wtf?

[neatofrito1618]

on http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclec...-history.shtml[/url] they say a 1968 cougar with a 427(390 hp.) does 0-60 in 7.1 and the 1/4 mile in 15.12 and the 1969 with a 428(335 hp.) does 0-60 in 5.6 and the 1/4 mile in 14.1. so the 69 with the same body style(tell me if im wrong) with 55 less hp. does 0-60 and the 1/4 mile more then a second faster then the 68? the stats seem a little low for a car that light with all that hp to be that slow and i would think the stats for the 69 would be what all cougars with that body style would do. and everywhere iv looked those 68 stats r correct. i think its the transmision. did ford make really bad auto.'s in the 60's? cuz i looked at the 67 mustang that weighed 2500 lbs. with 250 hp. that did 0-60 in like 11 sec. and the 4 speed did it in like 7.so am i right about the transmission?

[Mines69Olds]

The article from the link you provided answers your question. Here "The 427 equiped Cougar was nose heavy and thus suffered in acceleration runs. To keep insurance agents happy, the 428 was rated at 335 bhp, although most experts believed it was closer to the same 390 bhp as the 427-E. The longer stroke 428 engine had an easier time with emission requirements and would carry the Mercury performance banner.
"
The 428 had close to 400 hp with about 440 tq.

[neatofrito1618]

so what would make it nose heavy. the engine? if u got a 302 and got it up to 335 would u get the u 69 stats?

[Mines69Olds]

Originally Posted by neatofrito1618

so what would make it nose heavy. the engine? if u got a 302 and got it up to 335 would u get the u 69 stats?

The engine may make the nose heavy seeing as the 302 probably weighs somewhere between 100 - 300lbs less. You wouldn't get the same stats because of less weight and the 428 really had around 400 hp.
There are so many things that could make a difference though: rear end gears, transmission MT or AT, the actual hp and tq or the engines.