professional women, into showrooms. But that does not mean they didn't offer performance versions of the car as well. "A steed for every need", I believe, was thier slogan. In fact, I'm pretty sure the fastback model was intended more to the performance-minded buyer than the general public for which the standard coupe was aimed. Those sold in the millions in the '60's and are a vast majority of the survivors you see on the road today. Why should it be a surprise to see less 1st Gen Camaro's on the road today given that they produced a lot less of them in the '60's? It's just a numbers game.

BTW, here's pic of my 1965 Mustang Fastback. I certainly don't consider it a car any secretary would want to drive.

[garagelogic]

Originally Posted by Bumble Bee '77

Mustang has tons of "types" but to me that's the worst kind of pandering to customers as you can get.

You're kidding, right? You're sitting here telling us that a company that is in the business of selling as many cars as they can in a given amount of time should not pander to customers? I guess they should just build whatever they feel like and the customer be damned!

Originally Posted by fad1

What really brought people to the Mustang was Steve McQueen's Green Mustang in Bullet. It was a good movie, but why couldnt it use a camaro ? To be honest, i love the way the Fast Back Mustangs looks and thats it, and Camaro always looked good.

They had sold over a million Mustangs before that movie was ever a concept in Hollywood.

[Beelzebubba]

Originally Posted by chadrcr

A couple more:
:
Rockford files firebird (70's car)
Simon & Simon blue Z/28 (80's car)

ford:
Spencer for hire (68 mustard)

still
Oh yea, the Camaro took a break.... ford wrote mustang on a PINTO from 1974 to 1978... 5 model years... not a proud part of 'stang history

You mean the Mustang II?

Farrah Fawcett had one on Charlie's Angels
Karen Allen had one on Starman

As far as heritage, I actually think the Mustang has the edge....and I just threw up a little in my mouth admitting that.
But:
Who can forget Steve McQueen's chase scene in Bullitt
The 71 Mach 1 in the original Gone in Sixty Seconds
The '67 Shelby Mustang GT500 in the remake of Gone in Sixty Seconds

Eve the ricers get in on the Mustang act with another green '67 Mustang in The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift

The world first saw the Mustang in Goldfinger It started with a 2 1/2 year head start on the F-bodies. So I reluctantly give it the edge.

[nester7929]

I'm going to have to give this one to the Mustang, considering it was the pioneer of the muscle car era. Like it or not, if there were no Mustang, most likely there would have been no Camaro either.

Keep in mind we're talking about heritage, which to me is more history than cool factor. Personally, I like the 60's/early 70's mustangs better than the camaros from that era, and I like the 70's/80's camaros more than the mustangs from that era. However, the Mustang has a longer history, can claim it started an entirely new class of automobiles, and has no breaks in production history.