Gone in 60 seconds... - Page 2

NO SLO PK · 12-22-2000, 01:58 AM

Hey Johnny, I own both vintages of Mustangs - a 65 coupe and a 91 LX 5.0. Both are modified and I would like to give my 2 cents.

BABE FACTOR: The classic definitely wins this category, IMO. Then again I'm married and this isn't important to me, so I have been told.

DRIVEABILITY: Almost all late models with 5.0 engines came with A/C. Many Classics were not so equipped. If gas mileage is important, the late models are better by a big factor. Also, I would not feel totally comfortable about using a Classic as a daily driver. Too many idiots out there.

ENGINE MODS: The engine in the Classic Stang is much cheaper to modify. For example, upgrading the induction means replacing the carb and intake ($400-$500). For a late model, you get to spend megabucks for bigger injectors, a bigger throttle body, TWO intakes, and a bigger mass air meter ($1100 to 1500+).

CHASSIS/SUSPENSION: Both early and late models (i.e., fox chassis) could use a lot of help in this area. The classics have a stiffer unibody, but the late models are more performance oriented.

BRAKES: Late models are better in this area, but not by a lot. If you get a 65-66, I'd really suggest upgrading to front discs if it doesn't already have them.

WHEELS/TIRES: Well, bigger is better, and the late models win this one.

DRIVETRAIN: The T5 is more user friendly because it has a fifth gear which is good for highway cruising/mileage. However, the T5 will break if you ask too much of it. On the other hand, a vintage toploader is indestructible.

To sum things up, I'd say if you want a daily driver, you're probably better off with a late model. If you want a weekend driver, then the Classic is the best choice.

Again, my 2 cents...

------------------
'91 LX
Procharger, 3 row intercooler, extrude honed Cobra intake, Mac full Length Headers, 30# inj., 73mm C&L, 75mm tb, E303 cam, 289 rods, ported E7 heads, MSD, T-Rex w/255 lph Walbro, 5 lug conversion, Cobra R wheels, 3.27 gears and Moser Axles.

[This message has been edited by NO SLO PK (edited 12-22-2000).]

JohnnyK · 12-23-2000, 10:39 AM

Thanks a lot guys. You guys are really helpful! The problem is decisions... I hate them.

I probably would be using it every day, but you really made a good point about the cost of upping induction.

MercDude · 12-28-2000, 07:12 PM

You guys make me sick... how hard is a classic mustang to restore?? Let's see... they make EVERY part of a mustang and it's the most common old car on the road. Don't get me wrong, i'm jealous as hell for the repo parts and availability, but it just makes me angry to think that mustangs are HARD to redo to modern times. I drive my old beast every damn day to school and work, i have done this for 3 years... now this is hard, but it is deffinately doable. Now, the AC is only important if you live in like TX or CA

... brakes can be upgraded and wheels are just about selection and engine is all about how fast you want to go and trans is about which brand you prefer... you'll do just about the same to a new stang if you're a car enthusiast. I've put about 10K into my MERCURY METEOR - which BTW they only made 2500 of in 1963!! - and i have great brakes/wheels/engine/trans/exhaust/interior/body & paint... and you WILL get girls... in fact, i had one girl yell out to me "can i f$ck you in your car?!" now that's what i call attention! Just make sure you don't go crazy and you'll be fine with an old car, but remember, it is an old car and needs attention. Want to haulas$ and look good? do it restomod! BTW-you can put a new overdrive auto/stick in a classic no prob... just takes some dough!

------------------
'63 Merc Meteor hardtop, warm 302, C4 auto, 2.25" Flowmaster Exhaust,
'65 289 heads - ported/chevy valves, performer cam, edelbrock f4a intake, full length hookers, 600 holley, roller rockers, k'n, 10.5:1 hyperutetic pistons... mid 13's hoping to reach into 12's

Rev · 12-28-2000, 08:42 PM

I get only 13-13 1/2 MPG using Chevron Supreme in my modded '66 306 with a C-4 and 3.25 T-lock. Some with an old stang probably do better. I love the classic Stangs, but sacrifices are necessary to use as a daily driver. My $.02.

Rev

------------------
'66 Coupe, 306, 300 HP, C-4, 13.97 e.t., 100.3 mph
1/4 mi.

Michelle Page · 12-31-2000, 02:05 PM

Hey JonnyK! Haven't heard from you in a while!
I like the '71-'73 Mustangs. In fact I have one sitting in the yard. Thease cars aren't exactly small and nimble. Lots of people think they are ugly, but I think they look mean! If I ever build my '71 I will put a 460 in it.
If you want a small Mustang with power and handling I'd go with the 65-68's. Build up a 351w with a good C4 and it should be pretty quick. There are plenty of companies who make restoration parts, handling parts, and lots of other things for the classic mustangs.
lemme know if you have any more q's!
Mymustang66@juno.com

Mercury · 01-01-2001, 05:10 PM

MercDude

Restoring a classic Mustang can be harder than you realize, ESPECIALLY if your trying to do it 100% correct. As for Reproduction parts, they can make things harder, not easier. Especially when the fenders dont line up right, or a hood is an inch and a half longer than the NOS parts or original parts. Finding parts for an old side loader 4 spd, or a 4 spd top loader can be a royal pain.

Glass is another area that can be dificult in the classic stangs. Sure they make repro glass, but its usually only 3/4 the width of the orignial stuff. You know what that means right? Can we say leaks and wind noise. Try finding a dash, an uncut dash for a 65 coupe. Here on the east coast its not that easy.

The key is knowing what after market reproduction companies to trust and expect quality parts from.

The classic stangs are some of the easiest classics to restore, next to Camaros, Model T's, and Chevelles, but even they can be a challenge. I should know, I've been through it several times before. I have helped with restoration on a 60-Tbird, several first Gen Stangs, 67 Fairlane, 69 Torino, and a 67 GTO. Not bragging, just informing.

------------------
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.

COBRA66 · 01-01-2001, 05:22 PM

Well i have no idea y you would want a 71-73, cause they are the ugliest of mustangs, besides mustang II. The last year of the good looking classics has got to be 70'. You just cant beet the looks and performance of the 69-70 Mach 1's or boss cars. But i would have to agree with and earlier post about 64.5-66, you can get one at resonable price, and the 289 has got to be one of the most potent engines ever built. Not to mention the fact that its cheap for hp, seeing as how most of the go fast guys are driving 5.0's. And 302 parts are interchangable with 289, with some exceptions such as early 289's(ie 64) Being a classic owner i would go for the classic, they just look sharp and women lov'm. But if your goals are to go fast and handle well, i would have to say the market is a little better for the fox bodied mustangs, (87-93 that is).

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

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
any way i can get under 9 seconds in the 1/8	Bigcarguy65	Modular Madness	8	11-03-2001 09:35 PM
Original Gone... 60 seconds on Speedvision	Stefan	Blue Oval Lounge	3	09-23-2001 09:16 AM
gone in 60 seconds	82 GT	Blue Oval Lounge	15	01-15-2001 02:13 PM

12-22-2000, 01:58 AM	#21
NO SLO PK Registered Member Join Date: Mar 1999 Location: Arcadia, CA, USA Posts: 731	Hey Johnny, I own both vintages of Mustangs - a 65 coupe and a 91 LX 5.0. Both are modified and I would like to give my 2 cents. BABE FACTOR: The classic definitely wins this category, IMO. Then again I'm married and this isn't important to me, so I have been told. DRIVEABILITY: Almost all late models with 5.0 engines came with A/C. Many Classics were not so equipped. If gas mileage is important, the late models are better by a big factor. Also, I would not feel totally comfortable about using a Classic as a daily driver. Too many idiots out there. ENGINE MODS: The engine in the Classic Stang is much cheaper to modify. For example, upgrading the induction means replacing the carb and intake ($400-$500). For a late model, you get to spend megabucks for bigger injectors, a bigger throttle body, TWO intakes, and a bigger mass air meter ($1100 to 1500+). CHASSIS/SUSPENSION: Both early and late models (i.e., fox chassis) could use a lot of help in this area. The classics have a stiffer unibody, but the late models are more performance oriented. BRAKES: Late models are better in this area, but not by a lot. If you get a 65-66, I'd really suggest upgrading to front discs if it doesn't already have them. WHEELS/TIRES: Well, bigger is better, and the late models win this one. DRIVETRAIN: The T5 is more user friendly because it has a fifth gear which is good for highway cruising/mileage. However, the T5 will break if you ask too much of it. On the other hand, a vintage toploader is indestructible. To sum things up, I'd say if you want a daily driver, you're probably better off with a late model. If you want a weekend driver, then the Classic is the best choice. Again, my 2 cents... ------------------ '91 LX Procharger, 3 row intercooler, extrude honed Cobra intake, Mac full Length Headers, 30# inj., 73mm C&L, 75mm tb, E303 cam, 289 rods, ported E7 heads, MSD, T-Rex w/255 lph Walbro, 5 lug conversion, Cobra R wheels, 3.27 gears and Moser Axles. [This message has been edited by NO SLO PK (edited 12-22-2000).]

12-23-2000, 10:39 AM	#22
JohnnyK Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Guelph, Ontario, Canada Posts: 40	Thanks a lot guys. You guys are really helpful! The problem is decisions... I hate them. I probably would be using it every day, but you really made a good point about the cost of upping induction.

12-28-2000, 07:12 PM	#23
MercDude Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: CA, US Posts: 113	You guys make me sick... how hard is a classic mustang to restore?? Let's see... they make EVERY part of a mustang and it's the most common old car on the road. Don't get me wrong, i'm jealous as hell for the repo parts and availability, but it just makes me angry to think that mustangs are HARD to redo to modern times. I drive my old beast every damn day to school and work, i have done this for 3 years... now this is hard, but it is deffinately doable. Now, the AC is only important if you live in like TX or CA ... brakes can be upgraded and wheels are just about selection and engine is all about how fast you want to go and trans is about which brand you prefer... you'll do just about the same to a new stang if you're a car enthusiast. I've put about 10K into my MERCURY METEOR - which BTW they only made 2500 of in 1963!! - and i have great brakes/wheels/engine/trans/exhaust/interior/body & paint... and you WILL get girls... in fact, i had one girl yell out to me "can i f$ck you in your car?!" now that's what i call attention! Just make sure you don't go crazy and you'll be fine with an old car, but remember, it is an old car and needs attention. Want to haulas$ and look good? do it restomod! BTW-you can put a new overdrive auto/stick in a classic no prob... just takes some dough! ------------------ '63 Merc Meteor hardtop, warm 302, C4 auto, 2.25" Flowmaster Exhaust, '65 289 heads - ported/chevy valves, performer cam, edelbrock f4a intake, full length hookers, 600 holley, roller rockers, k'n, 10.5:1 hyperutetic pistons... mid 13's hoping to reach into 12's

12-28-2000, 08:42 PM	#24
Rev Registered Member Join Date: Nov 1998 Location: Houston, Tx. Posts: 3,887	I get only 13-13 1/2 MPG using Chevron Supreme in my modded '66 306 with a C-4 and 3.25 T-lock. Some with an old stang probably do better. I love the classic Stangs, but sacrifices are necessary to use as a daily driver. My $.02. Rev ------------------ '66 Coupe, 306, 300 HP, C-4, 13.97 e.t., 100.3 mph 1/4 mi.

12-31-2000, 02:05 PM	#25
Michelle Page Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Kingsport, TN Posts: 102	Hey JonnyK! Haven't heard from you in a while! I like the '71-'73 Mustangs. In fact I have one sitting in the yard. Thease cars aren't exactly small and nimble. Lots of people think they are ugly, but I think they look mean! If I ever build my '71 I will put a 460 in it. If you want a small Mustang with power and handling I'd go with the 65-68's. Build up a 351w with a good C4 and it should be pretty quick. There are plenty of companies who make restoration parts, handling parts, and lots of other things for the classic mustangs. lemme know if you have any more q's! Mymustang66@juno.com

01-01-2001, 05:10 PM	#26
Mercury The Redneck James Bond Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Fayetteville NC Posts: 1,707	MercDude Restoring a classic Mustang can be harder than you realize, ESPECIALLY if your trying to do it 100% correct. As for Reproduction parts, they can make things harder, not easier. Especially when the fenders dont line up right, or a hood is an inch and a half longer than the NOS parts or original parts. Finding parts for an old side loader 4 spd, or a 4 spd top loader can be a royal pain. Glass is another area that can be dificult in the classic stangs. Sure they make repro glass, but its usually only 3/4 the width of the orignial stuff. You know what that means right? Can we say leaks and wind noise. Try finding a dash, an uncut dash for a 65 coupe. Here on the east coast its not that easy. The key is knowing what after market reproduction companies to trust and expect quality parts from. The classic stangs are some of the easiest classics to restore, next to Camaros, Model T's, and Chevelles, but even they can be a challenge. I should know, I've been through it several times before. I have helped with restoration on a 60-Tbird, several first Gen Stangs, 67 Fairlane, 69 Torino, and a 67 GTO. Not bragging, just informing. ------------------ 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.

01-01-2001, 05:22 PM	#27
COBRA66 Registered Member Join Date: Feb 1999 Location: Central Valley, Ca Posts: 58	Well i have no idea y you would want a 71-73, cause they are the ugliest of mustangs, besides mustang II. The last year of the good looking classics has got to be 70'. You just cant beet the looks and performance of the 69-70 Mach 1's or boss cars. But i would have to agree with and earlier post about 64.5-66, you can get one at resonable price, and the 289 has got to be one of the most potent engines ever built. Not to mention the fact that its cheap for hp, seeing as how most of the go fast guys are driving 5.0's. And 302 parts are interchangable with 289, with some exceptions such as early 289's(ie 64) Being a classic owner i would go for the classic, they just look sharp and women lov'm. But if your goals are to go fast and handle well, i would have to say the market is a little better for the fox bodied mustangs, (87-93 that is).