American Muscle? Have I just been unlucky?

[Harlow]

I've owned 4 different muscle cars. The most powerful being my 68 sport satellite (383 with too much cam and too little gear). I also had a 65 mustang fastback (302 4v) that was pretty quick but would be beat by the satellite. I recently had a 88 mustang lx (5.0 with bolt on upgrades) and 1991 240sx got them both as money making ventures. Anyways, these two cars blew anything else I've had out of the water as far as power goes. The mustang is the fastest car I've ever owned. Have I just been unlucky? Or are these cars usually legitimately more powerful? Just curious, you still can't beat the look of muscle cars but I was just surprised at how quick these late model, essentially stock cars were.

[Chris G.]

So if you find that elusive "Muscle Car", would you keep it or try and flip it?

[68 CHARGER R/T]

with me i own both.sure the mustang was the quickest bang for the buck,but they were mass produced. cops sure hated them in the late 80's to early 90's these days it's the honda thing.but as for muscle cars (chargers especially) wouldn't think twice about selling it for a late mustang   

[Harlow]

with me i own both.sure the mustang was the quickest bang for the buck,but they were mass produced. cops sure hated them in the late 80's to early 90's these days it's the honda thing.but as for muscle cars (chargers especially) wouldn't think twice about selling it for a late mustang   

I'm not saying I'd rather own a mustang. I was just surprised at how fast they were. Nothing can beat the looks of a 64-74 muscle car.

[1969chargerrtse]

I've owned 4 different muscle cars. The most powerful being my 68 sport satellite (383 with too much cam and too little gear). I also had a 65 mustang fastback (302 4v) that was pretty quick but would be beat by the satellite. I recently had a 88 mustang lx (5.0 with bolt on upgrades) and 1991 240sx got them both as money making ventures. Anyways, these two cars blew anything else I've had out of the water as far as power goes. The mustang is the fastest car I've ever owned. Have I just been unlucky? Or are these cars usually legitimately more powerful? Just curious, you still can't beat the look of muscle cars but I was just surprised at how quick these late model, essentially stock cars were.

It's all  relative.  Remember there's no replacement for displacement.  First of all the 65 mustang never came with a 302, so who knows what kinda motor it is?  The 88 stang is 23 years of newer technologies, and had upgrades.  The satellite had to much cam and too little gear.   It's all about horse power numbers.   I know my 69 charger with the stock 440 375hp would beat many of today's cars.  The instant torque and spin is like nothing I've driven around today in general.

[Harlow]

I've owned 4 different muscle cars. The most powerful being my 68 sport satellite (383 with too much cam and too little gear). I also had a 65 mustang fastback (302 4v) that was pretty quick but would be beat by the satellite. I recently had a 88 mustang lx (5.0 with bolt on upgrades) and 1991 240sx got them both as money making ventures. Anyways, these two cars blew anything else I've had out of the water as far as power goes. The mustang is the fastest car I've ever owned. Have I just been unlucky? Or are these cars usually legitimately more powerful? Just curious, you still can't beat the look of muscle cars but I was just surprised at how quick these late model, essentially stock cars were.

It's all  relative.  Remember there's no replacement for displacement.  First of all the 65 mustang never came with a 302, so who knows what kinda motor it is?  The 88 stang is 23 years of newer technologies, and had upgrades.  The satellite had to much cam and too little gear.   It's all about horse power numbers.   I know my 69 charger with the stock 440 375hp would beat many of today's cars.  The instant torque and spin is like nothing I've driven around today in general.

Your right, I mis-spoke about the engine in the 65, it was the original 289. That could be another issue, the motor was the original motor so its got 40+ years of use on it. Theres also that feeling of going faster than you actually are with muscle cars due to lack of modern suspension, brakes etc...

[68 CHARGER R/T]

the 289's i beleive produced about 275 horses not sure about the hi-po one's compared to what a 302  produced (225) in the late 80's.then you gotta concider also not much fiberglass(if any) used on the classics as well.

[Charger-Bodie]

Those Fox bodied Mustangs are fairly quick cars , but if you were at the track with it youd probobly find that its not as quick as it feels.

Those cars are REALLY good at feeling quiker than they really are!....Its just cause of how light and nimble they are, I think. 

Also , If you ever get the chance to drive a real muscle car you will deffinatly understand. A stock well tuned 440 Charger ( or similar) is a blast to drive!! and then you have strokers ect that make them even more fun!

[68 CHARGER R/T]

yup the stock mustangs turned 14.4 in the quarter with slicks and gears you'l jump into high 13's

[Sublime/Sixpack]

 Harlow, perhaps your musclecars just didn't have the right combination of engine, cam, gears, suspension, tuning, etc.

There are several later cars out there that are quite healthy. The light weight, independent suspension, overhead cams, four valves per cylinder, fuel injection, etc. but personally for me, owning and driving Muscle Mopars is about SO much more than just going fast or being quick in the quarter mile. 
From time to time I hear the tuner crowd bad mouthing the all around performance of the '60's musclecars, but park a beautiful 2nd generation Charger next to the other two cars you mentioned and compare the styling. Like someone else once said, you can paint a turd but you still have a turd.

   Hope I didn't stray too far from your original post.

[RD]

should have slapped some 3.73's or 3.91's in the satellite and you would be singing a different tune.. heck 3.55's for that matter.

[Rolling_Thunder]

69 Road Runner with a built 440 4-speed and 3.91 gears runs high 11's low 12's...     i think its just your luck ?

[SFRT]

no matter how fast that ugly 80's mustang us, its still  a ghetto looking shitbox. a 'classic American 60's musclecar' is God On Wheels, and it can be as fast and well handling as you want it to be if you spend the money and the time, and that is an unbeatable  combo that cannot be denied, ever. It IS the stuff of dreams.

just yesterday as I was peacefully driving along some tool in a 'fast shitbox' with a wing and all of that came along side started to play the game. I dropped the scow into 2nd and punched it....you know the rest of the story.

[Mike DC]

Older musclecars are torque-monsters more than modern cars.  Torque feels faster than it usually really is on the stopwatch, so the cars are more fun to drive.

Newer cars are all HP and no torque.  They post dangerously fast numbers on the stopwatch but they still often manage to feel slower than they are.

-------------------------------------------------

A decent 383 is a great motor but not if it's over-cammed and under-geared at the same time.  That combination is a great way to make just about anything run like sh*t. 



Most mid-60s mustangs are not fast cars, all nostalgia aside (hell, most early mustangs were slow in general unless they were specifically optioned-up to be fast). 

In that era, a Ford 289-inch V8 might have been a similar place in the product line to what a 3.0-3.5 liter V6 is to an American brand today.  Medium-sized workhorse motors that were put into a wide range of cars they were producing at the time, and sometimes the base economy engine on the smallest pickup trucks.  It's not really gonna pass for a "performance" motor in anything but the smallest size cars.

[Challenger340]

I dunno here ?
The old "stock" & original 72 340 Challenger I currently own goes 14.3 in the 1/4 mile at my tracks altitude, pretty slow, when you're used to 9 & 10 second door slammers as I am,
But,
it's just a good driver.
Comparably, most stock 5.0L Mustangs in this area are only clocking in the 14.7-15.0 range, chipped and exhaust they go the same lower 14's as my stock 340 car.
My son has an stock '87 5.0L that I can trounce !
He wants a 331 or 347.

My old 383 '69 Road Roach, back in the day, stock engine with 4.10's, .484" Cam & Intake used to go 13.6's all day !

Methinks, you may have had some "terds" ??

Were the Engines in your muscle cars rebuilt ?
That, usually explains alot. Most repops aren't up to snuff, even the old "stock".

[Todd Wilson]

Sounds like you need to go to the Mustangs r us forum.


Todd

[Chad L. Magee]

the 289's i beleive produced about 275 horses not sure about the hi-po one's compared to what a 302  produced (225) in the late 80's.then you gotta concider also not much fiberglass(if any) used on the classics as well.

Since I own a few Mustang project cars, I thought I would put my imput into this topic.  If I remember right, the vintage K-code 289 HiPo was in the 300 hp range and gained another 50+ hp if Carol Shelby got his hands on it (for GT350s and Cobras).  They were good small block engines for street/race use, leading to why CS used them.  Most 1965 289 Mustangs came with either the 2bbl. C-code or the regular 4-bbl. A-code engines.  Not that many regular Mustangs (non-Shelby) got the K-codes from the factory back in the day, even though alot of Mustang owners claimed to have one in their cars (using over the counter dress up parts).  Granted, CS did sell an upgrade kit that you could use to make the modifications to a regular 289 and also a dress up kit for those who just wanted to look like they had one......

As for the modern cars being faster, well they really should be, after having a 40+ year advancement in car technology vs. the older ones.  If that was not the case, we would be on a decline in our automotive technology sector, which would be an embarrassment.  The safety advances are better in the newer cars, but that leads into the throwaway factors of them when they do get wrecked.  Think about how many of them will be collected in the future.  I doubt that they will have the following that our Chargers have, they are too much like each other.  The styling and feel of the classics can be copied but never duplicated.....   

[68 CHARGER R/T]

i think we should change this website to fordmustang.com forum   

[Harlow]

i think we should change this website to fordmustang.com forum   

I thought this was the "car guys discussion" forum. Correct me if I'm wrong. I thought this is where we can discuss other makes/models?

[moparstuart]

i think we should change this website to fordmustang.com forum   

I thought this was the "car guys discussion" forum. Correct me if I'm wrong. I thought this is where we can discuss other makes/models?

We can but why would you want too 

[GreenMachine]

Methinks, you may have had some "terds" ?




Is it "terd" or "turd"?

[Harlow]

Is it "terd" or "turd"?

I always knew it as "turd".

[b5blue]

IF IT'S A MUSTANG IT'S A "FURD", AT LEAST HE'S NOT TALKING CHEVY,WHEN I WAS A KID I THOUGHT ALL CARS BROKE EVERY WEEK!

[greenpigs]

  The K code mustang was 275 and the Shelby version in 65 at least was 306 I think but its been 20 years or so since I bothered with Ford trivia.

[TheGhost]

i think we should change this website to fordmustang.com forum   

I thought this was the "car guys discussion" forum. Correct me if I'm wrong. I thought this is where we can discuss other makes/models?

We can but why would you want too 

To say how inferior they are to Mopars?


Although, Pontiacs are awesome cars....