Just how safe can you feasibly get a first generation Mustang to be?

Status
Not open for further replies.
4.6 into a classic is not worth the time or money IMO. The 5.0 EFI stuff works great and the amount of modification to install the 4.6 just isn't worth the time. I'd rather have an EFI 351w/393 at the end of the day and come out with more cash in my hands.
 
  • Sponsors (?)


ford racing has a kit to install an 08 engine into a 66?

The kit isn't for the actual installation into the car itself, but allows you to adapt the 08 electronics into an earlier model car with a minimum of hassles.

It consists of:
a cold air kit with the MAF
the electronic (no linkage) gas pedal
a mini relay box (for fuel pump etc)
a reprogrammed ECU
an adaptor wire harness that allows you to use your stock electrical system.

I will still have to make room for the engine by eliminating the spring towers, and fabricate the engine mounts etc..
 
4.6 into a classic is not worth the time or money IMO. The 5.0 EFI stuff works great and the amount of modification to install the 4.6 just isn't worth the time. I'd rather have an EFI 351w/393 at the end of the day and come out with more cash in my hands.

What I am doing isn't just about putting in the 4.6. It has to do with eliminating all of the negative handling issues associated with the early Mustangs, as well as the sloppy steering and the drum brakes.
Since I won't have the spring towers any more, I figured why not put in a new 3 valve engine which is lighter (400 lbs fully dressed) then a cast iron small block. This would help offset the extra weight of the new front suspension hardware.
I have noticed that many of the posters on these forums like to include the engine size, horsepower, 60 ft times, 1/4 mile times, etc...etc. as part of their responses, but that's not what I'm all about. I prefer my competitive events last a bit longer then 10 seconds.
You may well outperform me with your 393 stroker at the drag strip, but I believe the outcome would be quite different at an autocross event.
 
Classics make safer drivers

I will put in my 2 cents here. Let me start out with my Dad. He bought a '68 coupe from his brother in '69 when he returned from Vietnam. That car was our only car until my Mom got a Datsun in 1981. When we moved to Germany in '73 the Mustang went with us and drove us all over Europe, including the Autobahn. The Mustang drove our family across the country 4 times, twice pulling a small trailer. This was my Dad's daily driver until 2001 when he did a resto and made it his weekend driver.

This is the car I learned to drive in. At the same time we were building a '67 for me to drive once I had my license. I learned right from the beginning that 4-wheel manual drums need a little more space between you and the guy in front of you in stop and go traffic. I learned to drive more defensively and to not take the car for granted.

Fast forward, I have been driving for 22 years and have never had an accident or speeding ticket, not even with a built 460 and 4 wheel drums on the '67. The '67 is long gone to hopefully a good home and I now own the '68 as my project car. But the lessons I learned driving that car growing up are lessons I still practice today. My daily driver has ABS, air bags, 4 wheel power discs, and every other safety device mentioned, but none of that would have helped me when the engine died going 45 in stop and go traffic. What saved me and my car were the lessons learned in that '68 Mustang. I had plenty of room between me and the car ahead of me and had no problem stopping and pulling to the side in time to avoid an accident.

Are they as safe as new car, no. Can they be as safe as a new car, sure, if the driver knows how to drive. Is there anything cooler than cruising down the interstate or around town in a classic Mustang, definitely not.
 
BillyT903,

Do your safety upgrades or buy a car with them already made. Just make sure the GF is willing to haul you around because of the iron law of automobiles: cars break.

I weep for your wallet since your situation prevents you from doing the wrenching. I was in the same boat for the last several years, and it gets aggravating paying folks to do work that you'd be more confident in if you did it yourself.

I like your plan, but I'll always want the second car if only for trips to the auto parts store.
 
Browsing through the latest Consumer Reports 2009 Auto issue, I count 34 different car manufactures and they didn't include Aston Martin, Bugati, Maserati, or Ferrari. I am sure there are a few more too. Lets say 40 manufactures offering 5 models each - that's 200 different cars. Prices range from about 16K to well over 200K. That is a lot of variety. Current economy excluded, these cars exist because there is a market for them. An individual's idea of the perfect car varies greatly.

I think most of us enjoy vintage Mustangs because they are relatively rare, have distinctive styling, and are performance oriented. Some of us are more brand loyal than others (my dream garage would have a few Mustangs, a Cuda, a Road Runner, a GTO, Vette, etc..) but overall our tastes are similar.

I built my Shelby RestoClone for more performance, safety, and comfort so it would be comparable to "modern" performance cars. Let's face it, Muscle Cars were the dinosaur kings of the eighties but current cars beat them in every category except maybe looks which is very subjective (remember the 200 new cars above).

So my fastback was rotisseried and restored to new, upgraded with Lizard Skin and Dynomat for a quieter ride, trick suspension and chassis reinforcements for handling and integrity, big power disc brakes and rack & pinion steering for precision, recontoured seats with headrests, shoulder harnesses and collapsible steering column for safety, A/C and stereo for comfort, and an aluminum 482FE with 5-speed for awesome acceleration.

I don't dare break out my well hidden receipts for fear of being caught, but I am sure there is 90K in the car. It's a great car and turns lots of heads but you know what? I was looking at a 2003 Porsche 911 Turbo with 28,000 miles for $42K that would beat my car in every category: acceleration, top end, slalom, braking, and gas mileage. It has ABS, air bags, cruise control, all-wheel drive, is more comfortable to drive, and more reliable. Porsches are fairly common on the road but not the turbo models. They are still somewhat distinctive. Right down the street was a 2006 Viper for the same price. The Porsche originally sold for over 100K and the Viper for about 80K. They will depreciate a little more but not much. Judging from current eBay auctions, I might be able to get 60-70K for my car. I have to say, I'm tempted to sell at a loss, buy a Porsche, and use the rest to get the wife a new SUV. I would probably have enough left over for upgraded turbos or some other neat parts so I would still have a "hobby" car to turn wrenches on.

DSCN1691c.jpg


DSCN1652.jpg


View attachment 268123
 
Well this pretty much answers my original question.

IIHS 40 mph head on crash. 2009 Malibu driver suffers minor knee injury. 1959 Bel Air driver dies instantly.

YouTube - Collision Chevrolet Bel Air 1959 and a Chevrolet Malibu 2009

YouTube - Crash test: 1959 Chevy Bel Air vs. 2009 Chevy Malibu

QUESTION: Just how safe can you feasibly get a first generation Mustang to be?

ANSWER: Not safe enough.

before you judge all vintage cars by that one example, there are a few questions that need to be answered first about the 59, including;

was there even an engine in that car?
what condition was the frame in?
what condition were the body panels in?

the next thing you have to understand is that as good as cars are today, people still die in auto accidents daily in this country while driving those new cars. it isnt the car that makes the driver safe, its the driver that makes the driver safe.
 
before you judge all vintage cars by that one example, there are a few questions that need to be answered first about the 59, including;

was there even an engine in that car?
what condition was the frame in?
what condition were the body panels in?

the next thing you have to understand is that as good as cars are today, people still die in auto accidents daily in this country while driving those new cars. it isnt the car that makes the driver safe, its the driver that makes the driver safe.

I'm not sure what you are trying to suggest, but I highly doubt the IIHS does head on crash tests with motor-less cars that have the body panel bolts unscrewed from a rotted frame. I'm pretty sure the 1959 Chevy was in mint condition.

And your Good Driver vs. Good Car comment is meaningless when a drunk suddenly crosses the center line and strikes me in a 2009 vehicle and I sprain my knee, but strikes you in your 1959 vehicle and kills you instantly. After your funeral, nobody will say you should have been a safer driver, but they will rightfully say you should have been in a safer car.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety turned 50 this week. Did it celebrate by having some friends throw a party? By getting lame birthday cards about being ‘one foot in the grave’? No, it went a traditional route and bought a midlife-crisis-approved 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air, which it then slammed head-on into a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu at a combined speed of 80 miles per hour.

All of you who subscribe to the theory that old cars were safer when manufacturers built them out of steel and old churches should take note.

The Bel Air did not fare so well.


“The dummy's head struck the steering wheel rim and hub and then the roof and unpadded metal instrument panel to the left of the steering wheel.... The windshield was completely dislodged from the car and the driver door opened during the crash, both presenting a risk of ejection. In addition, the front bench seat was torn away from the floor on the driver side,” the IIHS report states.

As for the Malibu? “A high acceleration was recorded on the left foot, indicating that foot injuries would be possible.”
 
Upgrade the lap belts to a porperly installed 3 or 4 point harness.

I think most of the damage the driver in the crash with the malibu would have suffered was due to the top half of his body being thrusted forward into the wheels/dash etc. At least his ass was still planted firmly in the seat. Thanks a lot, lap belts :rolleyes:

Get a full back seat, modern seatbelts, make sure your mustang is in proper operational order, and try not to hit anything. Thats all you can do IMO.

Oh, and don't drive during Amateur nights
 
Hmmm. Why are you even on a Mustang forum? No 64-73 Mustang would be as "crashworthy" as a 2009 Malibu, or a 2009 just about anything else, including a 2009 Mustang. I suggest you buy a 2009 Malibu. It's ridiculous to imagine making a 1966 Mustang as safe as a 2009 car. Give up now. However:

1) It is certainly possible to improve the level of safety in early Mustangs, most of the ways have been discussed here, and include headrests and shoulder belts (both are more important than air bags, passenger ejection and flair are the major killers in collisions) and so on.

2) By far the best way to survive accidents is to not have them. Sobriety, alertness, lack of fatigue, lack of having a cell phone stuck to your face are all major steps to not getting hurt in a collision. I wish I had a nickel for every fool I've seen weaving around in traffic with a phone.

The best way to accomplish this? Get some real training. Most state driving tests are real big on parallel parking, which won't prevent accidents, but have ZERO attention to accident avoidance. A few times fools have pulled out of side streets right into me, and had I simply slammed on the brakes, the typical reaction, I'd have had several accidents which totalled the car. However, because my reactions allowed me to steer around them, I escaped unscratched.

I never said I was expecting a 1965 vehicle to be as safe as a 2009 car, but reasonably safe enough for daily commuter street driving. And that might include the '09 guy getting a sprained knee, and the '65 guy getting a fractured one, but I'm afraid Sprained-Knee vs. Instant-Death does not fall under any definition of reasonably safe in my book.
 
Before you start making claims about "instant death", try finding some data about Mustang crashes, not some 1959 POS Chebbie. I might respect that. Until you do, you have no valid instrument for comparison. I have been involved in the Mustang hobby since they were new, and they are simply not deathtraps. So, start looking for that 68 Mustang crash-test video. :D

So are you really trying to claim that it would have been an extremely different outcome had the IIHS crash test been done with a 1965 Mustang and a 2005 Mustang instead? Is your head really that saturated with such Ford-vs-Chevy silliness that you actually believe such nonsense?
 
So are you really trying to claim that it would have been an extremely different outcome had the IIHS crash test been done with a 1965 Mustang and a 2005 Mustang instead? Is your head really that saturated with such Ford-vs-Chevy silliness that you actually believe such nonsense?

I think he is trying to say that a chevy bel air would perform differently in a crash test compared to a ford mustang.
 
So are you really trying to claim that it would have been an extremely different outcome had the IIHS crash test been done with a 1965 Mustang and a 2005 Mustang instead? Is your head really that saturated with such Ford-vs-Chevy silliness that you actually believe such nonsense?
I get the impression that you just brought this whole topic up to stir crap. The only reason to buy a car like a vintage Mustang (or Camaro, or Challenger, etc.) is because you love it. If you're really that concerned about
all these hypothetical situations ("what if I cut my hand and my girlfreind had to drive it??") make me think you're just another troll. If you were a true car guy, you'd find a way to make the car what you want, but that's not you, is it? I suspect that if you have a license at all (as in old enough, hint, hint) you're likely driving whatever Mom and Dad passed on to you or at best, you're making payments on a Civic or something. Nothing wrong with either car, hey my daily ride is a '91 Mazda B2200 with a zillion miles on it, so who am I to judge? My point really is that any car is only as good as the driver, just as any car is also only as safe as the driver. Now go clean up your room before Spongebob comes on...
 
I almost forgot. Get a fuel cell, or a piece of sheet metal welded/bolted in as a barrier between you and the trunk/fuel tank compartment.

Dynacorn makes a complete cross-brace panel for that. You would also need to seal the space between the wheelhouse and quarter panel skin. Or you could just get a 71-73 Mustang, which has the tank hung below the trunk floor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.