good mustang muscle year?

ok what is a good mustang year like Hp taht stuff and i have been told that the old mustangs were not very well built is this true? ok well thanks you for your time!!

Somebody told you wrong. :screwy: They are great cars, and I would have to say that '69 is the best performance year. It held the Boss 302 and Boss 429, and Mach1.

Great Thanks!

One of my good friends has a 72' mustang that we are slowly but surely redoing from the tires up. It has the 302 in it and starts up every time!

I wanted an older car when i first got my license.

gstrout, that's the only way to go... but you gotta get a car that'll be equally good cruisin down the strip as it is just burning ricers when the light turns green... I suggest the Galaxies or Fairlanes from the '60's... plenty of power, buttloads of torque, a cool factor that's undeniable... and best of all: HUGE back seats :smokin:.

BigRedLeadSlead, you have the philosophy down pat, your car must be cool, a real cruiser, but still be able to stand up and boogie with the woks on wheels when the lights go green, for this i was thinking a heavily worked Shelby Cobra 427, just to rub it in, or maybe a 68 boss 429.. anything ford with 400+ cubes.
Also living in australia there is another party, the Holdens, (GM to you guys) and being a ford fan there is nothing better than burning holdens at the lights, (except for maybe beating some of those spaceship-esque ricers).

Good times and many horses to you all.

gstrout, that's the only way to go... but you gotta get a car that'll be equally good cruisin down the strip as it is just burning ricers when the light turns green... I suggest the Galaxies or Fairlanes from the '60's... plenty of power, buttloads of torque, a cool factor that's undeniable... and best of all: HUGE back seats :smokin:.

Yeah BigRed, thats what I ended up getting is a 68' Galaxie 500 with a 302. She is my baby. Im looking to go buy an old junkyard 427 or bigger and rebuild it into a 700+ hp MONSTER!

I would have to say 67' or 68' with the 427 and the 428 cobra jet. both are pushin over 425 hp but prob get around 5 mpg but that may or may not be a issue. Those engines go the best with Shelby GT500 in my opinion.

I'd say that a golden era muscle car is good but how bout a nice cut out modern engine?the more modern the better.But theres always the thought of the problems of the compatibility.The newer the better.

Somebody told you wrong. :screwy: They are great cars, and I would have to say that '69 is the best performance year. It held the Boss 302 and Boss 429, and Mach1.

I agree 69 was not only the best year engine wise but they were a beautiful Larry Shinoda designed machines. (I own a 65 fastback myself) Easily on par in looks with the 65-66 fastback.

Any 67-70ish mustang should be really fast. I also suggest the 1987 and up cars, but thats just me.

I personaly love classic mustangs, i have a 68 coupe with a 302. I would have to say that any old mustangs or any other classic are the best muscle cars that are out there.

I have a 69 mach with the 428 cj, and that thing will dominate alot of the cars out there. It will flat out fly. As for not being built well, you were told wrong. Mine is mint except for the speedometer. I tested out how fast i could go, and it broke after 110++++++. So, the 69/70 is the best year for ford performance. Although the 65 Shelby Cobra and gt-40 are very close.

I have a 69 mach with the 428 cj, and that thing will dominate alot of the cars out there. It will flat out fly. As for not being built well, you were told wrong. Mine is mint except for the speedometer. I tested out how fast i could go, and it broke after 110++++++. So, the 69/70 is the best year for ford performance. Although the 65 Shelby Cobra and gt-40 are very close.
Is a 91 a race/muscle?

ok what is a good mustang year like Hp taht stuff and i have been told that the old mustangs were not very well built is this true? ok well thanks you for your time!!
bullseye, my choice would be a 69-70 with a 428scj or cj. also the 351 cleveland is a very good engine and will run like stink. the boss engines are not a good choice for the street. they have huge ports and vavles, and don,t start making power until 4 to 5,000 rpm range.to high for most street use.(unless you like flashing blue lights) :) hope this helps, and good luck with your stang.

Is a 91 a race/muscle?
No one answered me :mad: :grinno:

64-69 are my favorite years. The 70+ styling just doesn't "do it".

Only Mustang i've owned was a 66. i've had several 66 Fairlane GT's,and a 428 SCJ Torino Cobra. 71 was the major change in body style. 70 was almost idenical to 69,except for inboard headlights, and minor trim.

Classic Mustangs are hella nice, but if you can't find one, consider the 87-95 Mustang 5.0's. They're pretty damn fast and the aftermarket is huge :)

gstrout, that's the only way to go... but you gotta get a car that'll be equally good cruisin down the strip as it is just burning ricers when the light turns green... I suggest the Galaxies or Fairlanes from the '60's... plenty of power, buttloads of torque, a cool factor that's undeniable... and best of all: HUGE back seats :smokin:.


If you're interested, I have a friend with A Gal 500. 351 Gas engine (replaces 390 Leaded unit.) Headers. tons of work, new interior, and a drop top! ($5000 American)

'67 Fastback with a 302 should move and they look great. Also the '71 Mach 1. Of course those are just my favorites. I know a 5.0 that a guy has in his '79, while the car is kinda ugly, will also MOVE down the track. Good luck.

the 69 owns all!

I have a 69 mach1,
love that year, took me 29 years to get it and I love it.
something about the 69/70 cars, they all have that mean stance.
I like the looks and sound of old cars, nothin like the sound of a V8.
these riceburners just dont turn my head.

I have a 69 mach1,
love that year, took me 29 years to get it and I love it.
something about the 69/70 cars, they all have that mean stance.
I like the looks and sound of old cars, nothin like the sound of a V8.
these riceburners just dont turn my head.


Yeah the Shinoda years. Love them as well, got to love the man (Larry Shinoda) who drew those cars and the 63' - 67' vette as well. So much so I named my dog Shinoda.

'67/'68 cars have a certain flare the others don't have. The fast back is aerodynamic and the weight distribution is good. None of the small block cars will get out of their own way, in today's performance world. Same is true of the '69/'70. Cleveland, minimum power plant to go fast. (IMO)
The Lima engine (429/460) is a far superior design to the older FE (390, 428) engine. Lots more goodies out there today for them.
I personally like the "flat back" cars ('71-'73 with sports roof). They're a bit larger looking, but are very aerodynamic, and some came with 429s in them. Knew a guy in school that had a brand new '71 Mach 1 with a 429 "Ram Air". With 3.50 gears, it went low 13s, and would bury the speedo at 140...
As a GTO guy, I seldom took any Mustangs seriously, unless they had the big engine. My brother has always been a Mustang guy. His '65 GT, no matter what he did to it, never came close to my STOCK '65 GTO TriPower car. I've also never had a 428 car come close. The 390 GTs seemed to perform better. Knew one '69 Mach 1 with a 390 GT (fairly rare, if I remember correctly). That car was pretty quick. C-6, 3.91s.
The later stuff is not mentioned because the guy asked about "muscle". Even though NO Mustang is a muscle car, per se, the early ones have the image. Forget about the Boss cars (unless you just won the lottery...).

my friend has a 70 coupe it used to have a built 302 with 351C heads on it, he raced a chevelle tubed and gutted with a 396 and he would have beat him if it wasn't for the guy hitting the nitrous.
I like GTO's and cudas and many others, but come on to say NO mustangs were muscle cars thats crazy. IMHO

I have a '70 mustang coupe with a 351 cleaveland and I love the looks of it. they can look like a piece of junk when you find them but with a little tlc they can look like the true muscle car. I would start with a boss 429 hood scope and a chin spoiler that will be enough to give it that muscle mustang look in the front. then give it a coat of grabber blue or grabbe orange paint. In the interior go with black can't mess that up. in the back put a mach 1 spoiler and for exhaust dual exit tips.

Definitely not a '99 Cobra

1969 Mach 1

Restored 2 and they never dissapoint when taken out in public
the only problem is getting there
you have blind spots you could hide a tractor-trailer in.

Is a 91 a race/muscle?
Nope, those are classified as Pony Cars.

Any of the older mustang, and it is not necessary to have a big block in your car. I have a 67 stang with a 351w that runs a 13.68 at 48000 feet. It all depends on the way you build your car, trani, and rear end. The right combinations make it so you have a fast car. You can have a 700 horse car and still run slow because you can't hook up, or you go through your gears to quick or not quick enough. There are many things to consider when you build a car.

I own a Laser Red 98 Cobra convertible 470 RWHP that is an incredible automobile. The 03 & 04 Factory Super Charged Cobra's are also very nice cars. My personal favorite is the 04 Cobra Convertible in Mystic-Chrome finish.

my friend has a 70 coupe it used to have a built 302 with 351C heads on it, he raced a chevelle tubed and gutted with a 396 and he would have beat him if it wasn't for the guy hitting the nitrous.
I like GTO's and cudas and many others, but come on to say NO mustangs were muscle cars thats crazy. IMHO
Mustangs were considered Pony Cars, because of their size.
Muscle cars were the large body cars with large engines such as Chargers, Chevelles, Barracudas ....
Not htat the Stangs did'nt have powers, but they came in an era where there were smaller cars with different engines.

351 C FTW! I'd take any year Mustang from 64 1/2 to 73 as long as it had a V-8.