428 cj

hehhehmule · 05-27-2000, 12:20 PM

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.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

05-27-2000, 12:20 PM	#11
hehhehmule Registered Member Join Date: Sep 1998 Location: Nashville TN Posts: 608	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.