i just saw this on ebay ... http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260028856894 *edit* i think it is actually a 460, not 429, and it was originally a v6!
Hey, Blackvert! There's the solution to your "to stroke or not to stroke"/"what engine do I use?" question! They don't get much bigger than 460'. It looks like a really nicely done conversion, too. I like that he used a 3.8 car.
I'd love to pull that up for insurance... glug glug glug glug Yeah unfortunately its just the V6.... Adam
That hood totally kills the sleeper effect, I mean, the exhaust probably would too, but the hood definately kills the visual. Not to mention it's ug-o anyway.
Also the fact that the car is carb'd and has manual brakes kills the whole point of using a late-model for me. I mean if you're gonna do that, it'd be more badass in a '69 body.
Ok. Find me a good '69 'Stang body for the same amount of $$$ that you can pick up a clean 6 banger 94-98 and I'll buy it. (Not gonna happen.) There are companies that make hydraulic assisted brakes. (I'm sure that the reason for removing the booster was because of interferance with the valve cover.) Finally, add one of those old Holley Pro-jection kits (or a more modern version of it) and you have the FI problem solved. I think Accel makes a stand alone FI system for retrofit, too. I agree, that hood just kills it for me. It looks horrible. It would be nice, though, to have a car that makes 500+ hp AND 500+ lb/ft of torque AND idles below 1000 rpm. Cool car!
Hmm...that's a 2000. Not a 94-98. I got $9k for my 80k-mile 2001 V6 hardtop when it was totalled a little over a month ago. I have seen driver condition '69 'verts go for $6k on ebay. Coupes are even more affordable. As long as you stay away from the sportsroof, it is feasible that a 460 could be done cheaper(not to mention easier) in a '69 than in a '99+. Not all classics sell for their weight in gold.
http://adcache.collectorcartraderonline.com/10/3/7/85542637.htm I take that back about the Sportsroof.
the 99+, and maybe the other 96-98's had hydro-boost. There is no break booster like we have it runs off the pullies like the power steer.
Ok. So maybe the comparison to a 99+ Stang was a bad choice. I was thinking about a $2k to $3k 94-98. Even at $6k, most 30+ year old Mustangs are going to require the equivalent of $10k of restoration before they will be ANYWHERE near the solid foundation that a 5 year old Mustang would be. Engineering difference of the two era's is unbelieveable. I have personally been involved with more than 30 restorations of 25-30 year old cars in the past 20 years. Crashworthiness, chassis rigidity (for handling), brakes, etc is no where NEAR the same as a "newer" car. Add to that keyless entry and other creature comforts and you would be hard pressed to match it with a 30 year old car. I think it's a neat little car. He really has something that not everyone else does. I would add EFI and power brakes to it but, it's cool. PS--Add a 125 shot of nitrous and you have a truly scary ride!
