Discussion in '1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-' started by 85_SS_302_Coupe, May 19, 2009.
Nothing. Thats about all I have now
Granted, there is a craze going on about Shelbys right now, but what I was saying is Shelbys vs. Boss cars, not just 429's vs Shelbys. I don't know the stats on which had more made, but I think the 67 GT500 is equally as rare as the Boss 429 these days.
Also, while my dad has a much better eye than I do, I'm pretty sure I can pick out a clone when I see one (on the road or in a parking lot for a show) . We've had at least 7 or 8 of them, and I've been to plenty of SAAC shows and meets, so my Shelby knowledge is much greater than my Boss knowledge.
Granted, either one of them is a bad ****. My money goes towards 65 R-Models or the 66 carry-over cars.
Yes and if you look at the cars the 429 was rated at laughable 375hp and we all know they put out far more power than that, and if you want to compare to the high-end s197's they are all supercharged, supercharge a boss 429 and your lookin at insane HP and torque numbers, little modification to the drive train and the boss would own a s197 i mean check this beast out http://freenet-homepage.de/pony/lawman.htm
Yeah, the 429 probably ran low 13s in the quarter, but it did it with 6 inch wide crappy tires and '60s suspension geometry and poor weight transfer. If you take one of those cars and put a modern suspension under it and some slicks, you're looking at a low 12 second car EASY. Then if you go so far as to swap on your typical bolt on parts like h/c/i, headers and exhaust then who knows...maybe high 10s? Throw on a roots blower and you'll be making more power than you can drive on the street. Will it be nose heavy? Definitely. Will it be ridiculously fun? Absolutely.
Stock vs. stock i'll give the new cars a TON of credit...they're getting it done with far less cubes and are very respectable especially compared to what the stock musclecars laid down. BUT, speaking on potential alone....give me a break. If it wasn't for the blower cars, there's not a new Mustang out there that could handle the best engines of the musclecar days with N/A bolt ons.
You can take however many valves you want...stroke and bore it, cam it, do whatever you want short of throwing a power adder on it....then do the exact same things to a 429, and the big block will likely make enough power to run single digits in the right car.
Between your 2 choices, the boss all day erry day. That car looks ****ed. I gotta be the odd man out though and say I love '65-'66 coupes. Not big on fastbacks.
I also have a thing for the coupes. I know technically the GT350 is a fastback but i kinda relate it to a coupe more than i do the later fastbacks. I absolutely can't stand the coupes after '66 though....too much nose for such a notchy back end.
As for the Eleanor cars....i loved them in the movie, i still like the Super Snake, but there's so damn many clones now that i'm just burned out on them. Too much body kit crap. I'm getting to where i don't even like Fox GT's as much and i prefer the look of an LX. I'm starting to like the lighter/leaner look. Plus i like the fact that the cars are almost all steel...there's something cool and classic about that that gets lost with the Eleanor cars. I don't mind mixing new with old, and the restomod/pro touring stuff has its place.
I knew the Lawman before he passed away, and got to see/ride in several of his cars. I was there the day they shot his SPEED special. He was a pretty cool old guy with some awesome stores.
85, you also have to take into account that we're talking Mod motor vs. Monster cube pushrod cars, in a day an age where is Honda Fit is more "cool/in/hip" than a monster big block muscle car. Fuel economy is the name of the game, and if you've ever ridden in/been near an old big block (or even some of the small block cars for that matter), they've never met a gas station they don't like.
Oh, and here is the story Mustang Monthly did on our GT500 a few years ago...
1967 Ford Mustang GT500 - Classic Muscle Car Review - Mustang Monthly
...and some professional pictures we had taken of the car
Dan Cundiff's 67 GT500
I doubt that - as someone else mentioned they measured HP different back in the sixties (SAE Gross) and you cant compare those numbers with modern cars.
Furthermore, the car manufacturers back then werent exactly accurate when announcing hp numbers - I believe it was more a game of 'think about a suitable number'..
In September 99 Mustang Monthly tested all the classic big-block Mustangs on a dyno (Dynojet).
As benchmark they had a 99 GT (stock 4.6) which measured 244 rwhp at 5000 rpm.
A stock but apparently somewhat tired '70 Boss 429 managed only 230 rwhp at 5100 rpm.
Best was the 71 Mach 1 429 Super Cobra Jet at 246 rwph at 5100 rpm...
A 70 GT500 with 428 Cobra Jet managed 233 rwhp.
68 GT500KR with 428 Cobra Jet managed 237 rwhp.
67 390 GTA managed only 165 rwph at 4100 rpm.
These cars were said to be either stock or restored to stock specs - but some of them would have benefitted from a fresh tune up (Boss and the 429 SCJ - both perhaps good for say 10 more rwhp), but we are still a very long way from the SAE Gross numbers quoted when these cars were new.
Hands down, the 69. The 429 is a beast!
thats all well and good but im not seeing any torque numbers in those results, torque wins races not horsepower, and if these cars were truly putting out those numbers how could they have achived the somewhat impressive track times they did
Yeah besides we all know that magazine articles are the end all beat all final word in car facts right?
I'm sure if they re-ran all those cars again or someone went back and posted the torque numbers, they still wouldn't be nearly as impressive as the old-school figures would have liked people to believe. Folks seem to think every muscle car made before 1974 was some kind of mythical beast that made all sorts of insane amounts of power and that nothing ever will out-perform those magical engines of days gone by ... and then if someone points out differences in quarter-mile times, then the argument goes back to the quality of tires back then VS now and how they'd do sooooo much better with modern tires and suspension.
Maybe so ... but we're talking STOCK FOR STOCK. Those cars came STOCK with crappy tires and a crappy suspension. Yes, they could perform better with modern tires and suspension mods and a blower and all that ... but then it wouldn't be stock anymore, now, would it? You'd have to beef those cars up to get them to hang with the cars that're available today ... in which case, to be fair, you'd have to also allow suspension mods and tires and other upgrades for modern cars, and then the whole argument has totally lost its point because it has nothing to do with factory-spec cars.
They were great cars FOR THEIR TIME, but their performance glory has been surpassed by the mid 1990's with the LT-1 and LS-1 F-Body cars and the 4.6L DOHC Cobras. Hell, a lot of '87-'93 5.0's (stock for stock) could probably show the old late-60's 302's a thing or two at the track.
At least it gives a more accurate and realistic measurement than the old SAE Gross figures. They may not be 100% dead-on representative of all those cars from back in the day, but even with a 20-horsepower margin of error, the stuff being sold today would run circles around those pretty but stripped-down, uncomfortable, terribly-handling ol' beasts ... even with the new cars having all that heavy-arsed sound-deading, all the electronic optional doohickies, and rockin' some ice-cold A/C full blast the whole time.
Definetly the Boss! The Boss is my favorite mustang of all time along with the Fox.
Dave, I like you and usually agree with most things you say on here, don't take offense to this on a personal level, but I can't even begin to address everything that's wrong with this statement. Have you ever driven, driven in, or even-- maybe-- driven by a muscle car? You're comparing apples to oranges, to say the least; apples to broccoli, maybe. The feel of a muscle car cannot be compared to anything on the road today, period. They're a completely different animal altogether, and ANIMALISTIC is what sets them apart and makes them unique. The feel of the "crappy" suspension, the burn of hot black vinyl on your skin on an August afternoon, the heat from the trans tunnel on your right thigh, the lack of sound deadening allowing every nuianced sound and exhaust fume into the cabin, the lope of the cam trembling the hood and fenders, stabbing the throttle and feeling big block torque, cranking the window down, clicking on a lap belt-only "safety restraint system" with no air bag and a steel dashboard staring back at you, pumping the brake pedal to build pressure to stop with drum brakes on all four corners-- that's driving. And, honestly, you won't ever relate unless you've loved a machine like that and let it become an extension of your personality, like I have.
well thats all based off preference, but when it comes down to it which car has more potential in my eyes, be it if you want it to drag race awsome, if you want to track it road racing then god help you not gonna happen, cars in my opinion arent ment to be stock but thats my preference and everyone has their own. so im still gona compare them as modified vehicles cause i dont want to leave a car stock
Hell aside from having a cracked up dash pad and power brakes, you just described my coupe
my second car was a 71 t/a with a 455 and yes it was loud, uncomfortable, and a blast to drive, but my old LS1 would rape it any day of the week.
theres still no feeling like driving an old muscle car knowing that you could ride for days and not see another one. the looks you get are incredible especially when your exhaust sets off car alarms and the cam lope will make the windows rattle on the car next to you. plus smelling like 93 octane everytime you get out of the car is a plus.
110 in our beast.....now that's an ADDICTIVE smell.