SouthernBoy

Just for the record and for your information, the cars of which I spoke were never called "muscle cars" back then. They were called "supercars". The term "muscle car" showed up later after it was all over. Supercars were midsize coupes from GM, Ford, and Chrysler with big block engines and the requisite suspension and brakes to go along with the packages. Mustangs, Camaros, and similar cars were never supercars. They were pony cars. And Corvettes and Shelby AC Cobras were not supercars either. They were in a class by themselves and even though technically sports cars, their engines separated them from that genre.

For the resolute gearhead who loved the music made by a high lift, long duration cam (especially with solid lifters), pumping burnt gases through the thin wall steel of a set of headers, it was indeed a great time to come of age.
And I can say I owned one of the genuine supercars of that era, which I ordered and waited 4 weeks 2 days to receive. I still have the original order form!

teranfon

Don't forget the specific fullsize offerings of the early to mid sixties. The ones with the beautiful rooflines, nasty BB engines, three inch drum brakes, and heavy suspension. Cars that had to be produced to be homologated for use in NASCAR. Back then you raced what you produced, and some of these things were absolutely wonderful. Numerous BBs, including but not limited to, the Hemi, the Cammer, and the Hi-Riser were all born out of necessity. All these engines were produced initially for running the oval banks of stock car racing. Some of these beasts are my personal favourite Detroit offerings of the sixties.





Terry

teranfon

Three years ago I had an interesting conversation with a director of Ford Racing. He told me when the current Mustang was being developed, one of the primary goals was to make the car adaptable to any changes in the future. Once the 197 became further expanded into different models, the car had to be suitable and substantial enough to accommodate these changes. The structure, much of the mechanical, and the suspension had to be engineered to take increased amounts of horsepower and structural stresses throughout it's lifespan.

Apparently that is why the current Mustangs lends itself so easily and with great success to upcoming models. It was a car designed with a potential far greater than was first offered. Any further changes to horsepower, suspension, and steering geometry is easily done within the current platform.





Terry

SouthernBoy

Several of the full sized cars did quite well on the drag strips. I well remember a 1966 Chevy (I'm pretty certain it was not an Impala) which had an L72 427 in it with a Muncie 4-speed (not sure which one). That was the 425HP solid lifter engine. This car ran consistent 12's, I think in the 12.3 area. It was a drab lighter green.

One race that really impressed me was When "Grumpy" Bill Jenkins, driving his '66 Chevy II SS 327/350 beat Jerry Stahl's Satellite 426 Hemi for A-stock honors at Pomona in '67 (hope memory is serving me well with all of this). Jenkins turned an 11.32 for his win.

SouthernBoy

Yes there is a lot that Ford left untapped in the new Coyote engine. Best quarter mile time I've seen to date for a 2011 Mustang was 8.89. Of course, the car was not stock, but check this one out. Just minor mods and the car is in the 11's. Notice his shifts. On nearly all runs, he short shifts his 1-2 shift, and in all of them, he is not shifting very fast. Bet he could have shaved another 2/10ths with good shifting technique.

http://www.motorator.com/videos/1305

chill_dog

Not to sound lame, but I could listen to (well, read) you older guys (ie. older than me) talk about this stuff for hours. So much information, and I find all of it interesting.

SouthernBoy

Thanks so much. While some might be inclined to call it geezing, I prefer to call it gearhead reminiscing. Now what I've been doing a little today and yesterday (just stopped a few minutes ago), is watching some videos of '66 396 Chevelles, '66 and '67 427 Corvettes. Just to see them and listen to the engines takes me back.

My '66 396 Chevelle had the simulated wood 2-spoke steering wheel and full factory instrumentation which included the "knee-knocker tach". I had ordered over $800 worth of options. Here's the info on that car. As I am writing this, I am looking at the original order form placed with the dealer by my stepfather. Since I was under 21, I could not enter into a legal contract. The car was ordered on Wednesday, March 30, 1966 and arrived on Friday, April 29.

1966 Chevelle, Series 13817, Body Type SS
Madeira Maroon w/Black Interior

Base price: $2845.75
360 HP Eng: 105.35
Special Instrumentation: 79.00
4-Speed trans (close ratio): 105.35
Positraction 3.73-1: 36.90
AM-FM Radio Rear Speak: 147.00
Strato Bucket Seat: 110.60
Metallic Brakes: 36.90
Console: 47.40
Tinited Windshield: 19.50
Black Vinyl Roof: 73.75
Sport Steering Wheel: 31.60
Special Suspension: 4.75
Traffic Hazard Sw: 11.60
Day Night Mirror: 6.00
--------
3661.45


Ok, so now I'm geezing.

pttl

It's so obvious, and such an understatement, that Ford really did their home work on the current Mustang. It's great to be around to witness the rebirth of this car. It's terrible to wish ones life away...but I really want to see wht they bring with the 2013/14 Mustang.



<----- me watching that video of the 5.0 at the drag strip. Me want 5.0....

SouthernBoy

It's a beautiful thing.. the new 2011 Mustang. And I am guilty of taking this thread off track for a moment. Sorry gentlemen, especially in light of the fact of this new machine from Ford.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2z8exW96l8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy2RQ...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb6Bq...eature=related


This last link is interesting. A bone stock 2011 Mustang GT pulling 373 RWHP. That factors very close to 440 actual at the clutch horsepower. As a baseline to consider, the famous 426 Street Hemi dyno'd at 330 HP. Now granted, that was 45 years ago, but still something to think about. This new engine is the bomb.

swami

There's a post on svtperformance.com called show pics of your 5.0 or something like that. Anyway the first car is a red 11 with Steeda springs, Saleen wheels and grill, and a Ford C/S lower front valance on it. The car is absolutely beautiful. Doesn't have the HID's but shows what you can do to the appearance with a few bucks. Worth a look if you like the 2011 5.0.

SouthernBoy

Two weeks ago, I took my Ranger pickup in for a simple recall check, which I have been procrastinating, and on their showroom floor was a CS 2011 Mustang GT. I didn't care for it. I like the stock GT, with the HID's of course, and think it is just a great looking car the way it is. But then again, this is completely subjective. Look at the black GT in post #30 on this thread. That car looks super just the way it is.

pttl

I really like the grille and fogs on the lower facia of the CS. It takes the giant fogs away from the grille wit=ch is standard on the GT. I just wish they didn't delete the "5.0" badge from behind the front wheels with the CS package. The side scoops are kinda lame too.

Good pick of the front of the CS. No "5.0" badge. But cool lower facia


The Standard GT fron end

Costco

I prefer the lower fascia of the CS too, mainly cause that exposed strip of red underneath the air dam on the non-CS 5.0 kinda bothers me, though it's no big deal.

ghttf

you can get the CS lower bumper as a $250 option

swami

Here's a link to the car I'm talking about.http://www.svtperformance.com/forums...en-wheels.html

pttl

I've not seen that. Do you have a link or more info?

swami

On Fords website you have to build a Mustang. It's under appearance package and it's called GT lower front fascia.

DEman19901

I too like VW/Audi. From word of mouth and the internet, all I hear is horror stories about maintenance costs and reliability issues. Magazine long term test cars suffer from the same thing. If I had disposable income, I would be driving an Audi A4 or A5 right now.