It’s not uncommon for auomakers to buy components from other companies, and there’s rarely any exclusivity agreement saying that company can’t sell that component to someone else as well. Because of this, you can find the same parts in a wide variety of cars. One component often made by a third party is the transmission, particularly if someone builds a really good one. Both of today’s cars have the same transmission, the legendary Borg-Warner T-5 five-speed manual.
Yesterday, we looked at two Chrysler products that (probably) came from the same factory. I thought that the Valian’t relatively high price might put more of you off, but considering its cool factor was off the charts, the poor green Caravan never stood a chance. It put up a good fight, but in the end, who wants a tired old Caravan when that magnificent Valiant wagon is sitting right there?
Not me, that’s for sure. I admire the early Caravans, and if I just needed a cheap car with a lot of space inside, I’d be all over that one. In fact, if I still lived in Portland, I’d probably go check it out just to see. But if it’s a choice between that and the Valiant, I’m spending the extra imaginary money.
You’ve probably heard of the T-5 transmission, and you’ve probably driven a car equipped with one, or one of its predecessors or successors. Originally introduced in 1982 in various AMC models, it became the go-to five-speed transmission for rear-wheel-drive vehicles for most of the 1980s and ’90s. It found its way into everything from the Merkur XR4Ti to the Nissan 300ZX Turbo, as well as various TVR models. But it’s best known for its applications in pony cars and small GM trucks, so today, we’re going to look at one of each of those.
1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer Tahoe – $8,500
Engine/drivetrain: 2.8-liter OHV V6, five-speed manual, 4WD
Location: Grass Valley, CA
Odometer reading: 100,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
It’s a little frightening that I’m now old enough to have witnessed the near-extinction of cars that were absolutely everywhere when I was younger. I often don’t even realize they’re almost all gone until I see one. Case in point: the first-generation Chevy S-10 Blazer. These little two-door 4×4 wagons were on every street corner for years. I knew several people who owned them, and I changed the oil in approximately twelve zillion of them at the garage where I used to work. But it has been more than thirty years since this bodystyle graced Chevrolet showrooms, and this is the nicest one I’ve seen in at least ten.
This baby Blazer is powered by a 2.8-liter V6 with a two-barrel carburetor, making 110 horsepower – and believe it or not, this engine was optional. The standard engine was the 2.0-liter four from the Cavalier. The vast majority of buyers weren’t crazy enough to go for the four-cylinder, though; if memory serves, every S-10 Blazer I’ve seen except one has had the V6. The Borg-Warner T5 transmission sends power to an “Insta-Trac” shift-on-the-fly 4WD transfer case, equipped with a low range. This one runs and drives great, and has had a recent complete tune-up, as well as a new battery, brakes, exhaust, and more.
I can’t believe how clean this thing is inside. Most of these Blazers led really hard lives, and the interiors of almost all ended up trashed. This one isn’t quite factory fresh, but it isn’t far off. It’s the Tahoe trim level, so it has stuff like cloth upholstery and carpeting; vinyl and rubber floors were standard. I see an aftermarket stereo, but that’s no surprise; those old Delco stereos had a lifespan of about fifteen years if you were lucky.
It has recently been repainted, and it looks terrific. Seeing a Blazer this clean reminds me of one a co-worker of mine used to have. She washed and waxed it religiously; it was blindingly shiny. We actually made fun of her for it, saying a 4×4 should get dirty once in a while. She tried to take it mudding in a field once, and the mud wouldn’t stick because the paint was so heavily waxed. This Blazer probably could get dirty if you wanted it to, but that fresh new paint is so nice, I don’t see why anyone would.
1985 Ford Mustang GT – $4,500
Engine/drivetrain: 5.0-liter OHV V8, five-speed manual, RWD
Location: Torrance, CA
Odometer reading: 90,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
The third-generation Mustang, commonly known as the Fox body, was a breath of fresh air after the slow, gawky Mustang II, but it took a few years for the new Mustang to find its footing. But by 1985, when this car was built, two key elements of the Mustang formula were back, to the great relief of pony car fans everywhere: some real, legitimate horsepower – and an optional convertible top.
Just in case you never knew, or have forgotten, I need to let you in on Ford’s dirty little secret: the storied “five-point-oh” isn’t really five liters. Not quite. It displaces 4,942 cubic centimeters, which would typically be rounded down to 4.9 liters. But that didn’t look as good on a badge. Regardless, this engine finally put some muscle back under the Mustang’s hood, thanks to massaged cylinder heads, a big-ass four-barrel carb, and a hotter cam. Sometimes the old tricks are the best tricks. Power gets to the rear axle through an improved “World Class” version of the T-5 transmission. This one runs and drives great, according to the seller, and has only 90,000 miles on its odometer.
It’s not in great shape inside, I’m sorry to say. The cracked dash top is one thing, but all the badges and stickers stuck all over it don’t help. The seats and carpet generally look all right; I think a good cleaning would help a lot. Once upon a time, you probably could have hit up your nearest junkyard for a new armrest and horn button, but mid-run Fox bodies have mostly come and gone from junkyards and haven’t yet been picked up by the repro parts industry. But you could probably make an armrest cover, and there are always aftermarket steering wheels.
It looks a lot better outside, except for some scuffs on the bumpers and missing wheel center caps. The seller doesn’t mention it, but the convertible top looks new. That’s a nice bonus. Replacing a convertible top is not an easy task.
Borg-Warner sold the T-5 design to Tremec in 1998, and it remained in production until 2010. But in a way, it lives on; the T-5’s design was the basis for the T-56 six-speed, which was redesigned into the TR-6060 six-speed, which is still in production. And a lot of T-5s still find their way into hot rod projects. There’s a lot of history under the shifter boots of these two cars. Which one would you rather run through the gears?
I was thinking Blazer all the way down, but then the Mustang shows up with a manual and a V8, in good mechanical condition and low mileage, that cheap? Seems like a remarkable deal, and I’m cheap enough to vote for it on price alone. I’d probably enjoy a less clean car more, anyways.
A first-gen S-10 Blazer will be arriving here at work in about an hour, when our part-time receptionist gets here. It’s flat beige and looks tiny next to modern trucks, but it gets her here every day- though from only 2 miles away.
Her husband also works here and drives a square-body K5 Blazer. They also have a 90s Caprice wagon. He really likes Chevys.
On the Blazer – you could also get the 1.9 engine sourced from Isuzu in 83-84. According to Polk, there are still FOUR of them registered.
Gotta be the Mustang. It’s a manual convertible! The Blazer is for sure nice, but let’s have some fun instead.
That is a sweet looking Blazer, but…4-eyed Fox with a 5.0, 5-speed and ragtop. That checks all the boxes for me. The extra 4 grand would go to the Late Model Restoration website.
Came here to vote Blazer, saw the prices and changed to Mustang, then saw the condition they’re in and went back to Blazer. That thing is clean! Now I miss my 94 Jimmy.
The S-10 Blazer was a not-great vehicle from an era when most vehicles were not great, and I loved my Tahoe to death. With the seats folded down I was exactly the right height to spend many nights sleeping in the back on my L.L. Bean Mattress Pad, purchased at the Bean outlet in Freeport, Maine, my sailboard strapped to the top. Yes, the radio caught on fire just enough that I had to pull it out with my right hand and throw it into a river, while my left hand steered across a bridge. Kristine was waiting for me.
I see by the results that I’m not bucking the trend by landing on the Blazer. It really is impressive to see one in such clean condition after so long.
You can uncork a few ponies with some bolt-ons and driveway wrenching, but the chassis doesn’t encourage shenaniganning so there’s not a lot of point. Keep it original, keep it sane, keep it shiny side up for the next generation. The 2.8 isn’t any great shakes, but it isn’t a weak point either. Take care of it and it’ll take care of you for a long, long time. NOTE: the chassis doesn’t encourage it in its unmodified form but if you’re willing to drop the money and time on it, you could build a Chevy-flavored tribute to the GMC Syclone. If I were going to try that, I’d start with a less-beautiful example that needed lots of work already, since the project would involved largely rebuilding the entire drivetrain and suspension.
That the 2.0 was the base engine was only true up until about five minutes after this example was made; the S-10 moved “up” to the Iron Duke as its base mill in ’84. That was good for maybe another seven horsepressures but, importantly, about another 30 foot-pounds which is really what drivers feel, especially in the trucky Li’l Blazer.
Most people forget about the 2.0 in the Blazer, but practically nobody recalls you could get the Isuzu 1.9 in these for 83-84 in RWD only. Polk shows there are still 4 of those running around as well as 26 RWD and 11 4WD 2.0s. I’d wager some of those have been converted to something else over the decades but they left the factory that way…
I was going to be all in on the Mustang, but that Blazer is clean.
This is great, I’m on a roll…two weeks of selecting the (eventual) losing car. Four-eyed pride all the way for me, and let’s do a resto.
I’m not a truck guy, but damn that Blazer is nice. The Fox body doesn’t interest me at all in that condition.
1997-2003 bubble-styling F-150s have become a rarity around me. When I do see one now, it is either spotless or a rusty death trap that only soldiers on because Michigan doesn’t do safety inspections.
If the Blazer was the Vortec motor, or priced equally to the Mustang, it would be an easy win with the condition it’s in. But the Mustang looks twice as much fun to actually use for half the price.
same! Plus. I bet you can find clean dashboards for these, Fox bodies have a huge aftermarket
Blazer. It would be a tough call if the fox body was a hardtop, but the ragtops do absolutely nothing for me.
Fun story: Back in the 90s one of my friends had an ’85 Mustang convertible. Whenever my group of friends got together, we would all try to steal his keys and then sneak out to move his car so that one wheel was on a curb. The chassis flex would be so bad that the doors wouldn’t open, and we would all laugh at him as he tried to leave. He eventually replaced it with a much better ’87 notchback.
Ooof! Somebody left the top down on the Stang through a few thunderstorms! Those floorboards need biohazard warnings.
I’ll take the what-I-initially-thought-was-overpriced-but-after-seeing-the-pictures-understand Blazer.
I’m firmly in the “never fox body” camp, so Blazer, begrudgingly.
That must be the camp that uses saltines and bittersweet chocolate in their smores.
While I disagree with the sentiment, the metaphor is hilarious.
I’m not saying no to this until I’ve tried it. So you might be onto something.
Picking the Blazer for the rare factor. Someone at work, now retired, had a red 85 Blazer they kept in similar shape here in Mass. Daily driver even through the Winter. Probably still driving it.
I’m taking both and there ain’t nuttin’ you can do to stop me. What a fun and useful combo.
Blazer wins out, because it would be nice to slow down one thing in this crazy world.
Had to vote mustang because I had one of these as a kid and loved it. Mine was a black 85 gt t-top complete with the 5 speed. Last carbureted mustang and a bit more oomph than the fuel injected one of the same year. Also quad eye foxes get very little love, but I’ve always liked them.
Huh?!? I’ve seen internet death threats towards people mucking up a 4-eyed Fox.
I got made fun of a lot for my liking of them, and parts were near unobtainium when I was trying to restore it.
I voted the Blazer, though this is a “I’ll take both for 13k Alex”. The blazer has the less desireable v6 but a 4.3 from a junkyard if/when the v6 dies isn’t expensive. The mustang needs some love, but it’s priced appropriately.
I’m in that same camp, but since you can only vote 1, I went with the Blazer. I’ve owned an ’89 LX 5.0 in the past and already have a convertible for summers. However, both of these would be great toys. Now if I just had somewhere to park them…
…I mean, I don’t *want* a 5.0 Fox with a ratty Interior and a cloth roof. But it’s half the price of a 2.8, 4×4 Blazer where I’d rather have a 4.3, 2wd S-10. Yes, that is a Crazy ’80s Museum-quality 2.8 4×4 Blazer. But I could at least drive the Fox and not feel bad about it. Other than the sunburn on my scalp.
I thought the Blazer was overpriced until I looked at the pictures. Good price for a clean manual 4×4. easy choice.
I’m not paying $9k for a Chevy Blazer & that Mustang’s floor looks like the an opening to the depths of Hell. I’m walking today.
It’s 50-50 right now, and I can see that continuing.
Voted Blazer because WOOOOOOW. So CUH-leeeeeean.
Already 60/40 now. I would rather have a Mustang, but that one is too rough for the asking price, so I went Blazer as well. Drop a grand and I’d be all over the Mustang though
My first vehicle was a 1987 GMC S-15 Jimmy with that 2.8 V6 (but with EFI and a few more ponies). It was GLACIER slow and topped out at 81 mph indicated. 0-60 in the 15 second range and passing on a two lane required dropping back, getting a running start, and timing the gap just right.
It was also the absolute worst car I’ve every owned – things broke all the them. We bought it in 1992 with a blown rear main seal for cheap. Did my first engine rebuild at 14 and when we took the valve covers off there was so much sludge in the engine you could see the imprint of the covers. Even the gas tank rusted through in less than 10 years. This one likely doesn’t have the rear tire carrier because those liked to crack the weld nut that held the carrier to the body.
I would never – ever – buy an 80’s GM product
Mustang for 1/2 price for me – garbage too but cheaper.