Gone in 60 seconds...

[JohnnyK]

Got a question for those who have seen the movie. What mustang is it that they use? (As the unicorn). I read it was a 73 Mach1, what do you guys thing? (I'm really jonesing for one

[Stefan]

I haven't seen the movie yet (been meaning to) but there were like 11 cars used for all the filming and one for show. It's supposed to be a 67 GT500 Shelby but all were just plain 67's with heavy mods. The one that was actually a Shelby was given to Producer Jerry Bruckheimer. Yah, I could take one if someone offered

I think it was a Mach 1 in the original Gone in 60 Seconds.
------------------
66 Tahoe Turquoise Coupe
Laser Red 96GT Ragtop
Both are slow but easy on the eyes!

[This message has been edited by Stefan (edited 12-18-2000).]

[MrWesson22]

Original Gone in 60 was a 73 mach, yes. Nicholas Cage version is a 67 fastback done up as a modified GT500.

------------------
Neal

69 stang
351C/4sp

[JohnnyK]

Well, I'm really interested in a Mach1, (if I could find one cheap.. What are beat up ones going for?) but I'm a little iffy on muscle cars. How do they handle? What are there 0-60 times (approx) and top speed? Thanks!

[j's69stang]

who cares if it handles good and the 0-60 accelaration. you will own a classic car that is awesome, if you want it to handle they make kits, and if you want them to run there easy to make them do that. dont make a decision on how good it handles or accelaration.

[JohnnyK]

Well, I always like small nimble cars, but I think I could do some mods to it. You could find a beat up one for about $3000 couldn't you?

[thunderbolt]

JonnyK
I have a 72 Mach1, which for practical purposes is almost identical to the 73. It is a good driver for a classic mustang but just does not compare to modern equipment. I replaced all the suspension with Magna upgrade equipment. It handles almost as good as my 83 z-28 did now. Brakes need upgraded, interior is spartan by modern standards. With the fastback (all Mach1's) there is a horrendus blind spot. Power in original condition will probably upset you. They have good power but just don't even compare to a modern z-28 or updated 4.6. The good news is if you are willing to modify, the 71-73 platform will accept all kinds of engines from small block's to 460 based big blocks.
Now that being said, I love driving mine. It is fun to drive something that turns heads because of its vintage and styling. And being older, stepping into the throttle not only gives you a satisfying burst of accelleration, but that loud throaty sound that hasn't been muffeled by air tight cabins and sound deadners.
Be careful and think it through, get some catalogs. 71-73's are the rarest of the first gen mustangs and hence the most expensive to get pars for. If you get one, go to the trouble of finding one that is not a rust bucket. Rust is the worst enemy of these cars.
Hope this wasn't too long and hope it helped.

[j's69stang]

71-73 are also the ugliest style in the first generation mustang thats why there rare. i got a 69 mustang coupe and wouldnt trade it in or sell it for a new mustang ever. everybody where i live has one and im one of about 4 that has one like mine, and it does turn heads by far, especially since i got the new motor in it that is bad!!!


69 mustang coupe
302 bored .060 over
282 Comp cam, 10:1 compression
headman headers, edelbrock intake and carb
msd ignition

[JohnnyK]

Are you guys serious? A 429 will not compete with todays sports cars? I thought they were cranking out about 375 HP? Most cars (Z28 and what not) only put out like 300! Sure there a bit heavier, but I thought you could basically kill everything in one of these?

Sure a 429 could kill some new musclecars, but I dont know of any 73 mustangs with a 429 from the factory. The only 429 stang I can think of is a Boss 429

------------------
67 Fastback - Arctic White Pearl paint
351W 415 hp, Trick Flow Alum. Heads, C-4 Trans, 3.55 gears, Front Disc Brakes, 1-1/8" Fr. 3/4" rear sway bars.

[thunderbolt]

the 69 and 70 Boss 429 was the first but the 71 mustang came optional with the 429. This was not the same hemi head 429 as the boss but a wedge head version. The non boss 429 lived only 1 year in the mustang, 1971. Horse power in 71 was gross and in 72 switched to net numbers used today. This translates into what appears to be a loss of hp but is really only a different way of calculating it. So 375 in 71 does not equal 375 today. I forget the numbers, but I think multiply by .7 gets you pretty close generally. A recent dyno test I saw put a rebuilt 429 just barely ahead of a 4.6 that was not the cobra motor. The 429 has a whole lot more bottom end grunt, but technology has been great for modern engines. Now, give me a 460, modern heads, roller valve train, good induction, liberal fuel injection and an ignition curve to match and just try to hold on, but that is some work.

[JohnnyK]

So if I am just going for speed basically, I should get an 80's 5.0? I really like the look's of Mach1's though. You saying I COULD get a classic mustang to go damn fast though? Can the stock motors handly No2?

[Mercury]

Johhny K

I can speak from experience on this one. I have a first generation mustang, the 64 1/2 "d" code. The 289 in it has been built up to decent specs and I didnt throw to much money into it. Just used my knowledge of physics and experience with machining and auto technologies. Read my sig, it'll tell you most of what I have done to it.

I'm not sure what it will run in the quarter, but I know on the street its not to be dismissed as a non contender. While not the fastest, I have given a wake up call to several Mid-90's Z28's in it, and several Fox-Body stangs, by showing them my tail lights. I dont know why it was such a surprise to them, its definetly got the Lope in the exhaust note, and the aggressive sound, and it rocks from side to side while at an idle. I guess cause it looks stock as a rock (except for the big tach on the column and the mounted fire extinguisher. Its even got stock hub caps, stock looking 65 GT exhaust, Stock ride height, Stock Fog lights. Getting traction on stock sized tires, now thats a challenge. Maybe thats why everyone is surprised, they think since it has such skinny tires it must not have crap for an engine. I have to granny it out of the hole (about half throttle) and when I get up to 15Mph, just floor it and keep on it till 4800 Rpms, then let off the gas a bit so it changes into second, and in second let off at 5000 Rpms.

Okay Okay, sorry I went on for so long. In a nut Shell, its easy to make the classics compete with the new stuff in accerleration, and handling, but it takes time and patience. Beleive it or not, it doesnt take that much money.

I still have to work on my suspension though. Its bone stock, and it shows. My car handles like a stick of butter in a hot pan.

[JohnnyK]

So you would go with an early mustang, and not an 80's for speed?

Either can go fast, since both commonly use similar small blocks. Early models have less emmisions restrictions, but late models have better manual transmissions. A 5speed w/low first gear makes a big difference. I prefer early 64-69 fastbacks styling. I think the best drivetrain combo would be a 351W with a 5 or 6 speed tranny. I like the 351 because it is very similar to the 5.0 so it has benifitted from the new heads,cam etc. technology. Any engine and tranny combo will go in both a 60's, or 79-93 mustang without much modification. I think that big-blocks are not a good choice because you can build a 351W to run with any street big block for a fraction of the cost. If you want big-block displacement, you can stroke the 351W to 427ci or higher (and it weighs a lot less). So both have about the same performance potential, the only thing to decide is which styling you prefer.

------------------
67 Fastback - Arctic White Pearl paint
351W 415 hp, Trick Flow Alum. Heads, C-4 Trans, 3.55 gears, Front Disc Brakes, 1-1/8" Fr. 3/4" rear sway bars.

[Stefan]

As everyone has said, it's just about how much money you want to spend. Any car can be made fast. Personally I love all Mustangs but the classics are just awesome. Get whatever body style you like best then slowly build what you want. There are more and more companies out there that are catering to those who want modern advances and safety in classic cars. You don't have to do it all at once either. When you finish you'll have something that's completely different from other cars on the road and it won't be any slouch either.

Just my two cents

------------------
66 Tahoe Turquoise Coupe
Laser Red 96GT Ragtop
Both are slow but easy on the eyes!

[Mercury]

Johhny K

Personally I'd go for the classic, but I have an extensive knowledge of the mechanics behind them. I did just about everything on my cars myself. It helps alot to have the tools and the knowledge. If you've got both, go for the classics. Whats posted below is my opinion, but I've had experiences to back them up.

1. You see less classic Stangs than 80's Fox-Bodys. They get noticed alot more.
2. There fairly simple mechanically, and just about everything is were you can reach it.
3. Parts arent that hard to find for them. They have strong followings and tons of repro parts. Some repros are made better than others though. And 65-66 are the easiest to find parts for. 67-68 are only a little bit harder. 69-70 thats were you start having a little trouble, not much, but body parts are harder to find.

Depending on what you want to do to a classic stang, stay away from the early 65, also known as 64 1/2s. These cars can be hell to find correct front end sheetmetal for, although 65 and 66 pieces work I like to keep the original metal on it. Second Reason. Generators suck. I still have mine on the car, and there nothing but trouble, even though I work on my own cars and rebuild the Generator myself, it costs a small fortune. And there are some wiring diffrences. I restore these cars and its not easy to keep everything but the drivetrain correct.

4. Some reason, people respect a classic stang more, and the classics seem to strike fear in the street competitor.

5. Its easier to get remembered driving a classic.



------------------
64 1/2 Red Mustang Coupe. 289, C4, 3:1 rear gear. Mallory duel point. Ported & Polished 65 heads shaved .01 with 351 windsor valves, high side of 10.5:1 comp, 1.7:1 sled rockers, blue wolverine lumpy cam, autolite 4100 Hipo 4 barrel. And to many others to list

2000 Perf Red Mustang GT. 5spd.

64 1/2 red 6cyl coupe. Auto. project car.

[JohnnyK]

Oh, I have no problem working on cars (I own a Fiero, remember? i'm trying to get a good speed=cost equation going here (don't want to spend much). I like the Mach styling, but I don't like the 4spd idea, nor the lack of efficiency (in the power). Nowadays, if a car had a 429 (and it wasn't made in America) it would put out like, 600 hp!

[MrWesson22]

One thing to remember, Johnny, is that a smaller engine is easier to achieve a higher hp/cid ratio (meaning make more power for the size) because it generally has about the same size pistons but a much smaller stroke so it revs higher and easier. This helps horsepower, but hurts torque. And TORQUE is what really makes a difference on the street, especially with redlight to redlight races. This is a gross overgeneralization and not entirely accurate, but in general torque provides acceleration and lowend power and horsepower is topend pull and top speed. If anyone else knows a better way to say what I'm thinking, please do so. Horsepower is important, but on the street, torque matters more. And no engine has torque like a built big block...

------------------
Neal

69 stang
351C/4sp

[gp001]

There's no better feeling than blowin the doors off some jerk in a "modern" sports/muscle car (take your pick which make, model, etc..) in some 30+ year old LOOKING car. Stoplights are fun, but windy roads are even better. Porsche guys are the best.
I'd go with the classic, but then again I already have.

------------------
347, 279/284 .493/.510, TFS TW, Stealth, 750, Flowtech hdrs, Dr. Gas X, 2 Chmbr Flowmaster, MSD 6AL-Dist.& SS coil, Art Carr C-4, Currie 9" w/3.55, alum Drv Shft, 4 wheel power disc
In a 66 coupe