Fastest and meanest stock Mustang in Muscle Car Era

[tuningmaniacs]

Hi,

I have a somewhat peculiar question that needs answering.

I'm into scale car modelling and need a subject to represent the Ford Mustangs in my collection. For the Camaro's i've chosen the '69 Yenko and from Dodge the '70 Challenger, but which Mustang would be the rival? Both of the other had big over 400ci engines and more than 400hp but as far as I know there is no Mustang with that power. Please help me choose.

• '67 Shelby GT-500 (Maybe an Eleanor)
• '68 Mustang GT
• '68 Shelby GT-500 KR
• '69 Boss 429
• '69 Shelby GT-500
• '70 Boss 429
• Other ?

Is it right to say that Shelby is to Ford what Yenko is to Chevy?

Thanks in advance
Regards

[MrPbody]

First, no, Shelby isn't really to Ford what Yenko was to Chevy. Yenko would take relatively stock bodies and stuff monster engines in them, with minimal "backup" parts in the rest of the car. Transmissions and rears were commonly destroyed... Yenkos were more aimed at drag and street racing.

Shelby Mustangs were a complete package, making a FINE road car. The engine packages in the Shelby GTs weren't monster engines, either. I've seen a couple of '67 GT500s that were CLAIMED to have been 427s from Shelby, but have never had any documentation to back up that claim. Most were 428s, and wouldn't touch a 427 Camaro or Hemi Challenger. At the Nashville Birthaday Bash in '04, there were zero Mustangs with factory-installed 427s. In that era, 427 was Ford's best performance engine. The differences between 427 and 428 are a whole lot more than just that one cubic inch...

Boss 429 is probably the answer you're looking for. But I do recall true "stock" '71 Mach 1 in San Jose that went 11.90s with slicks on it, 429 CJ, 4-speed, 3.91 gears, IN 1971. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "meanest".

Jim

[429SCJguy]

I agree, the 429 Boss Mustangs and '71 Mach I 429 CJ/SCJ are good choices.

I am also not shure if 427s were ever actually installed in Mustangs or in Torinos. The were 427 (W code) Cougars produced in '68.

11.90s, thats really good for a stock 429CJ even with slicks. Was it absolutely stock or slightly modded?

[tuningmaniacs]

429SCJguy: I am also not shure if 427s were ever actually installed in Mustangs or in Torinos. The were 427 (W code) Cougars produced in '68.

I found a great info site for Mustangs. www.mustangattitude.com
As for the 427 (W code) engine it was also available as an option for the 1968 Mustang with 390hp. How was this car ordered? Was it a Shelby or not?

MrPbody: First, no, Shelby isn't really to Ford what Yenko was to Chevy. Yenko would take relatively stock bodies and stuff monster engines in them, with minimal "backup" parts in the rest of the car. Transmissions and rears were commonly destroyed... Yenkos were more aimed at drag and street racing.
...In that era, 427 was Ford's best performance engine. The differences between 427 and 428 are a whole lot more than just that one cubic inch...

Thanks for that info. Very interesting.

MrPbody: Boss 429 is probably the answer you're looking for. But I do recall true "stock" '71 Mach 1 in San Jose that went 11.90s with slicks on it, 429 CJ, 4-speed, 3.91 gears, IN 1971. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "meanest".

Many thanks. Now, it's quite clear that I need to look for a Boss 429 year 1969 or 1970. And by "meanest" well what I intend to say is that it shocks you if you have it in the rearview mirror.

Although I guess having a '67 GT500 Eleanor in the rearview mirror could also shock more than one.

Thanks for your feedback
Alex

[maxwedge]

64 Fairlane Thunder Bolt, fastest factory Ford outside the Cobra, modified by Dearborn Tubing, now running low nines in NHRA SS competition.

[tuningmaniacs]

Originally Posted by maxwedge

64 Fairlane Thunder Bolt, fastest factory Ford outside the Cobra, modified by Dearborn Tubing, now running low nines in NHRA SS competition.

Thanks for your input but we are talking about Mustangs and I doubt the Fairlane Thunder can be classified as a Muscle Car anyway.

But when you say Cobra, Ford Cobra which car are you talking about?

[MrPbody]

When a car guy says "Cobra", they're NOT talking about a Mustang. Cobra was an AC Bristol roadster with a 260 CID small block Ford for the first version, 289 and finally, 427. At one time, the 427 Cobra was considered the quickest/fastest production car ever built by anyone. The late-model stuff like ZR-1 and Z-06, Viper and a handful of European exotics have since passed the level, but it took 30 or more years!

Eleanor was a '71 Mach 1 in the original movie. It toured with the movie when it first opened at theatres. I remember seeing it on a trailer in front of the movie house in San Bernardino. It was TORE UP! The GT500 clone was to add "pinash" for Nicholas Cage... (:-

To the best of my knowledge, that '71 "flat back" was really stock. It probably had a "super tune" on it, and maybe headers, but I don't think so.

Thunderbolts fall into the class of "muscle car" (intermediate body, "big car" engine), but they were very limited in production. For all practical purposes, the term "muscle car" should be reserved for mass-produced cars like GTO, SS396 (Chevelle), Road Runner, Charger w/at least a 383, Torino or Fairlane GT, etc. Thunderbolts were certainly very fast. They were a year too late, though. Hemi arrived and Super Duty departed... Those two were the kings of their era.

Jim

[tuningmaniacs]

MrPbody: Thunderbolts fall into the class of "muscle car" (intermediate body, "big car" engine), but they were very limited in production. For all practical purposes, the term "muscle car" should be reserved for mass-produced cars like GTO, SS396 (Chevelle), Road Runner, Charger w/at least a 383, Torino or Fairlane GT, etc. Thunderbolts were certainly very fast. They were a year too late, though. Hemi arrived and Super Duty departed... Those two were the kings of their era.

That's what I thought. The Thunderbolts were limited for drag races not street cars. As far as I know i've read somewhere that the term Muscle Car was born in 1964 with the Pontiac Tempest GTO followed shortly after by the Olds 442 and Buick Skylark GS. I could be wrong though. I'm no expert in Muscle Cars. I just like 'em a lot.

[wrightz28]

Wow, Jim and Max both in the same thread, and I'm the first to say that Camaros and Mustangs were not "muscle cars".

[tuningmaniacs]

Originally Posted by wrightz28

Wow, Jim and Max both in the same thread, and I'm the first to say that Camaros and Mustangs were not "muscle cars".

Hi,
at first your post shocked me and I was speaking loud to myself saying "wtf is this guy saying"? but then I said "wait a moment, these guys have to know better than me for sure" so I started to investigate a bit more.

Well, my personal opinion and no offense intended is that you are right and wrong at the same time.

From the Wikipedia:

A muscle car is an automobile with a high horse power engine, modest weight, capable of producing high levels of acceleration.[1] The term principally refers to American, Australian and South African models and generally describes a 2-door rear wheel drive mid-size car with a large, powerful V8 engine and special trim, intended for maximum torque on the street or in drag racing competition.

So basically you are right, BUT...

from the same page

Other muscle cars include the following:
* 1968–1970 AMC AMX
* 1968-1974 AMC Javelin and AMX
* 1967-1974 Chevrolet Camaro SS, Z-28
* 1970–1974 Dodge Challenger
* 1964-1973 Ford Mustang
* 1964-1968 Shelby Mustang
* 1967-1968 Mustang Cobra Jet
* 1969-1973 Mustang Mach 1
* 1969-1970 Boss 302 Mustang
* 1971 Mustang Boss 351
* 1969-1970 Mustang Boss 429
* 1967–1973 Mercury Cougar
* 1969-1970 Mercury Cougar Eliminator
* 1964–1974 Plymouth Barracuda aka 'Cuda
* 1969-1979 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am

So, from the definition or term we could agree that the "real or original" muscle cars are mid-sized powerful V8's, but that actually any powerful V8 from the late 60's to the early 70's can be a muscle car and that's what is I think in popular general belief.

Even if you look up books or dvd's for Muscle Cars you find the Camaros, Mustangs and all the pony muscle cars mentioned.

See here for an example: http://www.motorbooks.com/Store/CustomPage_8682.ncm

So for me the Camaros and Mustangs will keep being Muscle Cars if you don't mind.

[MagicRat]

Originally Posted by tuningmaniacs

So, from the definition or term we could agree that the "real or original" muscle cars are mid-sized powerful V8's, but that actually any powerful V8 from the late 60's to the early 70's can be a muscle car and that's what is I think in popular general belief.

Even if you look up books or dvd's for Muscle Cars you find the Camaros, Mustangs and all the pony muscle cars mentioned.

See here for an example: http://www.motorbooks.com/Store/CustomPage_8682.ncm

So for me the Camaros and Mustangs will keep being Muscle Cars if you don't mind.

This particular subject, (are pony cars really muscle cars) comes up regularly.

While I respect your opinion, IMO calling pony cars 'muscle cars' is not an accurate depiction of the auto marketplace in the 1960's.

Your post was well researched, but it cites sources that are not entirely accurate. IMO beware of journalists and writers who do not know much of how cars were marketed in the 1960's. Their opinion is not necessarily the 'truth'.

The car manufacturers knew what they were doing. They spent millions designing, building and marketing the 'pony cars' when they already had larger 'muscle cars' in place and in the market.

If the muscle cars and pony cars were 'the same' this would have been a waste of money and resources. In the 1960's, the muscle cars and pony car marketplace and buyers were distinct and different. Therefore, it is more accurate to treat them as distinct entities in discussions about them.

Yes, I agree with you that the general public heaps both pony cars and muscle cars together. However, one purpose of on-line discussion forums like this one is to educate and enlighten the masses by using as accurate facts and insight as is reasonably possible.

[wrightz28]

Magicrat hit the nail on the head.

In retrospect it's easy to lump the classes together, but back then was a whole different view. So much as I, you are also right and wrong, and why this subject is frequented often.

No offense dealt or taken.

[MrPbody]

Yes, we old farts have beaten the subject to death. Revisionist "history" abounds in all aspects of life. Don't like (or more often, "agree") with them? No sweat, just change it!

Tuningmaniac, you're correct. You may have read it in the book, or maybe someone like me quoting it. In Jim Wangers' book "Glory Days", he and John Z. (look toward Pontiac, Michigan and bow...) DeLorean used the term "muscle car" to describe the '64 GTO when pitching the idea to GM management. Management disagreed, so they (Jim and John Z.) KNEW they got it right, and produced the car without permission. After about 20K sales, management "allowed" it... GM upper management has always been a bit too conservative (stodgy) for the Pontiac crowd. Thankfully, guys like Bunky Knudsen and John DeLorean would take matters into their own hands and INVENT the new "market". No longer... They'd get fired and wouldn't get that multi-million dollar severance package...

Jim

[kens67mustang]

Ya want a true muscle mustang? try the 1968 1/2 Cobra Jet.nothing could touch them in the 1968 Winternationals.

[kens67mustang]

Exactly Right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!this Guy Hit The Nail On The Head!!!!!!!!!!right On!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!