classic?
SIKCRX
12-30-2003, 02:06 AM
i know the 65 mustang 289 2V is clearly a classic when it comes to insurance companys definition, so would insuring a 65 cost a small fortune?
HiFlow5 0
12-30-2003, 05:57 AM
Call around and see what you can get for quotes. That will be the only real way to find out.
Tony H
12-30-2003, 09:54 AM
My 67 doesn't cost a lot though its more than my other vehilces.
95gts98gt
12-30-2003, 06:36 PM
its a mustang with 8cyl duh
SIKCRX
12-30-2003, 06:59 PM
well id rather have the 289 over the strait 6 even if it does cost more ;)
SIKCRX
12-30-2003, 07:05 PM
and even though they had 8 cylinders they are considered slow in todays society.
Tony H
12-30-2003, 09:02 PM
Expecailly the 2V. Might as well be a six. :evillol:
rerun
12-30-2003, 10:45 PM
and even though they had 8 cylinders they are considered slow in todays society.
so what you are saying that the 289 2V were slow eh... well they are certainly not the fastest - but not because of the engine. look at the crappy gears most of them came with (2.79). 200hp and 281tq out of a 2V motor is not slow, more so in a 2800pound car.
now let me ask you this the "8 cylinders" are slow? the 4V 289 had 271hp and 312tq, this is not slow. as fot the special 427 and 428 mustangs, well if you think thats slow, i want some that stuff your smoking.
so what you are saying that the 289 2V were slow eh... well they are certainly not the fastest - but not because of the engine. look at the crappy gears most of them came with (2.79). 200hp and 281tq out of a 2V motor is not slow, more so in a 2800pound car.
now let me ask you this the "8 cylinders" are slow? the 4V 289 had 271hp and 312tq, this is not slow. as fot the special 427 and 428 mustangs, well if you think thats slow, i want some that stuff your smoking.
Tony H
12-30-2003, 10:59 PM
Those numbers are gross not net, so its a bit lower than that. That being said, they were all good for their time and are not really "slow" now. I was just having a little fun with the guy.
SIKCRX
12-30-2003, 11:29 PM
the 2V brand new ran a 17.0-17.2 1/4 mile...to me that is slow for todays society, i wasnt around in 1964 so i cant say if it was slow back then, but id imagine that 17s were pretty damn fast back then.
SIKCRX
12-30-2003, 11:55 PM
and tony do you have any pics of yours?
rerun
12-31-2003, 12:02 AM
the 2V brand new ran a 17.0-17.2 1/4 mile...to me that is slow for todays society, i wasnt around in 1964 so i cant say if it was slow back then, but id imagine that 17s were pretty damn fast back then.
17s? ouch, not that slow man. more like high 15s lows 16s, and thats slow. the hi-pos(4V) ran mid 14s. while that was good the 428 mustangs, 426 hemi cudas, ect were all running a lot fast. mind you this is all on really crappy tires, exhaust systems, and a belt drivin fan.
17s? ouch, not that slow man. more like high 15s lows 16s, and thats slow. the hi-pos(4V) ran mid 14s. while that was good the 428 mustangs, 426 hemi cudas, ect were all running a lot fast. mind you this is all on really crappy tires, exhaust systems, and a belt drivin fan.
SIKCRX
12-31-2003, 12:12 AM
no dude, they ran either really low 16s or low 17s.
Tony H
12-31-2003, 06:57 AM
Yep, I just added one to my gallery. Check it out.
SIKCRX
12-31-2003, 01:14 PM
nice ride :)
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2026