Its kinda a known fact that if I were to ask the entire petrol-head community to choose between Chevys vs Fords, I would be able to divide the entire community into 2 equal halves.... Why???

Does Chevy and Ford really equal each other out when it comes to building great Muscle cars??? Or does one have an advantage over the other??.....

SO... Here goes the start of the age old debate (again).....

Who makes THEE BEST Muscle cars between the two??? Is it Chevy (GM) or Ford????

Well Mopar made the best muscle cars IMO :wink: But I prefer the Chevy muscle cars myself over the Fords. I think they look better and they're much easier to work on.

Well... I do know that Mopar cars are the most powerful of all the muscle cars, but not the most reliable... :wink:

However my question is between Chevy & Ford. Most say that Chevy's are more powerful... is that true???

To be honest, Ford has always put up muscle cars with smaller engines against the Chevys... for instance.. .

Ford Mustang = 4.8 ltr engine
Chevy Camaro / Pontiac GTO = 5.7 ltr engine

I wouldn't be supprised if the chevy's were more powerful... they've got more engine...

Comfort wise... Fords take it... they're just more comfortable.

But out of the two... who makes the best all-round. And I'm talking about.... power, comfort, maintenance and reliability.

For classic muscle, Mopar's the king of the hill. Between Chevy and Ford, I would go Chevy.

Chevy (assume you actually mean GM?) I would love to own the following:
Buick GS/GSX
Olds 442
Chevelle SS
Nova II SS
Pontiac GTO
1st gen Camaro/Firebird

For Ford it would be:
Torino
Fastback/sports roof Mustang, specifically 69-70s, specifically Boss or Mach 1.

In the last 20 years or so, only ford muscle I would like is 03/04 Cobra for ford. For GM I would like 4th gen LSI ram air Trans Am, turbo regal or any variant (Grand national/GNX), 05-06 GTO and to a lesser extent 94-96 Impala SS.

Well... its plain to see that no-one is there who is able to step out there and answer the question point blank. :lol: :grinyes:

Alright guys, for the third time in a row... .

Who makes the better cars.... Chevy or Ford??

Before you answer you should weigh the following:

Power & Handling
Seating Comfort
Build quality
Reliability & maintenance

Take these into consideration and let me know....

The real reason I'm pressing is because this question has been bugging me since I was a kid. I want to lay the question to rest once and for all....

Plus I'm trying to decide whether I should go in for a Ford GT500 or wait for the new Camaro. :grinyes: :wink:

you are in a muscle car forum. muscle died in the early 70s. if you want to know about contemporary cars go to one of those forums.

Power & Handling
Seating Comfort
Build quality
Reliability & maintenance


This is more an opinion thing than anything else. GM, FORD, and MOPAR have all made some good and powerful muscle cars. Each brand has its loyal followers, and reliability and the ability to keep one maintained is subject to the owner.

Most of the things you have mentioned shouldnt even be considered as they arent the point of a muscle car, and were not the goals of those who designed them.




"VS" belongs here

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=666

Talk about a loaded question!!!

THE "modern muscle car" (only one made since 1972) is the '04-'06 GTO. Mustang never was nor will ever be a "muscle car". It's a "pony car" (a class named FOR Mustang), and regardless of how much "muscle" it has, it will always BE a pony car.

The LSx engines are NOT Chevy engines. They ARE "GM Powertrain" engines. They bear no resemblance to Chevys. They use but two part numbers, left over, which are also used in other GM offerings, and those are the lifter and the rod bearing. And, IMO, they (LSx) are far superior in design to the Ford modulars. Just because they still have pushrods doesn't mean they can't make SERIOUS power! I saw an '05 GTO at Norwalk, "billed" as "the fastest LS-1 in the world". It went 7.19 @ 198. Haven't seen or heard of any small Ford doing that!

Answer to the posed question? NONE OF THE ABOVE!!!

Jim

Talk about a loaded question!!!

THE "modern muscle car" (only one made since 1972) is the '04-'06 GTO. Mustang never was nor will ever be a "muscle car". It's a "pony car" (a class named FOR Mustang), and regardless of how much "muscle" it has, it will always BE a pony car.

The LSx engines are NOT Chevy engines. They ARE "GM Powertrain" engines. They bear no resemblance to Chevys. They use but two part numbers, left over, which are also used in other GM offerings, and those are the lifter and the rod bearing. And, IMO, they (LSx) are far superior in design to the Ford modulars. Just because they still have pushrods doesn't mean they can't make SERIOUS power! I saw an '05 GTO at Norwalk, "billed" as "the fastest LS-1 in the world". It went 7.19 @ 198. Haven't seen or heard of any small Ford doing that!

Answer to the posed question? NONE OF THE ABOVE!!!

Jim

What does Chevrolet use in the Corvette then??? They always claim that the new GTO uses the same engine as in the Corvette.

If at all the GM uses the same engines in alot of models, what kind of engine does Chevy build????

Yes, LS2 (400 HP) is used in the base-model Corvette, and GTO. LS7 is the "427" (really 426, but that's not as "cool") version (505 HP).

Chevrolet no longer builds engines, they assemble cars. GM Powertrain is the division of GM responsible for engines for the last 7 or 8 years, for ALL GM models. LS1 first showed up in the '97 Corvette. In '98, F-bodies got it, too.

Corvette is a "sports car" (and a damn fine one, at that!), and cannot be compared to muscle cars.

This debate can go on forever. Let's let it "ly"...

Jim

Sure..

I just really wanted to know who made cars better.... Chevy or Ford...

:grinyes:

Pontiac.... Not Chevy OR Ford!

IMO, anyway!

Jim

As far as classic big block muscle cars go Chevy vs. Ford involves Chevelle SS 396 325/350/375hp and Chevelle SS 454 365/450hp versus Torino GT, Torino Cobra, Mercury Cyclone, Cyclone GT, Cyclone Spoiler, Cyclone CJ 428 powered by 390GT, 428 CJ/SCJ or 429 TJ/CJ/SCJ. Ford also had the '66-'67 Fairlane GT 390 and '67 Fairlane 427.

If you include sports cars and pony cars, Chevy had the Corvette and Cobras had Ford engines. Mustang, Cougar and Camaro had the big block engine options already stated including the 429 Boss Mustang.

Many great and fast cars on both sides.

There were also several other great cars from that era:
GTO, Firebird, Roadrunner, Charger, Super Bee, GTX, Barracuda, Challenger, SC/Rambler etc.

My personal favorite is '70 Torino Cobra 429SCJ, 4sp, 3.91/4.30 gear.

I agree with Jim and hotrod_chevyz, no right or wrong answer.

429SCJ,

"Back in the day"... I had my '70 Judge w/366 HP 400 (Ram Air III). A close friend had a '70 Cyclone GT with the SCJ (solid lifter version). I had 3.55 gears and a Muncie. He had 3.50 gears and a Top Loader. Both cars were box-stock. I could beat him through a 1/4 mile by about 3'. His engine made more high-end power, and right past the 1/4, he would pop high gear and blow right on by! The Judge was a great performance car, but the Merc was much faster on the top end. From my experience, the Cyclone has the same running gear and performs just like the Torino. Never thought much of the 428s (I've seen 390GT Mustangs beat up on CJs), but that 429 is a great engine! One friend in SoCal has a '70 Mach 1 with the 428 SCJ. It's gorgeous, but it won't get out of the 14s... I understand this is a VERY RARE option in '70.

Jim

Was your friend's car a Super Cobra Jet or Cobra Jet? The Super Cobra Jet came with solid lifters, Holley carb, air pump, oil cooler, forged single eyebrow flat tops and 3.91 or 4.30 gears. The Cobra Jet came with a Quadrajet carb (the only Ford so equipped to my knowledge), hydraulic lifters, cast pistons and 3.25 or 3.50 gears. Both engines had the big port heads (DOOE-R) and 11.3 : 1 compression. I'm not sure, Mercs may have been available with the higher gears.

Actually the 429 Thunder Jet (standard 429) was the standard Torino Cobra engine in '70, the 351C-4V in 71. The big headed 429s were options both years. The '69 Cobras were all 428CJ/SCJ.

In '70, pony car Cobra Jets were still 428s while Torino/Cyclone Cobra Jets were the new 429 from what I understand. In '71, 429s could be had in Mustangs and a small number of Cougars as well.

All four engines 428CJ/SCJ, 429CJ/SCJ were available with and without functional hood scoops.

WOW, '70 GTO Judge, 400 Ram Air III, 4sp, sweet ride!

Never drove one but the 400P, Muncie/Hurst, 3.55s has to be a great all around street combo.

Yes, solid lifters. We put pushrods in it too many times... If revved to 5,600 in the lower gears, it was fine. Over 6,000, and it would bend a bunch of the pushrods. In 4th gear, it would go right near 7,000 without a wimper. I suspect it was catching revs too quickly for the stock valve train in the lower gears. Definitely a 3.50 gear, as well. 3310 Holley, if memory serves me.

I have a '69 Torino 428CJ in here right now. The car is white with red "c" stripes, and red interior. It's quite nice! Girl's car, though (auto trans).

I have seen at least three or four '70 Mach 1s with 429s in them. They may have been transplants, I guess. MUCH stronger than the 428 cars. I drove a '71 "flat back" Mach 1 with 429 CJ. It was a GOOD running car, despite the lower compression. My favorite Mustang was always the flat back. My brother (a DIE HARD Mustang guy) hates them. He says they're just to damn big. That's what I LIKE about them... They're the most aero Mustang produced, too.

When I was first getting into my own cars, I was a "Ford guy". Then, I bought The Judge. You're right! SWEET RIDE!!! Never looked back. GTO was by far, the best balanced muscle car. If you could beat it in a straight line, it would stomp you in the twisties. If you could out-handle it, you were toast in a drag race. In SoCal, there's lots of good places to road race and drag race. We had "courses" marked all over the San Bernardino area. Hwy 18 to Big Bear is an AWESOME "GTO road", at least UP HILL. Down hill? Not suicidal...

Jim

Talk about a loaded question!!!

THE "modern muscle car" (only one made since 1972) is the '04-'06 GTO. Mustang never was nor will ever be a "muscle car". It's a "pony car" (a class named FOR Mustang), and regardless of how much "muscle" it has, it will always BE a pony car.



Not arguing, but why do you only consider the 04-06 GTO to be modern muscle? The grand national seems to fit just about as well (mid-sized, great performance in higher trim than base models). Is it just the displacement that would disqualify the GN/GNX? Were they too expensive or something?

Chad,

Nope. They weren't too expensive. They were shy a couple cylinders. Muscle cars had BIG V8s (relatively speaking, of course). Only the "Buick crowd" considers them muscle. Fast isn't in question. They have very little low-end torque, a prime ingredient for the actual driving (not racing) of a muscle car. They also have a power adder. The latter is instant disqualification in my book... ANYONE can put a blower on something and make it fast. No brainer...

Lastly, they're so seldom seen (I see more '69 Camaros and '65 GTOs on the road than I do ALL Buick preformance cars combined), they're hard to include in any general "list".

That doesn't mean I don't like them. I do. I've built several turbo engines, too. Lots of little things to make them "live" when they are making big power. Not unlike the big Buick V8s.

Jim

Fair enough. I would agree that low end torque would be a necessary requirement for a "true" muscle car. Re: cylinders, I always thought the power was more important than the engine configuration and figured to define a modern muscle you had to take technological advances into consideration. Because of that I didn't mind power adders for a modern muscle. If the new GTO comes with a SC LS2, it wouldn't disqualify it in my books.

Chad,

I understand. But, since GTO can stand on its own feet without an adder, it's a "moot point"! Now, what WOULD happen with say, 12 lbs. of boost? WOW!!!

Jim

I voted Ford...my opinion my be bias.
I plan on bore/stroking my Fe when I get out of school
Hopefully around 480cid at least 700hp
Get this 4500-ish lb beast in the 10's.

M3FordBoy,

You might wanna reconsider the "FE" thing. While a very good engine in its own rite, it's woefully obsolete. It's also very difficult to get to the CID you want. 427 blocks are VERY rare and VERY expensive. Unless there's an aftermarket block out there (I haven't seen one, so if there is, please point it out!), you're gonna be stuck with using a 390 or 428 as a basis. The bore simply can't go far enough to make such cubes.

A "Lima" engine (429/460) would be a far better choice, IMO. Tons of good parts, no lak of power from it, either (more than any FE without overhead cams I've ever seen).

FWIW

Jim

^I have consider this, but I'd like to stick with the Fe purely for nastalgic purposes....It'll cost a little more, and be harder to find performance parts, but it's not imposible. I remember reading a while back that scat was going to or is currently make a stroker kit to get some big cid number out of the Fe's...so that's what I'll be looking for. It might not be 480ci, but at lest 466ci or something like that.

A 428 crankshaft in a 427 block will get you to near 454 cubic inches, but as Jim said 427 blocks are not cheap. There may be aftermarket kits available.

What do you plan about cylinder heads? There are the garden variety FE heads, 2.03 1.56, valves, 428CJ (C8OE-N) and low riser 427 heads, 2.08 1.66 valves. The medium riser (C5AE-F, filled intake runners) and high riser (C4AE-F, tall intake ports) heads have larger valves. Then there are the aluminum Edelbrocks.

As Jim said, a lot of relatively cheap power and torque is available with the 429/460. Besides the aftermarket aluminum cylinder head offerings, the common iron cylinder head castings are D3VE-A2A, DOVE-C and DOOE-R (429CJ/SCJ). The D2VE-A2A heads are open chamber.

Look I'm not going to be attempting this anytime soon, probably 4 years down the road, a lot can happen between now and then. As for heads I currently have the Preformer RPM with 2.09/1.66 vavles. I may possibley use a reworked version of those: stronger springs, port/polish, maybe even some different valves.

Well Mopar made the best muscle cars IMO :wink: But I prefer the Chevy muscle cars myself over the Fords. I think they look better and they're much easier to work on.

Yeah, I know, old thread. Oh well, I am still throwing in my .02. You took the words right out of my mouth. If it comes to American muscle there is nothing I would rather have than an old Mopar. And if it is between Chevy and Ford, probably Chevy. However, I have recently been looking between the LS1 F-body and a 2001 Cobra and I would have to choose the 01 Cobra for the fact that in a straight line they are pretty much identical but the Cobra has IRS. I need a car that can handle decient. An 01 Cobra may be my next car.

Between the two...I believe that Ford made a better muscle car. That may just be three generations of Ford gear-heads talking, but the Mustang, (the accidental muscle car) the Torino, and the Cougars (if we include mercury in the Ford mix) were just...more taken to.

FORD FTW!!!

well i'm pretty rell rounded when it comes to ford vs. chevy but when i 1st got into the hobby i was ford guy so there's always gonna be that part of me that's blue oval but i think they're pretty equal with ford having a tiny edge.
there's some ford's i'd want over chevy's and some chevy's i'd want over fords.
boss 429,351,and 302 over z28
z28 over gt350 and C/S

Imo - Gm

Chevy is much better than ford , i think so thats why ...
link removed by moderator

I think that the Chevy Chevelle with the 396 and 454 porcipine (sp) heads are hard to beat. Lots of power in a small block!! :)

well i'm pretty rell rounded when it comes to ford vs. chevy but when i 1st got into the hobby i was ford guy so there's always gonna be that part of me that's blue oval but i think they're pretty equal with ford having a tiny edge.
there's some ford's i'd want over chevy's and some chevy's i'd want over fords.
boss 429,351,and 302 over z28
z28 over gt350 and C/S
Nice choices. I'd have to agree.

Malibu67,

Hard to tell from what you posted, but it appears you believe those two engines to be "small blocks"? Nope. They're both factory-configuration "big block Chevy". The nickname "Rat Motor" was applied to the BBC in olden times (396 and 427). 454 briefly was nicknamed "gopher" because it was so "big" compared to the others. A "porcupine" is usually an aftermarket bored/stroked BIG CID big block, like a 496. But today, things have changed, as the factory is producing (not installing in cars) 502s and 572s, throwing all that "size" stuff kinda to the wind.

Combatspace,

ALL those cars you refer to are "pony cars", not muscle cars... NO muscle car EVER came with a small block... "Never send a boy to do a MAN'S job...!"

This is one of those things that have gotten dilluted over time. The only true "mucsle car" built since 1972 was the '04-'06 GTO (intermediate size car with high performance engine). Even that can be debated, as the LS-1 and LS-2 aren't "big". The '73-'77 intermediates with big engines had no real power to speak of until extensively modified. The last "monster" engine installed in a factory car of that era was the 455 SD in a limited number of '73 and '74 Trans Ams, also "pony cars". The last "good" 454 installed in a Chevelle was the '71 LS-6 454 (450 HP). I've heard of '72s with them, but never had one verified as "original". LS-7 454 (460 HP, yah, right... 550 was more like it...) was a BEAST, but only "dealer installed".

FWIW

Jim

. The only true "mucsle car" built since 1972 was the '04-'06 GTO

The last "good" 454 installed in a Chevelle was the '71 LS-6 454 (450 HP). I've heard of '72s with them, but never had one verified as "original".
You rang? :p
You mean '71 with a 425 hp... And I also found the 450 hp did not make it (leftovers) from '70 into the '71.

The '72's were the "dogs"................:uhoh: Aw, son of a.......

History 1 (http://members.cox.net/metal702/chevelle_history.html)

Look an orange '72 (http://www.drivingtoday.com/juno/greatest_cars/chevelle_454/index.html)(history 2)

MY take has always been that chevy has always seemed to put out a beefier motor off the shelf. Fords (even though I am a Ford fan), you usually have to add some things to make it use the motors potential.

So Off the shelf you will get more bang for your buck with a chevy, but I would rather buy a ford and add to it any day... Just my take.

The Mustang IS muscle car............sisce they put a BIG engine into a little car.They are also called PONY cars because they started their own class of small sporty cars..........Muscle car is a term used to describe a car with a big engine............the GTO didn't come with just a big engine.Don't throw the pony car name around as an excuse to not call a Mustang a muscle car.a Boss 429..or a Shelby GT500 is, and will be forever a MUSCLE CAR.

the NEW GTO is hardly a new muscle car.............bland styling& 400hp? and can barely run 14's? sorry.......it's not a muscle car,just a wanna be.
i'll take the newer Cobras over any Pontiac offering.and the new Challenger? THAT& the Shelby's,are the NEW muscle cars on the block.

heavily modified GTO's running 7's? they had better be............after all, they have Cobra mustangs running 6's that are just as modified.

The muscle car "ERA" is long over, so i dont think the list of true muscle cars will be growing.

I wonder how the new camaro will stack up against ford and dodges offerings.....



:popcorn:

the NEW GTO is hardly a new muscle car.............bland styling& 400hp? and can barely run 14's?
It runs mid 13's..
Heres a spec sheet....Motor trend (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0312_2004_pontiac_gto/specs_price.html)
Still, I think it looks sorta boring....


I think Dodge done well on ("re")styling the new Challenger. I think I would buy one before I would buy the new Camaro..
However, $40k???? :eek7: Not me....

429SCJ,

"Back in the day"... I had my '70 Judge w/366 HP 400 (Ram Air III). A close friend had a '70 Cyclone GT with the SCJ (solid lifter version). I had 3.55 gears and a Muncie. He had 3.50 gears and a Top Loader. Both cars were box-stock. I could beat him through a 1/4 mile by about 3'. His engine made more high-end power, and right past the 1/4, he would pop high gear and blow right on by! The Judge was a great performance car, but the Merc was much faster on the top end. From my experience, the Cyclone has the same running gear and performs just like the Torino. Never thought much of the 428s (I've seen 390GT Mustangs beat up on CJs), but that 429 is a great engine! One friend in SoCal has a '70 Mach 1 with the 428 SCJ. It's gorgeous, but it won't get out of the 14s... I understand this is a VERY RARE option in '70.

Jim

a 390 will not run with a 428CJ or a SCJ. the CJ was a rather popular option in both '69 & '70.and they ran strong.

Ken,

Are you trying to "call me out", or are you just good at reading magazines and "history"?

You should know, I've been buillding engines for over 30 years (as a professional, not a hobbyist). I've built them all at one time or another. I raced my GTO at the track and on the street, relentlessy from '72 through '78 when grown-up responsibilities began. I got beat occasionally, but a LOT less than I gave the beating. Not once, did a 428-powered (Ford) ANYTHING beat my 400 GTO, and I raced many. A couple of 390-powered pony cars (Mach 1 and Cougar, one each) gave me among the best runs I ever got from an FE. 427s were MUCH stronger, but simply too rare to consider. Most of them were in more expensive "race" cars and at the track every weekend. Us "poor folks" did street racing. The 429, on the other hand, is a GREAT engine.

It's true, in A and B/SS at the '68 Winternationals, the 428 Mustangs did well. Today, they're in "C/SS" because the developements of the "Hemi" made all others obsolete at the "A" level. We see one here and there, but not a popular racer. Too valuable as a collector car, I suspect, not unlike the Chevelle SSs (REAL ones) and GTOs. The Hemi cars that remain "unmolested" are also too valuable to race anymore. The ones that still do are older cars "kept up". There was one GT-500 running in B/SA at Indy last year. Went out in the first round.

My point here is to be sure the ground you're on. While it got rave reviews, the 428CJ never lived up to the "hype". The stroke was too long for the head design and the rod bearings are too big to really rev it. The relatively short stroke in the 390 and 427 made them MUCH better for performance (rod/stroke ratio and rod "angle"). 428 was originally developed as a "big car" engine. High in low-end torque, it made the better T-bird engine of the late '60s.

We've done one as recently as last Summer. It's in a '69 Torino GT, and is VERY nice. It's still a sled, though. We also did a 454 (427 block, 428 crank) about two years ago. It was a MAJOR torque monster, but the owner couldn't let go of the "rev" thing. He blew it up in short fashion. Large rod bearing, cast crank, 7,000 RPM... NOT a good combination. 428s are best left stock and geared "up" like Pontiacs, to take fullest advantage of all the torque (like the Pontiac...).

This is not to dispute anything, just to clarify with some "real world" experience.

Jim

Jim,

You mentioned before the 428CJ you were building, is it a restoration or modded. How were the 428 and 454 equipped? I am restoring a presidential blue Torino Talladega with a 428CJ.

I also have a '70 Cobra 429SCJ 4 speed, candyapple red, trim rings, dog dishes and a '70 Torino GT 429CJ 4 speed white with red laser stripe, Magnum 500s, both restorations too.

The two '70s are nearly done.

429,

The 428 had relatively stock heads with "good" valves (stock size, lighter, SS). We put a bit larger dish in the piston to lower the compression to 9.3:1 and installed a Comp XE268H cam with the appropriate hardware. Stock intake, 3310, factory exhaust manifolds ("high flow"). It sure is purdy! He (the customer) bought a "Cobra" oil pan and valve covers to dress it up. He wasn't looking to pump it up. By changing the cam and compression, we improved it about 5% over "stock".

The "454" is another matter. That one was a BEAST. Edelbrock heads, Ford "racing" (older stuff) 2 x 4-bbl. with 2 660s, 12:1, .750" roller (276/280 @ .050), MSD, Hooker 2" SuperComps, BME rods, JE pistons, etc. It went 9.40s in a 2,800 lb. Fairmont UNTIL... It spun a rod bearing and broke the block in the process. Those cast cranks just can't take 7,000 RPM. Since 427 blocks are so rare and expensive, he opted for the Lima after that. Now, it's in the high 8s.

I REALLY like the Lima (385) design. We've done a few 514s that make a ton of power. BBC guys HATE them. (:- We hit on a combination using D0VE heads with major exhaust work done, that "shine". By "filling" the floor of the exhaust port and raising the roof, the overall cross-section is a bit smaller than original, but flows about 80% (not a typo) more than original. Went from 110 CFM @ .600" lift to 200. Not cheap. I would think the Blue Thunder or alloy CJ heads might be a better way to go. There was talk of "P-51" (Kaase's head) but I haven't heard any results. Is it out there yet? Does it "work"?

One of my fondest car memories stems from an old friend's '70 Cyclone GT, 429SCJ (solid lifter version). I believe I mentioned that car in earlier posts here. My GTO could beat it through a 1/4 mile plus about 10 feet. He would hit 4th and "See ya!"... My car had 3.55s and his had 3.50s. The Pontiac just made more low-end power and the Ford made more high-end.

Jim

I like the concept of the 2008 Chevrolet Camaro which is based boasted a 400 hp, 6.0 liter LS2 V8 engine with a six speed manual transmission. Active Fuel Management shuts down 4 cylinders to save on fuel when the engine load is light and achieves up to 30 mpg on the highway.
Really like it!

Same engine as the '05/'06 GTO with a little more electronics. Good stuff! Watch for it in G-8 "GXP" as well.

Jim

Ken,

Are you trying to "call me out", or are you just good at reading magazines and "history"?

You should know, I've been buillding engines for over 30 years (as a professional, not a hobbyist). I've built them all at one time or another. I raced my GTO at the track and on the street, relentlessy from '72 through '78 when grown-up responsibilities began. I got beat occasionally, but a LOT less than I gave the beating. Not once, did a 428-powered (Ford) ANYTHING beat my 400 GTO, and I raced many. A couple of 390-powered pony cars (Mach 1 and Cougar, one each) gave me among the best runs I ever got from an FE. 427s were MUCH stronger, but simply too rare to consider. Most of them were in more expensive "race" cars and at the track every weekend. Us "poor folks" did street racing. The 429, on the other hand, is a GREAT engine.

It's true, in A and B/SS at the '68 Winternationals, the 428 Mustangs did well. Today, they're in "C/SS" because the developements of the "Hemi" made all others obsolete at the "A" level. We see one here and there, but not a popular racer. Too valuable as a collector car, I suspect, not unlike the Chevelle SSs (REAL ones) and GTOs. The Hemi cars that remain "unmolested" are also too valuable to race anymore. The ones that still do are older cars "kept up". There was one GT-500 running in B/SA at Indy last year. Went out in the first round.

My point here is to be sure the ground you're on. While it got rave reviews, the 428CJ never lived up to the "hype". The stroke was too long for the head design and the rod bearings are too big to really rev it. The relatively short stroke in the 390 and 427 made them MUCH better for performance (rod/stroke ratio and rod "angle"). 428 was originally developed as a "big car" engine. High in low-end torque, it made the better T-bird engine of the late '60s.

We've done one as recently as last Summer. It's in a '69 Torino GT, and is VERY nice. It's still a sled, though. We also did a 454 (427 block, 428 crank) about two years ago. It was a MAJOR torque monster, but the owner couldn't let go of the "rev" thing. He blew it up in short fashion. Large rod bearing, cast crank, 7,000 RPM... NOT a good combination. 428s are best left stock and geared "up" like Pontiacs, to take fullest advantage of all the torque (like the Pontiac...).

This is not to dispute anything, just to clarify with some "real world" experience.

JimThe 428 CJ did INDEED live up to it's reputation at the track& on the street.the 390 was NOT a performance engine............The GTO a handling car? yeah, but NOT stock,sorry................seen plenty of them & the body rool is just like every other 70's car out there
ponticans 400 was a strong runner, but not quite as you put it.
Pontiac's 428 was a step up from the 400.
The 428CJ stuff i refer to is NOT from reading.or from websites
magazines? Like hot rod,road& track, sportscar review, gave the CJ glowing reviews................and the cars spke for themselves
.the lemans/GTO was a nice car, but please, take it off that pedistal, it doesn't belong up there.

and where are you getting 454 CI from a427 w/ 428 crank?
when ,if you drop a 428 crank into a 390, you get a 410?

i know my CJ's......................thew '68 1'2 CJ Cleaned house in the Winternationals,running SS/E,SS/EP &SS/EA............
the 390 was origionally developed for TRUCKS!! thats NOT a performance engine by any stretch..........the 427 was an exotic engine, costly to build.......the 428 PI was built from the start as a performance motor.Look up Tasca.in stock form, the 429Thunderjet was a large passenger car motor..........nothing there either.

Ken,

Thanks. As I suspected... We don't race magazines. We don't race dynos. We race CARS. I was simply expressing my real-world experiences regarding street racing in the early '70s. No matter what a magazine writer says or said, no 428-powered (Ford, that is) ever beat my 400 GTO. Fact, not fiction. If 428 was the killer combo, it would be readily available in today's aftermarket. The Lima engines put the FEs (with the exception of 427) to shame.

390 "GT" was rated at 335 HP, but made closer to 370 in good "tune". I had a '66 Fairlane GT that went low 14s in '71, completely stock. Not too bad for such a "truck". My '70 Judge went 13.63 @ 101, STOCK AS A ROCK, including G70-14 tires, 3.55 gear "one-legged" and the original Q-jet and cast iron exhaust manifolds, full exhaust, driven from San Bernardino to Orange County, raced and driven home with no changes. Every magazine test I read, and even some of the more recent "comparisons" never put a Ram Air III car better than 13.80s. Those same recent "comparisons" rate the '69 GTO a "close second" to the '70 Buick GS in handling. The '70 GTO is avoided purposefully, as it would out-handle ALL of them. The "goodies" available on the '70 were not offered on the '69. Not a Ford or Dodge in sight when it comes to the twisties...

It was not I that put GTO "on a pedestal". No American "family" car has the mystique around it GTO has. GTO did NOT earn a reputation for losing. If you could beat one in a straight line, you weren't going to beat it around the corners. If you could beat it around the corners, you weren't going to beat it in a straight line. It was the best balanced of all the muscle cars. I'm simply one of the lucky ones to have recognized it when I was a young man and had one to drive before they became such high-valued collector cars. Please, don't include LeMans and Tempest, as they were separate models for most years of production, including the year in "question", '70.

A 454 Chevy is a 4.250" bore and a 4" stroke. If you "do the math", you'll see the 427 Ford, bored .030" (4.262") with the stock 3.980" stroke of the 428 makes exactly 453.82 CID. The "454" FE is actually a popular combination among those either affluent enough to buy all the 427s they want, or those lucky enough to have stashed a few in the past. "Custom" steel cranks make a big difference in durability. Using BBC-sized rod journals make them even MORE reliable.

A 390 standard bore is 4.050". Stroking it with the 3.980" stroke makes 410.15 CID.

Math, used in my shop on a daily basis... Pai x R(squared) x H x no. of cylinders, where "pai" = 3 1/7 or 3.14159, R = 1/2 the bore and H = height or stroke. Actually, it's basic geometry, the volume of a cylinder.

428 Pontiac is a whole different animal (and I DO MEAN "animal"). We (CVMS) have many examples of 428-based engines (4" stroke) in cars weighing over 3,500 lbs., running low 11s/high 10s in street "trim" on 93 octane gas without power adders. Too bad Pontiac never used the engine in muscle cars (only available in full-size cars). Glad it "bolts right in"... It was basically a 421 bored .030", but had MUCH better cylinder heads.

Let it be from here, okay? You're dealing with an old fart with a good memory, and 30 years experience. I'm glad you like the 428. Somebody has to.

Jim

Ken,

Thanks. As I suspected... We don't race magazines. We don't race dynos. We race CARS. I was simply expressing my real-world experiences regarding street racing in the early '70s. No matter what a magazine writer says or said, no 428-powered (Ford, that is) ever beat my 400 GTO. Fact, not fiction. If 428 was the killer combo, it would be readily available in today's aftermarket. The Lima engines put the FEs (with the exception of 427) to shame.

390 "GT" was rated at 335 HP, but made closer to 370 in good "tune". I had a '66 Fairlane GT that went low 14s in '71, completely stock. Not too bad for such a "truck". My '70 Judge went 13.63 @ 101, STOCK AS A ROCK, including G70-14 tires, 3.55 gear "one-legged" and the original Q-jet and cast iron exhaust manifolds, full exhaust, driven from San Bernardino to Orange County, raced and driven home with no changes. Every magazine test I read, and even some of the more recent "comparisons" never put a Ram Air III car better than 13.80s. Those same recent "comparisons" rate the '69 GTO a "close second" to the '70 Buick GS in handling. The '70 GTO is avoided purposefully, as it would out-handle ALL of them. The "goodies" available on the '70 were not offered on the '69. Not a Ford or Dodge in sight when it comes to the twisties...

It was not I that put GTO "on a pedestal". No American "family" car has the mystique around it GTO has. GTO did NOT earn a reputation for losing. If you could beat one in a straight line, you weren't going to beat it around the corners. If you could beat it around the corners, you weren't going to beat it in a straight line. It was the best balanced of all the muscle cars. I'm simply one of the lucky ones to have recognized it when I was a young man and had one to drive before they became such high-valued collector cars. Please, don't include LeMans and Tempest, as they were separate models for most years of production, including the year in "question", '70.

A 454 Chevy is a 4.250" bore and a 4" stroke. If you "do the math", you'll see the 427 Ford, bored .030" (4.262") with the stock 3.980" stroke of the 428 makes exactly 453.82 CID. The "454" FE is actually a popular combination among those either affluent enough to buy all the 427s they want, or those lucky enough to have stashed a few in the past. "Custom" steel cranks make a big difference in durability. Using BBC-sized rod journals make them even MORE reliable.

A 390 standard bore is 4.050". Stroking it with the 3.980" stroke makes 410.15 CID.

Math, used in my shop on a daily basis... Pai x R(squared) x H x no. of cylinders, where "pai" = 3 1/7 or 3.14159, R = 1/2 the bore and H = height or stroke. Actually, it's basic geometry, the volume of a cylinder.

428 Pontiac is a whole different animal (and I DO MEAN "animal"). We (CVMS) have many examples of 428-based engines (4" stroke) in cars weighing over 3,500 lbs., running low 11s/high 10s in street "trim" on 93 octane gas without power adders. Too bad Pontiac never used the engine in muscle cars (only available in full-size cars). Glad it "bolts right in"... It was basically a 421 bored .030", but had MUCH better cylinder heads.

Let it be from here, okay? You're dealing with an old fart with a good memory, and 30 years experience. I'm glad you like the 428. Somebody has to.

JimJim, thats cool, but the 390GT was rated at only 300hp, while the 428CJ was the one rated at 335hp................way under rated,By Ford.And don't forget,the passenger 428 was no where close to the Cobra Jet 428,a car that would easily run hi 13's.The 428CJ basically is priceless right now.meaning you can't buy them,unless you have some severe cash.And the fe's have a HUGE following.

As for the twisties,there is no GTO or Buick GS that will stay with the boss 302 mustangs. And the 428 fords ruled the track,not the GTO,s. You also forgot another badass ford from 1970, 70 torino cobra. It was also a 13 second car that was said to run 14,s. 71 boss 351 13,s off of the showroom,and will run with a GTO anyday,straight and though the twisties,and thats a smallblock.

Comparing Mustangs to intermediate cars regarding handling is not apples-to-apples. Throw TransAm and Z/28 in there and see what happens to the Fords. How does that Torino "stack up" to the Buick and Pontiac? THAT'S a fair comparison.

Torino GT/Cobra and Cyclone GT are virtually identical cars. 429-powered ones are a force to reckon with.

According to "Motors" (repair manual of choice in the late '60s), in '66 & 7, 390 GT" was rated at 335 HP. The "big" engine was 427, rated at 390 HP in the intermediate and "compacts" (including Mustang). 428 wasn't available in those cars until '69, where it WAS rated at 335 HP. the "big car" version was rated at 345 in '68. The '68 and '69 390 "GT" was rated at 325. The "big car" version of 427 was rated at 425. I recall seeing at least one late-production '68 Mustang with 428 CJ "markings". Whether or not it was "real", I can't say. The absolute quickest streetable '69 Mustang I ever saw had a '66 427 from a Galaxie in it. That was in "olden times". I haven't done ANY street racing in over 25 years. I HAVE, however, built LOTS of engines for those that do! A 514 CID Lima block went out of here last month, for a Fox-body. Should go in the 8s. Not on the track yet, though.

FE engines DO have a huge following. There were but two engines more "prolific" during the muscle car "era", one of which wasn't IN muscle cars. 350 Chevy and 400 Pontiac. Unfortunately for the FE "crowd", developement slowed WAY down after the Lima family was introduced. You can't FIND a 428 to build, mainly because they're like the Ram Air Pontiacs, in restorations where they're worth the most money. Someone should "man up" and start reproducing 427 blocks, like they have among the Pontiac and Buick racers. Eagle offers a stock-relpacement 428 crank (cast) as well as two "stroker" versions (same crank, using BBC rod journals and offset-grinding). I know of no forged cranks available aftermarket for FE. I DO have a couple 391 cranks stashed... (based on the same forging as 427)

If there ARE more aftermarket offerings, I would be VERY interested in knowing where to find them. Please PM me on that!

Jim

Comparing Mustangs to intermediate cars regarding handling is not apples-to-apples. Throw TransAm and Z/28 in there and see what happens to the Fords. How does that Torino "stack up" to the Buick and Pontiac? THAT'S a fair comparison.

Torino GT/Cobra and Cyclone GT are virtually identical cars. 429-powered ones are a force to reckon with.

According to "Motors" (repair manual of choice in the late '60s), in '66 & 7, 390 GT" was rated at 335 HP. The "big" engine was 427, rated at 390 HP in the intermediate and "compacts" (including Mustang). 428 wasn't available in those cars until '69, where it WAS rated at 335 HP. the "big car" version was rated at 345 in '68. The '68 and '69 390 "GT" was rated at 325. The "big car" version of 427 was rated at 425. I recall seeing at least one late-production '68 Mustang with 428 CJ "markings". Whether or not it was "real", I can't say. The absolute quickest streetable '69 Mustang I ever saw had a '66 427 from a Galaxie in it. That was in "olden times". I haven't done ANY street racing in over 25 years. I HAVE, however, built LOTS of engines for those that do! A 514 CID Lima block went out of here last month, for a Fox-body. Should go in the 8s. Not on the track yet, though.

FE engines DO have a huge following. There were but two engines more "prolific" during the muscle car "era", one of which wasn't IN muscle cars. 350 Chevy and 400 Pontiac. Unfortunately for the FE "crowd", developement slowed WAY down after the Lima family was introduced. You can't FIND a 428 to build, mainly because they're like the Ram Air Pontiacs, in restorations where they're worth the most money. Someone should "man up" and start reproducing 427 blocks, like they have among the Pontiac and Buick racers. Eagle offers a stock-relpacement 428 crank (cast) as well as two "stroker" versions (same crank, using BBC rod journals and offset-grinding). I know of no forged cranks available aftermarket for FE. I DO have a couple 391 cranks stashed... (based on the same forging as 427)

If there ARE more aftermarket offerings, I would be VERY interested in knowing where to find them. Please PM me on that!

Jimtry this................Ford Stroker Kits 390 to 416 from RPM Machines. (http://www.rpmmachine.com/ford-390-416-stroker.shtml)

the only 427 rated at 390 hp was the one in the 68 cougar gte,s. the fairlane and comet/cyclone had a single 4 410 hp and 425 hp with 2 4,s. and as for putting the z28 up against the boss302,s the boss wins. the 428 started in 1968 in the mustang and the torino then in 69 the fairlane cobra. and there are a few company,s that make 427 blocks and heads. there is more fe stuff being made then most people know about. I do agree I like the 385 engines better then fe,s.


Jesse

as for putting the z28 up against the boss302,s the boss wins.

Nope.

Jesse,

"Fairlane Cobra"? Come on guy. You're now just talking about things you "heard" and not based on anything real. No such animal. It was TORINO COBRA. And they should never have used the name "Cobra". The cars were pigs. I raced too many to convince me otherwise. Not one ever came close. Fairlane GT was extended through '68, but I don't know about '69.

I believe I pointed out the 390-horse 427 was in intermediates. The 425-horse was NOT in intermdeiates OR pony cars, with the exception of the Thunderbolts, which, like the Dodge Dart SS "Special", are far too rare to consider in a conversaton about "everyday" muscle cars or pony cars. I can find no factory literature or aftermarket service information on a 428 in '68 model Mustangs, but as I said in earlier, I recall seeing ONE (count 'em). There were zero '68s at the Nashville 40th birthday "party" (out of over 5,000 cars) with 428. There were several '69 Mach 1s there with them. There was one '68 with an SOHC 427 in it, claiming to be "factory installed". I would guess that to be true, as the Ford afficianados were out "in force" and no one disputed the claim.

And no, Boss 302 won't beat Z/28. Neither will TOUCH TransAm. In all fairness, though, TransAm had more than a tiny engine in it. The 303 Pontiac was never released in production cars. T/A didn't do well in Trans Am until factory backing ended in '74, and after that, the early T/A pretty much dominated for the last years it was eligible. Jerry Titus DID bring home a championship before his untimely demise.

Jim

there was a fairlane cobra in 69 not a torino cobra. the torino cobra started in 1970. the 428cj started in 1968 in the mustangs and the torino gt. the 68 mustang won everything on the quarter mile for years after that. and in 1966 and 67 the fairlane had a w code 410 hp 427 with 1 4. the r code 427 fairlane was a 425 hp with 2 4,s. these are all facts not something someone told me. so you come on guy! and ford almost won the trans am in 1969 then in 1970 ford took it all. the trans am was a sled, the mustang and the camaros were the cars to beat after the cougars were done in 1968. and the only 427 ever to have 390 hp was the 1968 cougar GTE with hyd. cam. and that was only half the year,mercury replaced the 427 with a 428 cj midyear. both engines in the fairlane were solid lifter cams. and there was no fairlane gt after 1967, me and my father have had 26 66-67 fairlanes,I know my fairlanes and torino,s. so if there is any other ford history you would like to know,just ask.


Jesse

also forgot to add,the 427 sohc was never installed by ford at all. they were put in dragcars for ford by companys ford used to build stuff like that. companys like dearborn tubing and karkraft. they were also sold as a crate engine way back in the early 60,s. people try to say gm started the cratemotor,wrong ford did in 1963 when the cammer was made. also the reason it,s hard to find lit on the 68 428 mustang is because they came out late april 1 1968,first 50 fastbacks went into nhra racing. then anyone could buy one in any of the mustang body,s of 1968. the talledega and the 68 torino both got the 428cj also.

Jesse

hotrod chevyz............................YEP!

Jesse,

"Fairlane Cobra"? Come on guy. You're now just talking about things you "heard" and not based on anything real. No such animal. It was TORINO COBRA. And they should never have used the name "Cobra". The cars were pigs. I raced too many to convince me otherwise. Not one ever came close. Fairlane GT was extended through '68, but I don't know about '69.

I believe I pointed out the 390-horse 427 was in intermediates. The 425-horse was NOT in intermdeiates OR pony cars, with the exception of the Thunderbolts, which, like the Dodge Dart SS "Special", are far too rare to consider in a conversaton about "everyday" muscle cars or pony cars. I can find no factory literature or aftermarket service information on a 428 in '68 model Mustangs, but as I said in earlier, I recall seeing ONE (count 'em). There were zero '68s at the Nashville 40th birthday "party" (out of over 5,000 cars) with 428. There were several '69 Mach 1s there with them. There was one '68 with an SOHC 427 in it, claiming to be "factory installed". I would guess that to be true, as the Ford afficianados were out "in force" and no one disputed the claim.

And no, Boss 302 won't beat Z/28. Neither will TOUCH TransAm. In all fairness, though, TransAm had more than a tiny engine in it. The 303 Pontiac was never released in production cars. T/A didn't do well in Trans Am until factory backing ended in '74, and after that, the early T/A pretty much dominated for the last years it was eligible. Jerry Titus DID bring home a championship before his untimely demise.

JimMustang 428 Cobra Jet Registry (http://www.428cobrajet.org/)

and a Trans Am had no chance against the Boss 302.....faster& handled way better.thought you knew your history on cars?
There's your proof,there WERE Mustangs with FACTORY 428CJ in 1968, NOT the passenger 428s.the ONLY time pontiac ever did DECENT was AFTER Trans Am series started to die off.Even being named after the race its-self, Trans Am was a has been.Like i said,look up Bob Tasca,he's a REAL engine builder.

1969 Ford Fairlane Cobra Hardtop - Mustang & Fords Magazine (http://www.mustangandfords.com/featuredvehicles/mufp_0603_1969_ford_fairlane_cobra/index.html)

'nuff said

That is what I always thought too, that the 428CJ was introduced in mid year '68 in Mustangs, Torinos and Cyclones and that 410 and 425 hp 427s were available in '66, and '67 Fairlanes. The 428SCJ was introduced in '69. The '66 and '67 427s were equipped with medium riser heads, steel cranks and side oiler blocks. The '68 427/390 was equipped with low riser heads and a hydraulic cam.

The 428 CJ/SCJ was replaced with the 429TJ/CJ/SCJ in Ford/Mercury intermediates in '70 and in Mustangs/Cougars in '71.

I've been following this thread, watching you girls argue about "facts" for my own amusement. I'm not afraid to learn something, or be proven my "facts" are wrong. From what I've seen, Jim isn't either.

I have a problem with this..
he's a REAL engine builder.
I hope that was meant as a crack on Chevy. As in "Fords are better" kinda thing. Then its all good. I don't mind. I have different feelings, but okay.
However, if that was a crack at Jim. As in, since his "facts" may or may not be correct, your saying he cant build an engine. We then have a problem. I will no longer be amused. Please clarify that!

Okay. I'll stand corrected on the Fairlane thing, though I DO remember several NEW cars with Torino Cobra badging. You say I should know more about the history. This isn't a classroom, and I don't read magazines. I race cars and build engines. It's not about "history", it's about being there. I've read so many articles by journalists that have no bearing on reality, I gave it up long ago.

However, implying that I'm not a "real engine builder" because my experiences don't match your magazine articles is both insulting and childish. NIASE and hundreds of customers (including many FE owners) see me as a "real engine builder".

Take your small block Mustang to a race track and face off with a 400 Pontiac anywhere NEAR the same level of tune (apples to apples), and see what happens. I'm done with this one.

Jim

I've been following this thread, watching you girls argue about "facts" for my own amusement. I'm not afraid to learn something, or be proven my "facts" are wrong. From what I've seen, Jim isn't either.

I have a problem with this..

I hope that was meant as a crack on Chevy. As in "Fords are better" kinda thing. Then its all good. I don't mind. I have different feelings, but okay.
However, if that was a crack at Jim. As in, since his "facts" may or may not be correct, your saying he cant build an engine. We then have a problem. I will no longer be amused. Please clarify that! actually.......it's none of your business, is it............not being ignorant.....the guy claims some bogus stuff..........no 428CJ's installed in Mustangs in 1968? a 390 that revs like a 427? the 390 is NOT a revver the 427 was.not even close........i think he's mistaking the pass car 428 for the CJ428.thats all.and Bob Tasca built engines for TOP LEVEL DRAG RACING TEAMS through the 60's & 70,s for FORD racing teams.........i'm saying he may build Pontiac motors, but doesn't seem to know much about 428's..........427's or the 390s.i really don't care if you're amused, lread the posts & learn something.then post.ok?stock for stock,the 428CJ was much stronger than the 390 could ever hope to be.13's stock, thats mighty impressive for ANY motor.

Mr? magazine articles? thats your defense? That info came from the guys who BUILT the motors themselves, back in the 60's& 70's,much like yourself.

Thats good enough for me.

yeah,and a 351C (small block) in excellent tune will show your Pontiac how it's REALLY done.

Remember,the 427 had 3 head types, low,medium& high risers.........

The 428 Cobra Jet, launched in April 1968, was a version of the 428 FE engine built for performance rather than cruising smoothness. The 428 Cobra Jet could be made on a regular production line, not requiring the exacting tolerances required by the 427. The 428SCJ used special cylinder head casting # C8OE-6090-N. This casting had larger intake ports and valves than production FE. The Cobra Jet used a strengthened version of the 428 block with an extra main bearing webbing and thicker main caps than the standard block[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]. The CJ used heavier connecting rods with a 13/32 rod bolt and a nodular iron crankshaft casting # 1UB. The engine was underrated[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] at 335 hp (250 kW) at 5200 rpm. The 428 Cobra Jet actually produced 400 to 410 hp (299-306 kW)[

The 390 in³, with 389.6 in³ or 6.4 L true displacement, had a bore of 4.05 in (103 mm) and stroke of 3.78 in (96 mm). It was the most common FE engine in later applications, used in many Ford cars as the standard engine as well as in many trucks. It was a popular high-performance engine[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_FE_engine#cite_note-0); although not as powerful as the 427 and 428 models, it provided good performance, particularly in the lighter weight vehicles, and was in much greater supply[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]. The 390cid 2v is rated at 265 bhp (198 kW) @ 4,100 rpm.

6 posts in a row...nice.

yeah,and a 351C (small block) in excellent tune will show your Pontiac how it's REALLY done.

All im going to say is, 351 isnt a motor to brag about (IMhO). 265-400 cube SBC is cheaper, and has proven its ability to "take down" the likes of a 351 over and over again for many years. Not to say a 351 isnt a good motor, im simply stating a fact that many already know at places like the State Fair Speedway or Thunder Valley (wich see both motors daily).

Both companies have made good cars that perform well on or off the track. Making comments like "a 351 will show a 400 how its done" is in my opinion senseless simply because its a $$$ thing, not a "who made the better stuff back in the day" trip.

This thread is nothing more than a pot for the stirring...

the 351 cleveland has alot to proud about. It has put many cars well into the 9 second bracket using many ford parts. It has a very good racing history and is now getting a repo block,in iron and aluminum. You are right ,its all about how much money you have. but remember as many times as a chevy has beat a ford,a ford has done it right back.


Jesse

You are right ,its all about how much money you have. but remember as many times as a chevy has beat a ford,a ford has done it right back.


Jesse

Exactly, so whats the point in agruing about it? Good stuff can be had on both sides, all you got to do is pull out your wallet and start shoveling it under a hood.

actually.......it's none of your business, is it............not being ignorant......
Actually, its EVERYONES business. Its a PUBLIC forum. :disappoin
Resorting to name calling is VERY ignorant...

I did come off sounding like an @$$hole. That was because I thought that was a cheap shot and in poor taste. I was mad for MrPbody. He can admit when he is wrong, and he has. I never said anything about your info being right or wrong. The first line I wrote (last post) was meant to lighten the mood. I can see that didn't work, what a pity.......:rolleyes:

I vote to shut this one down....

Okay folks, let's all settle down a bit. This is a very worthwhile discussion, so let's not call anyone by any names and keep things on topic here.

All participants here are obviously bright, well-informed people and all of you are capable of making your arguments without getting personal.

Flame jobs belong on the fender of my low rider Caddy, not on this forum.:smile: It's Oldsmobile 455 powered because they made the best muscle cars!! :evillol:

Man, I missed this poll. *Disgust*

I own nothing but Fords, but I have to say that in my opinion, Chevy muscle cars have almost always been a step ahead.

step ahead of what........the pinto?

step ahead of what........the pinto?

Pinto? What's that? ;D

I love both of them. Never owned a Ford but I've always been a fan. Heck one of my all time favorite cars is a 1978 Cobra II but my heart will always be with GM.

Dodge!

step ahead of what........the pinto?

Or MUSTANG since the shared platforms for years, until they pulled the pinto. :rofl:

Wich btw did NO good since the MUSTANG still had "crush zone" gas tanks into the "fox years".

so, there is a mustang out there to match anything else. and everyone has there fueltanks in the back. people just pick on the mustang because it is the most popular car there is. there are alot of cars with the same fueltank setup.

I agree mustangs get picked on. I do not agree that they are the most popular car there is. I dont know of anybody who would chose a regular mustang over a regular first gen camaro. Some special edition mustangs have a higher auction value, but they still dont look as good :popcorn:

It;s a known fact that chevy muscle cars have always been a better platform for drag racing over ford and much better than those lead sled mopars and there much cheiper to make go fast unlike ford and those complacated mopars

It;s a known fact that chevy muscle cars have always been a better platform for drag racing over ford and much better than those lead sled mopars and there much cheiper to make go fast unlike ford and those complacated mopars so suck on that ford and mopar fans

At the LOWER levels, Chevy does show well. It's much less expensive to build a 383 or 406 small block to make 500 HP than it is to do the same with a 351W (stroked to the same cubes). Once power levels rise above 600 HP, the "dollars" field levels a bunch. Once CID passes the 425 level, small blocks are "touch and go" (powerful but "fragile"), and big blocks are dealing with competitive challenges from many other brands and engine "families".

Shouldn't "badmouth" them Mopes, at least where drag racing is concerned. Not many Chevy ANYTHINGs can outrun a Hemi in a Road Runner, if it gets good traction (rear suspension work and good tires). In F.A.S.T. (Factory Appearance, Stock Tire) racing today, the Hemi cars are far and away, the quickest and fastest. A handfull of BB Corvettes ('68, '69, three carbs) are "there" at about 128 MPH. The RRs go about 134.

In ProStock NHRA racing today, the Hemis are doing okay. Not GREAT... The Pontiac-headed BBC known as "Big Chief" is the dominant engine, but not by a wide margin. And that took a colaboration between Chevy and Pontiac to get it "right".

The nastiest beating I ever took in my Judge was from a '69 GTX with a 440 Magnum. Per the usual, I pulled about 3 lengths out of the gate, but in the middle of 3rd gear (where that GTO would SHINE) that Mope went by like I was "parked". I'd been beaten by BBC cars, but not like this!

Today, the Mopes are in complete "control" of the A/S and A/SS classes in NHRA, due to the overwhelming advantage Hemi brings in. In th "B" and lower classes, Chevys "hold their own", but not by themselves. Other Mopes, Fords, Pontiacs and even a Rambler here and there, also do well. NHRA "refactors" often, keeping it a "moving target". A couple years ago, a Buick Apollo was the Stock Class champ at Indy.

Making "blanket statements" about activities as "dynamic" as drag racing isn't really "prudent", as on any given day, one can fail and another succeed. Chevys dominate the "local" racing simply by attrition, not sheer power. At one of our two local 1/4 tracks. Pontiacs dominate the points in both the "foot brake" and "electronics" classes. And I mean REAL Pontiacs, not Pontiac bodies with Chevy engines. And there are probably 10 Chevys for every Pontiac... A couple of the potent Pontiacs are from our shop, but most are from another local Pontiac guy (he's not "internet savvy").

PAX

Jim

There were many fast and cool cars from that era but don't be to too quick to overlook the 427 Fairlanes, 429 Boss Mustangs and the CJ/SCJ powered intermediate bodies and Mustangs.

Jim, do you know if the 440 was completely stock? I know the BB wedge Mopars had the tall, thin, high velocity intake runners kind of like the Pontiac.

There were many fast and cool cars from that era but don't be to too quick to overlook the 427 Fairlanes, 429 Boss Mustangs and the CJ/SCJ powered intermediate bodies and Mustangs.


Marketing is an interest of mine.... back then Ford had marketing conflicts problem with the chassis engineering and styling guys. For various reasons, Ford made some of the best stock engines and drivelines from the '60's but really did not have a truly competitve performance chassis in which to place them.

The best and most solid intermediates were a bit too heavy and poor - handling. The Mustang simply did not have the muscle-car size, roominess and marketing appeal as the competing makes.

Still, I think that Ford made many excellent, high-quality products with great retro-funky styling... even if they did love to rust...

All I can say is it didn't have headers, it still had the ThermoQuad on it, and stock intake, "smooth" idle.... That was the days before nitrous...

Jim

The 2010 Mustang vs 2010 Camaro.

Which one of these will come out on top. My bet is on the Camaro.

The 2010 Mustang vs 2010 Camaro.

Which one of these will come out on top. My bet is on the Camaro.

One would argue that these are not muscle cars in the traditional sense.

However, I would agree with you. The Camaro is a technically and functionally superior design than the Mustang, although it is more expensive.

One would argue that these are not muscle cars in the traditional sense.

However, I would agree with you. The Camaro is a technically and functionally superior design than the Mustang, although it is more expensive.

The Camaro is more expensive? Wow...
Well probably is. but I think you're getting more engine for your money.
For once I'd like the two to build engines of the same size and decide which has more punch....
Like if both produced a 5.7 V8, which one would have more BHP, Torque, etc...
But Ford has always produced a smaller engine for their Mustang GT.

the 2010 Camaro, Mustang, and Challenger can't be compared.
If you take the top model of each and compare them (the Shelby and SRT, not the top model camaro and 2nd model mustang and Challenger) then the Camaro isn't even close.

but then again those arn't really muscle cars.

and I agree in the fact that the old Camaro looked pretty frekin sick, but lets just take a look at the 1967 Mustang shelby for a second,
http://www.automotoportal.com/media/images/vijesti/060915001.6.jpg

But why isn't Dodge even an option here?

Top 3 brands as far as Muscle cars
1) Ford
2) Dodge
3) Chevy

The 60s Mustangs looked cool. They were better looking than most of the cars out there. My question is if the Camaro and Mustang aren't muscle cars, what out of the Chevy, Ford & Dodge lines were considered as muscle cars?

Between the 2010 Mustang, Camaro and Challenger, which overall comes out ahead? I'm talking about handling, power, style, etc....

The 60s Mustangs looked cool. They were better looking than most of the cars out there. My question is if the Camaro and Mustang aren't muscle cars, what out of the Chevy, Ford & Dodge lines were considered as muscle cars?

Between the 2010 Mustang, Camaro and Challenger, which overall comes out ahead? I'm talking about handling, power, style, etc....


No modern attempt at a muscle car is a true muscle car, never will be

and out of the 2010's, Dodge has the 6.1l hemi in the 2010 and in my opinion looks way better, so god Dodge :) the Camaro looks really nice though, and I'm not a fan of the Mustang being so rounded off

knightip,

The definition of "muscle car" is in a few places in this thread, but for "recap":

Muscle car: Intermediate sedan/coupe, 2-door, using engine components from a "full size" car. 1964 GTO is considered the "first" muscle car, a Tempest coupe with a Catalina/Bonneville 389 CID engine.

Chevy's entry is the Chevelle SS396 or SS454. The '72 "SS" (350 CID) can't be considered, as it has a small block engine, nor can the 6-cylinder powered SS models before 396.

Ford's entries include the Fairlane GT or GT/A and Torino GT and "Cobra" models with 390 or larger engines. A '67 Fairlane GT w/289 is not considered. Mercury Cyclone GT is also, as long as it has at least the 390 "GT" engine.

Mustang, Camaro, Firebird, Baracuda, Challenger, Javelin are all "pony cars", regardless of how much "muscle" they "pack".

Shpuker,

The '04-'6 GTO DID "qualify" under the definition. Since it had American power train components and was marketed only in "left-hand drive" configuration, it could fall into a "gray" area. It also exceeded ALL performance levels previously "held" by GTO from the '69 and '70 models ("peak" performance years). It CAN be considered a true "modern muscle car". The Charger, Magnum and 300 can't as they have 4 doors. For the same reason, G8-GXP can't be considered, either, though it is clearly the performance "leader" of American sedans. I know of no Ford offerings that are in the same class.

Jim

Thanks Jim for clearing that up. I was under the wrong impression all this time.
However the bit of history of the GTO being the first muscle car, I knew that already. I wonder why GM couldn't bring back the GTO the way they did with the Camaro.
I know they did do a GTO, which was nothing more than a re-badged Holden.

GM has "given up" on Pontiac altogether. IMO, it's a mistake, but my opinion doesn't mean anything to them...

The '04-'06 GTO was FAR more than a "rebadged Holden". ALL were "left-hand drive", and none of the Holdens were. All had either LS-1 or LS-2 for an engine. Holden didn't use anything that "large". The cars were assembled in Australia and shipped to Detroit where the drive trains were installed. Many of our Aussie "Pontiac bretheran" lamented they couldn't buy GTO there. Manaro was a good car, but not even a "shadow" of GTO as far as performance is concerned. It's a fact, the "modern" GTO outperformed all previous GTOs, including the Ram Air cars.

GM COULD build another, but with Pontiac gone, what would they "call" it? Cant' be a Chevy, that's for sure... GTO is the biggest "anti-Chevy" there ever was!

Jim

It's not that the new 'muscle cars' arn't (by defenition) muscle cars. its just that they don't have the same muscle car 'awsomeness', with lack of a real word. Their still sweet but its just not the same

GM has "given up" on Pontiac altogether. IMO, it's a mistake, but my opinion doesn't mean anything to them...

The '04-'06 GTO was FAR more than a "rebadged Holden". ALL were "left-hand drive", and none of the Holdens were. All had either LS-1 or LS-2 for an engine. Holden didn't use anything that "large". The cars were assembled in Australia and shipped to Detroit where the drive trains were installed. Many of our Aussie "Pontiac bretheran" lamented they couldn't buy GTO there. Manaro was a good car, but not even a "shadow" of GTO as far as performance is concerned. It's a fact, the "modern" GTO outperformed all previous GTOs, including the Ram Air cars.

GM COULD build another, but with Pontiac gone, what would they "call" it? Cant' be a Chevy, that's for sure... GTO is the biggest "anti-Chevy" there ever was!

Jim

I'd say you're wrong about the Monaro not having an LS-1 or LS-2 engine. It was sold here as a Chevrolet Lumina Coupe and there were two versions to choose from. There was the V6 engine and the "SS" which had the LS engines.
But on every other front, I'd say you're right.

If it was sold as a Chevy, it's not a Manaro, then, right? Argh! Argh! Humor...

SHPuker,

You should be at Norwalk for the TriPower Nationals. I missed this year, but in '08 there were no less than 50 "new" GTOs. The slowest was a 14.0 with a 300 lb. man driving it. The quickest was 7.19 @ 198 MPH (turbo/alcohol LS-1). They (modern GTO) sound GREAT with good exhaust or open headers. They have every bit as much pnash and "go" as any older muscle car. The part I like the best is the same thing that "hooked" GTO guys back in the day. GTO people don't really care NEAR as much about what other people see when they look at it, as they care about what THEY see. What GTO guys LIKE is the view THEY get, the dash, the instruments, the view over the hood, etc. GTO isn't a "Hey! Look at me!" car, it's a "Hey! Like my tail lights?" kinda car.

On this site in '04 when first introduced, a Mustang guy said the car had the ugliest tail lights and exhaust tips he'd ever seen. I said "Nice to know after 35 years, some things never change. Like the view Mustang owners get of GTO!" He never came back...(:-

It's all in fun, guys. I DO like GTO over any other muscle car, but I have good reasons aside from "brand loyalty". My GTO (in the early '70s) beat nearly every car I ever raced. Only a handful of BBC-powered Chevelles got me, and only one of them was a 396 (375 HP with "goodies"). No 383-Dodge ANYTHING or 6-Pack ANYTHING ever beat it. A 440 Magnum in a '69 GTX embarrassed the hell out of me one night... No 428 Ford ANYTHING ever beat it, either. A good friend had a '70 Cyclone GT, 429SCJ, 4-speed, 3.50 gear. I could beat him through 1/4 of a mile plus about 10 feet. He would hit 4th and was GONE! Took money from so many small block powered cars, word got around fairly quickly not to "mess with that yellow Judge!" Not too much later, I got a '65 w/TriPower. A little "warming up" of that one and I was driving an honest 12 second car. In those days, a 12 second car was like a 10 second car today. San Bernardino HATED my Pontiacs... (:-

Jim

I understand that Modern cars make more power, better fuel mileage and all that jazz but its just not the same never will be.

I mean how con you compare
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/2009-pontiac-gto-1.jpg

And
http://www.classyauto.com/image_large.php?image_id=351682

I understand your point. It's a different world we live in today. I embrace new stuff, and can still love the old stuff... I wasn't at all disappointed when GTO WAS NOT "retro" like those whore-mobiles, Mustang and Challenger. IMO, "retro" is nothing BUT "whoring on past glory". At least Pontiac had enough class to NOT "lean" on the old Goats, AND they limited production as to not "goop it up" with volumes that let you see yourself every time you turn a corner...(:- No "economy" versions, either! (V6 Challenger, non-blown Mustang).

Wouldn't a '65 be a better example? (just teasin'!)

Jim

"retro" is nothing BUT "whoring on past glory".
:disappoin
no no no NO!

The retro-look is great! It's a great compliment to the age when cars could look like spaceships because they were unencumbered with government-mandated bumpers and the aerodynamic necessities required to get good gas mileage.

The retro look is a welcome change to all the look-alike cars we have seen in the past 20 years. These days, I cannot tell a Camry from Mazda, and heven help me tell you what year that Accord is.

But I can spot a retro T-bird or the new Camaro from about 12 blocks away :)

I'm teasing here but imho, 'whoring' a car is done by plastering it with fake scoops and 'screaming chicken' decals... and Pontiac has done plenty of that! :wink:

I know, as I have a GTO and used to own a T/A. :)

I understand your point. It's a different world we live in today. I embrace new stuff, and can still love the old stuff... I wasn't at all disappointed when GTO WAS NOT "retro" like those whore-mobiles, Mustang and Challenger. IMO, "retro" is nothing BUT "whoring on past glory". At least Pontiac had enough class to NOT "lean" on the old Goats, AND they limited production as to not "goop it up" with volumes that let you see yourself every time you turn a corner...(:- No "economy" versions, either! (V6 Challenger, non-blown Mustang).

Wouldn't a '65 be a better example? (just teasin'!)

Jim

since when are muscle cars about fuel mileage? If it gets 20mpg great. But if it can't spin the tires in reverse. It's not a muscle car. And the new gto is a sedan with a big engine nothing more. There's nothing impresive about it

I qualified my last couple of posts as opinions. This IS, afterall, STRICTLY a matter of opinion as far as what cars one likes or dislikes. The "real" ('64) GTO was a two door sedan with a big engine in it, nothing more. The entire world was pretty impressed...

I know people that believe Hondas are the nastiest cars in the world. I know people that honestly believe a B18A can "run" with a hemi (REAL Hemi, not that modern POS, which, BTW, does NOT have hemispherical combustion chambers, making it a "Hemi" in NAME ONLY). I even know a guy that collects Yugos... Its okay for you to have your opinions, as well as it is me.

Having the guts to "field" a "real one" impresses me a WHOLE LOT more than pandering to the the general public. I realize, that's where the money is and that's who buys most of the cars. Even MORE reason to like GTO. NOT "mainstream", aimed at a specific group and hitting the target (BULLSEYE!). Whether or not you are impressed, like it, or anything else regarding it, GTO is still "king of the hill" in its class. Without a blower, there is no Mustang or Challenger that can touch it. Can we put a blower on GTO? Can we? Please..? Awe... come on....

I DO enjoy bantering over these kind of subjects, but I sense you're starting to take it more seriously than I intend it, so I will make this my last entry in the thread. Suffice it say we agree to disagree over GTO. Been there, done that. Pontiac has, since about 1970, been the "Rodney Dangerfield" of high performance cars. But of course, the 2nd gen T/A is almost as "legendary" as GTO. And let's not forget the infamous '77 Z/28 with its hood "scoop" STICKER.

PAX

Jim

Yay banter :)

C'mon lol. I like that they started making new cars that look like the old muscle cars I just don't like how they tryed to call them muscle cars again. Their sports cars . nothing else. and the newer modle GTO's don't even look classic. their a great sports car. Not a muscle car though

Bantering is all in fun but it seems that many enthusiasts today are quite liberal in their definition of muscle car. Mustangs and full size cars often get included.

Jim,

Was your friends Cyclone the only 429 you ever raced? I think most SCJ cars came with either 3.91 or 4.30 gears.

Nope. A couple Mustangs, too. They don't seem to "hook" as well as the bigger cars. I would see them "coming on" in the mirror, but when a 1/4 mile was "up", I was still ahead. I thought the Cyclone "comparison" was "apples to apples", since both cars had similar gearing. It's true a car with 3.90s or 4.10s would be quicker, though not as "fast". Same would be true of GTO.

A "sports car" has 2 seats. A "sport compact" would be something like a Nova or Dart with a performance engine (usually a small block). Mustangs, Firebirds, etc. are "pony cars", named for Mustang, which could be a misnomer, as 'Cuda was "first", but "fishy car" doesn't have the same "ring" to it... (:-

Jim

, as 'Cuda was "first", but "fishy car" doesn't have the same "ring" to it...

Haha... Fish cars!! :)

Well, we DID have the AMC Marlin and (sort of) the Mako Shark.


BTW the Barracuda beat the Mustang to market by 2 weeks...... but nobody noticed....... imo because the Barracuda looked too much like the Valiant compact on which it was based.

The Mustang really did not look much like a Falcon AND Ford promoted the hell out of the Mustang, generating lots of advance publicity and anticipation with the public, something Chrysler did not do as well.

MR,

Gotta agree. Plymouth could have done a LOT more for the car. It WAS offered with Hemi... HHHMMMMMM...... What a MONSTER one of those cars is!

As for the first Mustang, considering it's nothing more than a reskinned Falcon, it sure did well! Mustang guys will take offense at this, but those of us outside the "circle" realize, Falcon was a pretty good car, too! No offense intended.

Jim

Bantering is all in fun but it seems that many enthusiasts today are quite liberal in their definition of muscle car. Mustangs and full size cars often get included.

Jim,

Was your friends Cyclone the only 429 you ever raced? I think most SCJ cars came with either 3.91 or 4.30 gears.

So your telling me you don't think that the 67' Mustang is a muscle car? don't think I can talk to you any more

Perhaps I should say it LOUDER for the CHEAP SEATS.

A true "muscle car" is an INTERMEDIATE BODY (NOT a sport compact or pony car). It has a "big car" engine in it. Fairlane GT or GT/A WITH at LEAST a 390 (289 doesn't qualify) is the Ford entry. A "pony car" REGARDLESS of how much "muscle" it has is STILL a "pony car". This is NOT a derogetory statement. It is a statment of automotive FACT. GTO, aknowledged by all "in the know" as the "first" muscle car (named by the engineer and marketing rep that developed the package: "It's like a family coupe with more muscle." John Z. DeLorean, 1963) has a wheelbase of 115". Mustang of that era has 108". Certainly NOT the same "class" of car.

What you're missing (or refusing to accept, your choice) is that cars are grouped in "classes" based on size, weight, purpose, and performance. A sports car has two seats, no more. It can have a 1.2 lr. 4-banger (mid '60s Datsun "Fair Lady", MG Midget, etc.) or a MONSTER V8 (modified Corvette or Jag XK-8). STILL a "sports car". A "muscle car" has class "paramters". So does a pony car. The shorter wheelbase, the availability of ONLY a 2-door body, a variety of "sporty" options, in some cases, a "real" performance engine, etc. are what distinguish pony cars from muscle cars. I cannot say it enough, REGARDLESS of how much "muscle". A '70 Mach 1 with a 429SCJ is still a pony car. So is a '65 Mustang with a 200 in it. Obviously, the '70 SCJ car is VERY fast and rather quick. The 200 won't get out of its own way. A '73 TransAM 455SD may be the most powerful car sold in the '70s. I don't consider it a muscle car. A '66 Fairlane GT with a 335 horse 390 is a "stone" compared to others, but is STILL a muscle car. The '69 AMC Rebel "Machine", also a stone, is considered to be a muscle car. Is it coming clear yet?

And understand, this is NOT my opinion, this is historic fact. You don't need to talk to me anymore, that's okay. But understand that I don't post on sites like this just to read my own writing. I do it to dipsel myths and offer facts for those too young or not involved at the time, about the hay-day of American performance cars, specifically the "muscle car era" (1964-1971, in '72 most of the real performers were gone). You don't have to agree with me. That doesn't make ME "wrong".

PAX

Jm

You don't need to talk to me anymore, that's okay.
I thought Shpuker was being funny when he said (threatened?) not to talk to you anymore.

The English language does develop and evolve. At some point when so many people are calling vintage American performance cars "muscle cars" then the useful definition of the term changes.

As an example, MrPbody, many traditional car enthusiasts would disagree with your definition of 'sports car'.

For many, a 'sports car' was smaller, with a smaller engine and a minimum of comfort and convenience features (traditional MG, Triumph, Fiat etc) However, larger 2-seaters with more powerful engines and more comfort/convenience features (Corvette, Ferrari, Lambo etc) are touring or GT cars, NOT sports cars.

But, these days, since little bare-bones 2-seaters generally are no longer made, the functional definition of 'sports car' has changed and now includes the definition that you use.

It's the same with the term 'muscle car'. It's definition and use has changed with the times due to the forces of the mass use of the English language. This means imho, it's fine to defend the 'purity' of the muscle car definition, but splitting hairs with others about their use of the English language is counter-productive. It generates a bit of a hostile, unwelcoming atmosphere around here, especially for the newbies.


It's obvious to me that there is a need and a desire among most AF members to include vintage pony cars in the "Muscle Car" section. I also think this was likely the intention of the forum founder, because pony cars have virtually the same issues and concerns as muscle cars for owners, drivers, restorers and AF members. :)

Make no mistake the big block Mustangs were very muscular. I was only saying that I guess if you go by the strict definition of intermediate body, only Fairlanes, Torinos, '70.5 Falcons, Cyclones qualify.

Jim,

If stones, what do you estimate the 390 GT/GTA Fairlanes were capable in the 1/4?

429CJguy,

The strongest stockers I ever saw with 390s went in the low 15s/high 14s. When modified, they would pick up a bit, but 390s just aren't meant for BIG power. Tough stuff, powerful and reliable. The only FE engine that consistently runs "hard" is the 427. I've seen a handful of 428s, done "right", that were good runners (11s). Mostly, FEs are like the Pontiac and Olds, lots of low-end and some mid-range. Good, solid engines. But the cylinder head isn't really well-designed for a good street machine. The "medium riser" and "high riser" 427s are a different story, and when those heads are used on other FEs, they too, run quite well. Those heads are about as easy to find as Ram Air IV heads, and just as costly. The aftermarket stuff available today was only a "pipe dream" back then.

Today, there are a few sources for "goodies" for FE, but the "385" (or "Lima") BBF has overshadowed the FE with some SERIOUS performance. The "454" FE combo has shown lots of promise. Certain changes must be made for crank oiling and rod journals, to allow it to "live" better. We've seen some significant bearing and rod issues where there is no logical reason.

As a street racer during the "muscle car era", I had encounters with virtually every kind of street machine or "hot rod". The Fords, while well built and powerful, seemed to always have a little "less" in stock form than the GM and Chrysler entries. Maybe using my Ram Air GTO as a "measuring stick" isn't good, as a Ram Air car has a definite advantage over a "regular" GTO. But my "little" 400 outran most larger-displacement cars of the same "class".

The strongest running car in my home town (San Bernardino, California) in 1971 WAS a '66 Fairlane. It certainly was no 390... Actually, it was a 427 SOHC with Hilborn injection. First bonafide 9 second street car I ever saw. It wasn't a "GT", either. It was a "club coupe". I recall one race where a guy trailered a '55 Chevy up from Van Nuys with a 454 in it (first one of those we saw in a tri-5, too). He went home with an empty trailer...(:-

Don't misunderstand. I have the utmost respect for Ford products. My outlook is based on realism and experience, not necessarily "brand loyalty". I DID own a '66 GT. My '65 GTO would run away and HIDE from it.

Jim

guy trailered a '55 Chevy up from Van Nuys with a 454 in it ....
So..... was that James Taylor or Dennis Wilson? :)

Two-Lane Blacktop/1971.

It could'nt have been Bob Falfa (Harrison Ford), He wadded his up in the best movie of all times. Aint he neat!
American Graffiti.

It could'nt have been Bob Falfa (Harrison Ford), He wadded his up in the best movie of all times. Aint he neat!
American Graffiti.
Rumor has it that Ford's Chevy (I just had to say that!:) ) in American Graffiti was the EXACT same '55 Chevy used in Two Lane Blacktop.

Great race between Ford's-Chevy and Milners 32 coupe with the ......327 SBC???? could it have been?

Nope, in 1971, Two Lane Blacktop was still "new". It was a black guy that owned the one from Van Nuys.

One of my sister's best friends had a '55 with a '69 435-horse 427 in it from a wrecked 10K miler. In 1970, it went mid 11s... His name was Ron Seagondollar...

Jim

Hi,im new here,need a guide from all af you :grinyes: