Car Enthusiasts: Mustang is 50 this Thursday

Pookeyhead

Pookeyhead

Suspended / Banned
Messages
11,746
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
Just to let car enthusiasts know that April 17th 1964 saw the launch of the Ford Mustang, and there will no doubt be a slew of programming about this. Radio 2 are airing a programme this Thursday if anyone is interested.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b040ll7g

The Mustang Owner's Club of Great Britain will be hosting a massive party at The Silverstone Classic, 25th to 27th if anyone is going to that.

We also celebrated the 50th at our Yearly show at Waddesdon Manor on Sunday.

qkEInub.jpg
 
One word:

BULLITT

(y)
 
You're correct :)

I have posted it in the "What do you drive" thread thingy.... but to make life easier.


Click image for full res.
[/quote]
 
Last edited:
Sounds nice too :)

 
Pookeyhead said:
You're correct :)

I have posted it in the "What do you drive" thread thingy.... but to make life easier.


Click image for full res.
Click to expand...
[/quote]


Oh that's a rather nice looking beast.
 
What were the numbers on that dyno run, David?
 
I used to live next door to a guy who owned a Mach 1. I want to say it was a 440ci engine, but I'm probably wrong.
God it was noisy!!! You could hear it coming about 3 streets away. To be fair to him, he drove it very tamely around the estate, but I imagine when he let it go it was a riot to drive. I dread to think what the mpg was!!!!
 
331bhp and 332lb/ft torque. Not hugely powerful, but like most muscle cars... it's about torque at the low end.. of which it has 260lb/ft at idle :)

ybo0EnF.jpg
 
Nice one!! VERY nice one!

Such cars are more than just machines - They live and breathe.
 
Yeah.. it has a soul. In all honesty... like all muscle cars, it's pretty terrible compared to a M5 or a Audi RS4. It's a little under-powered. It's noisy... VERY noisy.. interior build is a little cheap. The gearbox is crude, with whine and driveline chatter if you are harsh with the throttle in 1st and 2nd, but it just doesn't matter. Somehow you just don't think of it as a car. Sounds weird, but it just looks, sounds and behaves so differently than most other vehicles, you can't help but love it. My biggest worry with the new 2015 Mustang that will be a world vehicle, is that it will be too good.. it will just become another fast saloon car... refined, well mannered and urbane. A muscle car should be a bit of a big fat, lovable oaf.. a bit overweight, with some questionable personal habits and a bad temper. :)

It's the way it uses that 330 bhp that makes me smile. All low end torque. With a big heavy live axle, all that unsprung weight, while making absolute handling a bit of a handful, means it hooks up and launches like few other rear wheel drive cars. It may be 330bhp, but it can do a 1/4 in 12.9 out of the box if driven well. Whack some drag radials on it and your into mid 12s. The 2005-2009 GT is the baby too. The post 2013 Mustangs with the Coyote 5.0 V8 are 420bhp. I've considered replacing this one with a 2014 before Ford ruin it for the second time in its history (1974!!)... but I genuinely think the 2005-2009 shape is the best.

Does she have a name? Well... it's a He... not a She, and he's just called Horsey.
 
Last edited:
lb ft not lb/ft!

A '65 Mustang 289cu in left our workshops today after a lot of body and paintwork, and some mechanical work.

Pookeyhead said:
331bhp and 332lb/ft torque. Not hugely powerful, but like most muscle cars... it's about torque at the low end.. of which it has 260lb/ft at idle :)

ybo0EnF.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
andrewc said:
lb ft not lb/ft!
Click to expand...

ft lb actually if we're being pedantic :)

andrewc said:
A '65 Mustang 289cu in left our workshops today after a lot of body and paintwork, and some mechanical work.
Click to expand...

Coupe or fastback? 65-66 Fastbacks are a lovely shape.. better than the 67-68 which Bullitt made famous.
 
onomatopoeia said:
That was a special one with six wheeltrims (count them as they fall off), despite only having the normal four road wheels.
Click to expand...

The GT390 in Bullitt didn't have wheel trims... it had alloy wheels. The wheel trims were falling off the Charger.
 
Last edited:
It is true that most nomenclature gives the distance unit first, example the Newton Metre (Nm) or the metre kilogram, but after all, force times distance = distance times force, but there is a big difference between multiply and divide - and its an error often repeated in car magazines. One tuner I know gives figures in lb/ft because 'it looks better'!

The car that left today was a 1965 Coupe with the C-Code 289 cubic inch (4.7 litre) V8. This was in to repair some rear bodywork which turned out to be more extensive than it appeared - previous poor repairs to a rear shunt. There was also fitting new seat covers to the seats, some other upholstery work, and to convert from drum to disc brakes. The car was recently imported from the States. I wouldn't have chosen the automatic gearbox option myself, but the owner likes it.
 
andrewc said:
The car that left today was a 1965 Coupe with the C-Code 289 cubic inch (4.7 litre) V8. This was in to repair some rear bodywork which turned out to be more extensive than it appeared - previous poor repairs to a rear shunt. There was also fitting new seat covers to the seats, some other upholstery work, and to convert from drum to disc brakes. The car was recently imported from the States. I wouldn't have chosen the automatic gearbox option myself, but the owner likes it.
Click to expand...

A '65 C-code would have come with the awful 3 speed manual most likely.. trust me... you'd want the 3 speeed autobox :)
 
Last edited:
There ar some lovely 65 mustangs on ebay, quite a range in price too from £10k up to £35k!
I totally get what you say about muscle cars needing to have personality, it's what separates them from the quick Euro saloons.
I'd love to have a vintage one just sat on the drive to look at, and maybe rev the V8 now and again ;)
 
BT Bob said:
I used to live next door to a guy who owned a Mach 1. I want to say it was a 440ci engine, but I'm probably wrong.
God it was noisy!!! You could hear it coming about 3 streets away. To be fair to him, he drove it very tamely around the estate, but I imagine when he let it go it was a riot to drive. I dread to think what the mpg was!!!!
Click to expand...

428 cubic inch (or 7 litres for metric folk)

The 428 was made by ford where as the 440 was by Hemi and found a common place more in dodge's etc.

I like mustangs but I prefer them more when they have been fettled by Shelby or Roush - the latter especially for the lush sound of supercharger whine!!!

P.S nice mustang David
 
BT Bob said:
One word:

BULLITT

(y)
Click to expand...

And a second word:

ELEANOR


(and I mean the original 1971 Sportsroof/1973 Mach 1, not the 1967 GT500 from the remake)
 
stupar said:
428 cubic inch (or 7 litres for metric folk)

The 428 was made by ford where as the 440 was by Hemi and found a common place more in dodge's etc.

I like mustangs but I prefer them more when they have been fettled by Shelby or Roush - the latter especially for the lush sound of supercharger whine!!!

P.S nice mustang David
Click to expand...

Thanks.

The Mach 1 may have been a 428, or a 429 Cobra Jet.. depending on year.

Alastair said:
And a second word:

ELEANOR


(and I mean the original 1971 Sportsroof/1973 Mach 1, not the 1967 GT500 from the remake)
Click to expand...

I'm glad you mentioned that. The absolute abortion from the Nicholas Cage version is a travesty, and an insult to Mustangs... and has a lot to answer for! There's a whole generation of kids these days who wouldn't recognise a REAL '68 GT500 if it ran them over.

BT Bob said:
Fancy a new one????

http://gizmodo.com/ford-built-a-mus...source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
Click to expand...


They did that in '65 too. I bet teh health and safety requirements are a lot worse than back then :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top