New Mach 1 Member

[Fomoco1649]

Thanx.....will probably go with the MGW shifter & saw a picture of someone who painted there door window control bezels metalic silver to match shifter area trim.....looks great !.......good info on the cold air....looks like the original owner installed a JLT - CAI with the stock assembly in the trunk if I want it.....good info thanx

 

[Fomoco1649]

Considering you could get a Mach 1 in 70 with a 428 SCJ big block, I hope they had more power than our tiny little 4.6L motors =)

The Mach 1 in actuality was a replacement for the GT but they had the cross over years. Unfortunately, the 71-73 Mustangs were kinda huge/boats so the Mach 1s from those years weren't quite as badass as the earlier lighter ones. That and all the smog restrictions =(

Ten four....71-73 were to long & heavy....horsepower is all relevant to the size & weight of vehicle it has to move & tire to pavment resistance ....and because of lack of technology the 69-70 really were not making the HP they are today

 

[Mattstang04]

I would be curious to see an 04 mach go toe to toe with a 69 mach super cobra jet. Think that might be a real good match. Technology with less power versus the less complicated old style raw muscle.

 

[Fomoco1649]

Me too....I was looking @ some of the HP. ratings from some of the older models .....interesting.....personally 310HP is plenty for me, along with good 5 speed transmission ......... a comfortable ride & nice stereo

 

[Rusty67]

The 69 SCJ stock was supposedly 14.1 in the 1/4 mile but remember, that was with ty bias ply tires and not so great shocks. A modern set of tires on that bad boy and a small amount of suspension work would probably make a world of difference. The factory stock 03-04 Machs were running about 12.9-13.2. There is no doubt the old SCJ motor is more powerful than the modern Mach motor although they don't rev nearly as hard. I think the slower time comes down to mostly suspension and tires.

 

[Fomoco1649]

The 69 SCJ stock was supposedly 14.1 in the 1/4 mile but remember, that was with ****ty bias ply tires and not so great shocks. A modern set of tires on that bad boy and a small amount of suspension work would probably make a world of difference. The factory stock 03-04 Machs were running about 12.9-13.2. There is no doubt the old SCJ motor is more powerful than the modern Mach motor although they don't rev nearly as hard. I think the slower time comes down to mostly suspension and tires.

Hard to say.....the newer technology , fuel injection , tires , suspension , lighter weight vehicle , all make a difference & the new Boss 302 & GT-350 are examples of that ..& lets not forget the nice stereos of today compared to the 1970 am-fm push button radio......but I am satisfied with my.... Mach 1 & 2007 Honda accord V-6.....good enough for me

 

[Rusty67]

Not really all that hard to say, the giant big block motor has a ton of torque and is more powerful than our reasonably efficient small/modern motor. There is no replacement for displacement. Stock the car is slower but there were guys back in the day running 11s in those cars by doing suspension work and uncorking those big blocks.

Here is some interesting info, the 1/4 mile time for the 69 is from an auto trans car and it ran 13.9:
https://web.archive.org/web/2012100...om/musclecars/general/musclecars-50fast.shtml

Our Machs curb at 3,380 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_Mach_1), the 69 Mach came in at 3,469 with a SCJ (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/1969-ford-mustang-mach-i-review). There isn't much of a weight difference even with the huge motor (less than 100 pounds). The smaller motor old cars are actually lighter than our newer cars. If you read the article from car and driver you will see they have nothing but traction problems. A small amount of suspension work and modern tires would fix that and it should shave a TON of time off the 1/4. Basically in stock form, the car can't hook or use all its power and that is why they are as slow as they are.

Do I want a 69 Mach 1 SCJ car? Hell yes. Would I rather drive it daily over my 03 Mach? Hell no. You are right, the modern cars are more comfortable and efficient. The suspension/chassis design is better on the newer cars but when you come down to raw power, the old SCJ motor is a beast and it would kill our lovely little 4.6 v4 motors if it had the chance. Now you start modifying both the motors and introducing forced induction and such and everything goes out the window.

 

[Fomoco1649]

Not really all that hard to say, the giant big block motor has a ton of torque and is more powerful than our reasonably efficient small/modern motor. There is no replacement for displacement. Stock the car is slower but there were guys back in the day running 11s in those cars by doing suspension work and uncorking those big blocks.

Here is some interesting info, the 1/4 mile time for the 69 is from an auto trans car and it ran 13.9:
https://web.archive.org/web/2012100...om/musclecars/general/musclecars-50fast.shtml

Our Machs curb at 3,380 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_Mach_1), the 69 Mach came in at 3,469 with a SCJ (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/1969-ford-mustang-mach-i-review). There isn't much of a weight difference even with the huge motor (less than 100 pounds). The smaller motor old cars are actually lighter than our newer cars. If you read the article from car and driver you will see they have nothing but traction problems. A small amount of suspension work and modern tires would fix that and it should shave a TON of time off the 1/4. Basically in stock form, the car can't hook or use all its power and that is why they are as slow as they are.

Do I want a 69 Mach 1 SCJ car? Hell yes. Would I rather drive it daily over my 03 Mach? Hell no. You are right, the modern cars are more comfortable and efficient. The suspension/chassis design is better on the newer cars but when you come down to raw power, the old SCJ motor is a beast and it would kill our lovely little 4.6 v4 motors if it had the chance. Now you start modifying both the motors and introducing forced induction and such and everything goes out the window.

Fair enough....I had a 1972 Mach 1 with 351 cleveland when I was 20.. also had a 1970 Torino GT with 429 CJ .....heavy cars with lots of potential....our 2003-04 Machs have a good balance of looks , comfort & power...

 

[Fomoco1649]

Not really all that hard to say, the giant big block motor has a ton of torque and is more powerful than our reasonably efficient small/modern motor. There is no replacement for displacement. Stock the car is slower but there were guys back in the day running 11s in those cars by doing suspension work and uncorking those big blocks.

Here is some interesting info, the 1/4 mile time for the 69 is from an auto trans car and it ran 13.9:
https://web.archive.org/web/2012100...om/musclecars/general/musclecars-50fast.shtml

Our Machs curb at 3,380 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_Mach_1), the 69 Mach came in at 3,469 with a SCJ (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/1969-ford-mustang-mach-i-review). There isn't much of a weight difference even with the huge motor (less than 100 pounds). The smaller motor old cars are actually lighter than our newer cars. If you read the article from car and driver you will see they have nothing but traction problems. A small amount of suspension work and modern tires would fix that and it should shave a TON of time off the 1/4. Basically in stock form, the car can't hook or use all its power and that is why they are as slow as they are.

Do I want a 69 Mach 1 SCJ car? Hell yes. Would I rather drive it daily over my 03 Mach? Hell no. You are right, the modern cars are more comfortable and efficient. The suspension/chassis design is better on the newer cars but when you come down to raw power, the old SCJ motor is a beast and it would kill our lovely little 4.6 v4 motors if it had the chance. Now you start modifying both the motors and introducing forced induction and such and everything goes out the window.

The 390 engine was a good one & the Boss429

 

[Mattstang04]

Tires, suspension, and brakes are terrible on all truly stock original era muscle cars. That's probably why you hear about power figures being underrated but ETs being in the 14s. I'm always disappointed to read an article that talks about a particular muscle car, gives a big raving review about power and then says the car tan 14.7 in the quarter.

IE..the 69 hemi charger was rated at 390 hp (not using actual figures here). Due to underrating the engine probably made closer to 500 hp. And burned down the drag strip in a whopping 14.2?

By that measure I would give a 69 hemi charger a run for its money in my old stock 04 GT. (Again, not using referenced figures but you get what I'm saying).

Rusty is right. Radials and boxed control arms probably would have gone a long way back then, in terms of preformance.

 

[DSG_Mach]

Welcome to the Forums. I recently got my Mach One in July of this year and I love it.

 

[Fomoco1649]

Cool...me too...I've had mine for two weeks....it's like new & lives in the garage.....it's a great second vehicle !