428 cj

[les1]

hey cj guys! doesn't that feel good saying you own a cj!!! heres a question for ya. i have a 69 cj mach1 4 speed car 60200 orig miles. but what was wondering is i know ford underated the cj for insurace reasons but what is actual hp i KNOW its not 335 and what is the torque rating. also they had to make a c6 special for the cj for torque so... any cool sites on these cars?

[mustangII460]

This site has many intresting facts about the Cobra Jet engine. Hope its useful to you. http://www.geocities.com/~jhuntley/428cj.html

[69fastback]

I love to say a own a 428cj. I by far think the 69 428cj is the coolest thing ford ever made. I love to drive my car everyone just stares at it as I fly by them. One intersting site is 428cj registry. It dosen't have much but it is a place to registor ur 428cj.

------------------
69 428 cobra jet:bored .030, forged aluminum pistons, C & A rings, Engle cam, Edelbrock intake, 750 cmf carb, Hooker headers, March pullies, all ignition componets MSD, Holley 7psi fuel pump, Art Carr C-6, TCI torque converter, 4:30 gears, H pipe, subframe connectors, lift bars.

I aso have a stock 96 GT.

[hehhehmule]

As much as it pains me to tell you, they were actually OVER-RATED by todays standards. In the September issue of Mustang Monthly, they dyno tested an example of all the big blocks, with an exception of the 427. The Cobra Jet put out 237hp and 337ft/lbs of torque. This was from a refurbished 428, so it wasn't tired, and according to the article the tune was right on. The new 4.6 put out 244hp. Don't feel too bad though, my beloved S-Code only put out 165hp.

[les1]

thanks for the response, i dont see how 237 hp 337 torque could come out of 428 cubes 10.5 compression 427 medium riser heads and huge valves, and go 0 -60 in 5.8 tires smokin and if it kept up with 425 horse 454 everybodys hp ratings are off. my 428 is no dog, and i also have 4 mustang 5 litres and theres no comparison 60's cars rule.........

Originally posted by les1:
my 428 is no dog, and i also have 4 mustang 5 litres and theres no comparison 60's cars rule.........

I agree, 5.0s are nice, but muscle cars make you feel better, even if they aren't quite as fast or cost a lot to keep up.

------------------
'69 Coupe with 351W
=========================
Edelbrock Performer-RPM highrise dual plane intake manifold, Edelbrock Performer-RPM hydraulic cam (224 int duration, 234 exh; .496 int lift, .520 exh, and it idles just fine), Edelbrock Performer 750 cfm 4-barrel carb, Accel coil, Moroso Blue-Max plug wires, Hedman headers, 2.5" pipe, dual Thrush glasspacks, Edelbrock Performer-Link timing chain, C4 with B&M Street/Strip Shift Kit, Lakewood traction bars, 3.55's, 3200 lbs...
=========================

[hehhehmule]

Actually, I'm thinking the CJ's used Low Riser heads, not mediums. I can look it up, but I'm pretty sure about that. But, yeah, it's a mystery to me. The big blocks do have more torque, and that's a real good thing in a drag race and for torching tires. The numbers don't lie though. I'm about to redo the combo in my 67, and it's disenheatening to me to think of the money I'm going to have to put into it to get on par with my late model. I guess it's the price you pay for nostalgia.

[Bleedin' Blue]

hehhehmule:

If you believe that, then explain this:

My 69 R-code Mach 1 just blows the doors off my Pontiac GTP Grand Prix which is rated at 245 hp at the crank.

Granted, the gearing is a little different but not so much that it would make that much difference.

Not sure how they derived those numbers but I assure you they are bogus.


[This message has been edited by Bleedin' Blue (edited 05-26-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Bleedin' Blue (edited 05-26-2000).]

[hehhehmule]

I explain that by the fact that, as I mentioned earlier, this was RWHP and torque was higher. I'd be surprised if your GTP put more than 215 to the wheels, and a considerable difference in torque. Torque is a very effective means of propelling a vehicle in the first 330 feet. Let me clarify that I have tinkered with bb mustangs since I was 16. I don't have any disrespect for the cars, in fact, I have great affection for them. This post was in no way, meant as a slam against them. It is simply a statement of fact. I've owned 289's 390's 428's 351C's and 289hipo's and I can assure you, modern technology is a wonderful thing.

[Bleedin' Blue]

Thanks for the lesson on torque, I really needed it. Torque is great for the leave, but it won't do squat for MPH. I assure you, I have been racing BBF's since I was sixteen and have several BBF's in the stable now. (including an 8 sec. tube car)

Those numbers are BS.

For that matter, the Boss 429 was only rated at 375 bhp. I don't believe that either. EPA and insurance is what propmted the conservative ratings.

[mustangII460]

Without putting anyting on the Dyno. Compare the weight of old cars vs new. Simple reasoning shows those old heavy Mustangs faster,running lower ET's. And with less Horspower? A "full house" 289 in 1966 pushed 400 Hp. and could be had as an option. Ford did choke the Boss 429 with a lousy cam. It would still run with the 428 though. Im not slaming anyone but to much data to support more Hp.

[This message has been edited by mustangII460 (edited 05-27-2000).]

[hehhehmule]

The 65-68's were actually lighter than the fox body mustangs. I'm not aware of any factory options higher than 271 in the 289's, though I have seen information on dealer installed options (ie Weber carbs and tri-y headers) claiming 350. The test numbers I have on these combos had the 271 with 3.50's turning 15.1 at 93 and the 350 with 3.77's turning 14.4 at 96. The low trap speeds might indicate the low speeds weren't due to a lack of traction. By comparison, the test numbers I have from a Boss 302 with 3.50's did 14.7 at 99.5. The trap speeds indicate the Boss had the power to run 13's. I see no reason for this information to be falsified, as the tests were done when these cars became available, and the aftermarket for 5.0's could not influence the writers to downplay the power. The Mustang Monthly article might be explained by a desire to convert classic muscle owners over to purchasers of advertisers wares. However, the magazine also represents advertisers of classic hardware and I can't see alienating that section of the market on purpose.

[TEA69COBRAJET]

The cj tested in mustang monthly was treated to a tune up (carb adjusted timing and spark plugs. It then was tested with 275hp at the rear wheels. I have owned my CJ for 28 years and as with all carbed non computer cars the tune up is very important. The NHRA thinks the CJ sholud be rated at 375 hp for B stock,C stock and Dstock depending on weight. A 93COBRA is classed as a K or L stock car. Oh yes my 69 weighs in at 3100lbs. with a stock interior and street equipment installed. However it does not have A/c, radio,(much less sound system),P/S or power anything.

[hehhehmule]

TEA,
If you still have that issue, I'd like to know which one it was. The 275 makes me feel alot better about the FE. I'd like to check out what they did. Was that a manual or an auto? The 237 came from an auto Shelby 500 and I'm sure that would contribute to the low numbers.

[les1]

one last thing to say thanks for the response and technology fuel injection etc.. does not actually make horsepower take off the plenum on a late model 302 put a carb well tuned and it will still make 189 hp or so at the tires with 300 lbs of torque. a 66 4 bbl 289 had 312. so big cubes, decent cam, monster breathing, and high compression are definately goimg to make alot more than 45 hp more than a little 302 with low compression, decent cam, small breathing and smog stuff, also the time slips you see advertised are with 14 inch skinny bias plys go put some on a late model and take off the quad shocks and youll see 16's those figures of 237 can't be real then no muscle car had more than 245 hp yeah right.. a lt1 350 has 305 hp and 335 lbs torque so lets think a little here..........

[hehhehmule]

Actually, the 305 you refer to comes from the LS1, not the LT1. I think the highest they rated the LT1 was 285. As for a 66 with 312, I've got a 289HP in my truck and I assure you, it's not a 300 horse engine. I'm not sure I've made myself clear here, so I'll take another shot. I OWN an FE powered 67, with CJ heads on it and it CAN NOT hang with my 5.0. The 5.0 has more than just the FI going for it. It also has the roller cam, and the TE7 heads aren't as weak as some would believe. If anything, I beleive the FI upper and lower are MORE restrictive than a good 4V set up. I'm not bashing the FE power, the torque is supercool, I'm just trying to share some info here.

[j's69stang]

i own a 69 with a 302. it has ps, pb, and a stereo in it and it wieghs 3250 with me in it(155 lbs) and with a half a tank of gas. my brother has a 91 gt and it weighs the same, so weight has nothing to do with it. my car had a 2 barrell on it and it only ran high 16s. i get smoked by any stock mustang driving around. But the cj puts out a little bit more than 2 something hp.

[hehhehmule]

Which ever position you hold in the debate, Kudos to all who participated in the hottest topic I've seen in the Classic in a looong time. Bravo to all who keep the old muscle running.

[Unit 5302]

Well I don't frequent this forum often, but I feel the need to chime in here.

My uncle is the original owner of a 1969 Mach 1 428CJ with the top loader 4 speed. Stock it ran 13's. The quickest quote I've seen for a production Mustang was from Car Craft testing the 1968 1/2 Mach 1 428CJ with the top loader. 0-60 5.5 sec. 1/4 mile 13.56 @ 108mph. Those numbers might be off a little in the accuracy dept. being back in the day and all, but they are reasonable for a perfect run.

My uncle also just purchased a beautiful example of the 1969 Boss 302. One of his aquaintences over the net also had a Boss 302 motor which was just dyno tuned. The motor was stock, except for the low compression pistons and the smaller 1970 valves. That motor running at a pathetic 9.0:1 compression, made 364hp and 340lb/ft of torque. A prime example would no doubt peak near 400hp. Stock. That means the 290hp gross brake rating the motor came with was accurate if you look at the net at the rear wheels.

The 428 made more power than the Boss 302. I wouldn't say much more, but it would be reasonable to expect a 428CJ in prime condition to put near 300hp to the ground.

My dad raced a 1963 Ford Convertable. I'm talking the big one with the 427. It was the 427 medium riser dual quad setup and in that 2 ton body he managed mid/low 13's. The 427 and 428 were definately similar, although to be fair the 427 was significantly more powerful in stock form, but if you stick the 5.0 SEFI motor into a 1963 Ford full size convertable and expect anything lower than 16's your crazy.

There is no question that a prime example of the FE block makes more hp than a stock roller 5.0. The only question is for how long. Everyone who knows their FE motors knows that the 390,427,428 were all short lived motors. After 70k they certainly don't have the punch they used to where a roller 5.0 is still as strong as it was off the showroom floor.

As for the comment about the 2bbl 289 not having equalling the performance of the 271hp Hi-po 289 offered in some of the Mustangs, really... do ya think? The 289 in the truck isn't cammed near the hi-po, doesn't have the heads, or the 4bbl and intake. It's not going to have anywhere near that kind of power. It's like comparing the 1979 5.0HO motor to the 1987's. Night and day. Also there was a 335hp version of the 289. It was used in the Shelby Cobra Daytona. It supposedly made 375hp with webers(just try and tune it right though).

237hp at the wheels was a sickly tuned 428 indeed.

[hehhehmule]

I fear you misunderstood my post Unit. The engine in the truck IS NOT a 2bbl 289. I thought I made it clear with the HP. It's a genuine solid lifter 289 HI PERFORMANCE. Rated at 271 horsepower from ford. It's not in an old ford truck it's in a 83 Ford Ranger (surprisingly,not factory by the way, heheh). Perhaps you could explain why the Boss had the slowest 1/4 times of three mustangs tested in MMFF. It was SLOWER than the Fox bodied GT AND the 4.6 99 GT tested a few months back. This was not a tired old junkyard Boss either. The traps were fairly repectable, denoting possible traction problems, but it also had a better set of gears.