(first posted 3/28/2018) Let’s face it; the original Mustang was never really well-suited for big block engines. The 390 in the 1967-1968 generation was widely panned for its atrocious handling. And then adding another 3.8″ inches of front overhang to the restyled 1969 version was only going to make things worse. The 428 didn’t really weigh anymore than the 390, but combined with the heavy C6 automatic, power steering and an oil cooler, the Mach 1 weighed in with 59.3% of its weight over the front wheels. Is that a record for front-engine RWD cars?
Needless to say, handling suffered, as well as traction.
I got to drive a ’70 version of this car at Towson Ford, and it was a beast, despite having only a 351 under the hood. But then it was my very first drive in a genuine performance car. Oddly, the body shop was many miles away on Falls Road, a twisty old narrow road. Not exactly the place to try to explore the limits of a Mach1 when you’re sixteen years old. And it was a four speed, so that added another element in trying to keep the bucking bronco in its lane.
Not surprisingly, the ’69 Camaro Z-28, with its light little high-winding 302 had it all over this nose-heavy Mustang. No wonder the Z-28 became such an icon. And of course a 340 Barracuda was just as good and fast, but too often overlooked.
I wonder if anyone still has a functioning Ronson Robot-Liter?
I have driven a 1971 Mach 1 and I came away from the experience feeling that I got away with something. It was quite a handful for the narrow winding back road I drove it on. The final bit was on gravel and was even worse.
Wow, a car worse balanced than a Ford Zodiac Mk.IV (58.5% of weight on front wheels). Mind they didn’t do a V8 version of that, which is probably just as well.
Plenty of MK4s were fitted with V8s here the V6 was such a crap motor the obvious choice was two more cylinders, great in a straight line but the handling was even worse, Wrecking yards were offering same day engine swaps back in the day.
At least the Zodiac Mk IV had IRS. These were basically fancy Falcons, with a suspension designed more for low production costs than anything else.
I make no guarantees about function, but there are two of those Ronson lighters on Ebay right now. No, I don’t need one for the Chrysler.
As to the car, clearly a case of bragging rights over function. On the other hand, how much handling do you need to get up and down Woodward Ave? 😉
The advert for the radar detector caught my eye too. Didn’t realize they were available back then; I thought the mid-’70s Fuzzbuster was the first one. How good were the electronics in 1969?
Thanks for the article Paul. Pass on the Mustang, but the Ronson lighter intrigues….
Too much car for soy boys (i don’t think we had a name for them back then. Cobra Jet was a Hemi hunter on the street. Tractable power and it cleaned up NHRA Super Stock. if you want a competitor to the Z28 get the Boss 302. apples and oranges. sheesh
Never heard that term before. Had to look it up. Getting old, apparently.
It’s a pretty asinine term tbh.
“if you want a competitor to the Z28 get the Boss 302. apples and oranges”
Exactly! The 428 and 429 cars were for the straight line stuff.
Even a Gremlin has “only” 58% of its weight on the front wheels! (Of course that’s with a six. I couldn’t find the figure for a V8 Gremlin but it must be pretty awful, especially with options like AC that add even more weight up front.)
I want one of those Ronson Robot-Liters and I don’t even smoke!
I get this image of an Inspector-Clousseau-like malfunction (‘Would you care for a cigarette my darling?’) that sets all 20 cigarettes on fire simultaneously, and clouds of cigarette smoke billowing out the front windows at a stop light. 🙂
Referencing the statement about the Gremlin – how MUCH weight would a V8 Gremlin have on it’s front wheels? Couldn’t a version be ordered w/o the back seats? I wonder if one could have done a “stoppy”
That Robson lighter is a trip. Adjusted for inflation they would cost over $200 in today’s money. No wonder I never saw one. Everyone I knew carried a Zippo, and a book of matches.
“Everyone I knew carried a Zippo, and a book of matches.”
But with a Zippo there was no need for matches. 🙂
Except when the Zippo ran out of gas!!
At least streamstyled mirrors became mainstream.
The rest of the styling tricks may have been gingerbread but at least they did not seem to be deliberately intended to attract attention by offending, like some of the more egregious examples of today’s “styling.”
Here’s a YT video of a robot lighter for sale, would look great in the truck Paul:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9qqr7P2ie0
I figured that a Rambler American HAD to be worse on the weight distribution but found a road test of a 390 SC that was only (!!) 56.1 percent on the front.
Probably the worst would be the old forward-control pickups like the Jeep FC-150 and Ford Econoline. Those look like they’d flip over forward in a panic stop! (At least VW had the engine in the rear to balance things out.)
When I was a little kid we had a steep hill with a light at the bottom on one of the major roads here. Whenever I saw a early Econoline heading there I just “knew” it would flop up on it’s nose. I asked my Dad why they didn’t.
I’ve read that Ford actually put dead weight in the back of those Econoline pickups to give them a little traction and prevent them from tipping up when stopping. As far as I know the forward-control Jeeps didn’t have that extra ‘road hugging weight’ added in the rear. I’ve seen pictures of them lifting the rear wheels during hard downhill stops.
Ford’s CobraJet engines are often listed as their best V8 efforts (at least during the musclecar era), and this article would seem to go a long way to bearing this out. Unfortunately, the 428 CobraJet was a much better-balanced fit in the larger intermediate Fairlane Cobra than the 1969 Mustang.
In fact, I recall a C&D article comparing the 1970 Cobra, 440-6v Road Runner, and SS454 Chevelle. Perhaps we can get a feature on that one, as well (although the C&D musclecar article I’d really like to see is the 10-Best Street Machines by Patrick Bedard which was printed around 1990).
I don’t have any firsthand experience with these but have developed the impression that this was the first really streetable performance version of the FE – which only took a bit over a decade for Ford to finally come to. Most other FEs (352, 390, 406, regular 428) were nice and torquy but not really competitive with Chevy/Mopar stuff inch for inch. The 427 was strong but really rare and reputed to be not that great for street use. This one seems to have been the winner – just in time for the 385 series to take over with the 429, that was pretty good right out of the box.
there were good 390s (1961 with 3 dueces) and especially 406s. They were very competitive in match racing. if you judge drag racing by just the Winternationals and Nationals then Ford didn’t look that great. You have to look at the overall picture.
i wish i could quote exactly a Ford engineer who said they could never get the street hp out of the 385 series like they did the 428 Cobra Jet.
FWIW: I recall both of my parents commenting that the FE390 4-BBL “Thunderbird Special” engine in their ’66 Ford Country Sedan station wagon “feeling” notably slower than the 383 4-BBL “Golden Commando” V8 engine in the ’65 Plymouth Fury station wagon that the Ford replaced.
(Gotta love the marketing names Detroit used on their products in the 1950’s and 1960’s.)
I have that article, buy it’s MT not C/D. It was a LS6 Chevelle, a Torino Cobra 429CJ and a Road Runner 440 “6-Bbl.” The Chevelle and Torino were both automatics, with the Roadrunner was a 4-speed. The Chevelle had 3.31 gears, Torino 3.50 and Road Runner 4.10.
The Chevelle ran 13.8 @ 97.5 mph, the Torino 14.5 @100.2 mph and the Road Runner 14.4 @ 99 mph. Apparently the Road Runner wasn’t running as strong as they hoped so, Norm Thatcher did a expert tune. They ran a 14.06 @ 101.69 afterwards. The Chevelle had the fastest ET but slowest trap. I’d suggest the low gearing killed the trap speed on the Chevelle. Most LS6 Chevelle’s trap over 100 mph. (Hot Rod got 13.44 @108 mph out of a LS6 with 4.11 gears).
My 2016 Civic Coupe has worse weight distribution: 62% Front / 38% Rear, but then it’s front wheel drive so I really don’t notice it.
My 2007 Mustang V6 is better… 55% Front / 45% Rear, so that’s a good bit closer to 50/50 than our subject car.
Too bad, really. I always like the ’69 Mach I… I guess style isn’t everything. The article mentions the 428 being the biggest engine in a ’69 ‘stang. I seem to recall a Boss 429 version. I suppose that was just as a much a handful driving on the curvy Northern Baltimore County roads that Paul describes here (which are loads of fun, BTW – my Civic is a quite toss-able on these roads, and the Mustang is a blast to drive on them too, provided they aren’t too bumpy for that damned live axle… ;o)
The Boss 429 came along in 1969, after this article was published.
The 1969 Boss 429 Mustang was, indeed, available in late 1968.
With that said, the article also makes it clear that this was a pre-production 1969 Mustang so it is quite conceivable that, at the time of the article’s writing, the 1969 Boss 429 Mustang had not yet made its appearance.
Further, the quote also says, “largest factory available“. Technically, the Boss 429 was not installed at a Ford factory but, rather, was done at the outside Kar Kraft facility due to the extensive engine compartment modifications necessary to wedge the big, hemi-head engine into a Mustang.
So, all things considered, the statement is probably technically correct.
Boss 429s were not really part of the lineup in a consumer sense.
The 429 was not a separate option choice that could be gotten in any model. The 428 could be had in any model, any body style.
The 429 existed only to homologate the engine and thus were all built only one way, with a fixed set of (minimal) options and equipment. Also,buyers who wanted one had to take it in whatever color it happened to be.
I was a little young, but the folklore has it that they were dogs on the street, the 428 could handily kick them, as well as most other muscle cars at the time.
I have always heard the same about the Boss 429’s, but I’d suspect it might be some folklore. With the head design it has, the power wouldn’t have come on as strong as a 428 CJ in the lower RPM range, which probably made it feel weaker than it was. This was an engine, like the Hemi, designed for the high speed circuit. And like the 440 vs the Hemi, many claimed the 440 was a better street engine.
FWIW, Car Life did test a ’69 Boss 429 Mustang. It was a bit slower than the 428 CJ, running the quarter in 14.09 @ 102.85 mph. It also suffered from the same weight distribution problem of 58.5/41.5. Comparing the performance numbers of the CL tests, the 428 CJ was significantly quicker at the lower speed acceleration, but by the time they reached 100 MPH, they were almost evened out. The Boss 429 also was quicker for the 30–70 mph acceleration run.
Those race engines were designed to make the most power at higher rpms. Therefore, they were relative dogs off the line, with the most notorious being the 426 Hemi and Boss 429. Even worse was the smaller Boss 302 and (to a lesser extent) the Z/28 302. Not that long ago, the Honda S2000 sports car had the same issue with a high redline, but didn’t have the torque down low to pull the skin off a bowl of pudding.
The old story goes that a good running L78 SS396 (the 375hp one) could beat a stock, Hemi-powered Mopar on the street if they could get the guy in the Hemi to race from a standing start. It played out that the Chevy would get an insurmountable lead off the line and the Hemi would run out of road before it could catch up and overtake it. I would imagine the same would be true of the underrated 428 CobraJet versus one of the detuned race engines (in pure stock form, anyway).
There was an even MORE powerful 428 available called the Super Cobra Jet with a whopping 360 horsepower vs. the 335 on this Mustang. The tariff was an extra $133 over the 335. I wonder how much worse traction would have become with the extra 25 horses. Interestingly, the 351, which is mentioned in the article, was rated at 290. I would think that would be a more acceptable compromise for the street. Ford agreed with me apparently, witness the later Boss 302 with a much lighter block than the 428.
the Super Cobra Jet did not have any more “rated” hp. if you ordered the 3:90 or 4:30 rear end ratio you automatically got the Super Cobra Jet package which included an oil cooler, LeMans 427 connecting rods (yes from the GT40), and an external vibration damper, maybe a forged crank too . The “rated” 335 hp was a joke and NHRA quickly factored them into a higher class as the actual rating was over 400 hp regardless of whether it was CJ or Super CJ. Ford was sand bagging on this one.
you bought these for street racing or official drag racing. if you wanted a sports car you bought a Boss 302 or a 351 Mach 1. Pretty simple. Car & Driver was such a wise ass publication then. Believe it or not the next year Brock Yates did a whole series on taking a ’70 Boss 302 and SCCA racing it and driving it on the street, so they got it too but it went over the brainwashed heads of a lot of the readers.
I never understood why people cared about the horspower number? At the end of the day ratings from this era are questionable at best. What mattered was performance. Who cars what the actual hp number was beyond bragging rights? I mean, if a the “335 hp” 428 CJ could run high 13’s with other cars rated at around 400 hp, then obviously it had comparable power. There is no doubt the 428CJ was one of the strongest street engines of the era, and it ran comparably to the stronger GM and Mopars from that era.
I entered the Navy in 1970 and after I finished boot camp I was ready to buy my first real car (not the hand-me-downs that I had gotten from my older sister). I had my father looking for lightly used Mustangs, 6 cylinder or V8, I wasn’t picky. On my Thanksgiving break from technical school, my father told me he had found me a car he thought I would like. When we got to the very small, rural Pennsylvania Ford/Mercury dealership he pointed to a red Mustang fastback. I could tell from 100 feet away that it was not a run-of-the-mill Mustang, it was a Mach 1, and when I got closer I saw the badges on the hood scoop: 428 Cobra Jet.
Like an idiot I didn’t even take the car out for a test drive. I figured on my enlisted man’s salary I could afford the car…OR the insurance, but not both.
BTW, for a car that was carrying so much weight on it’s front wheels, that red Mach 1 had a slight rearward tilt to it like if was poised to jump at the smallest application of gas.
I think that rearward tilt is something of an optical illusion brought on by the way the thin side stripe is applied.
It’s worth nothing that the 1970 Mach 1 did away with both the side stripe and scoop, opting, instead, for some wide, lower body cladding.
My favorite fastback Mustang year, i don’t care if it were 80/20 distribution, it still rules. The thing is though, the Mach 1 had a lot of flavors, 351 was standard, and many of the options like the shaker were available across the board. A 351 4V model would be the best on the street. I have a hunch the weight distribution on a 383/440 Barracuda, or 396 Camaro couldn’t have been great either, but both had better suspensions than the Mustang did, a tinny 3.8″ of extra overhang isn’t the problem
Ford was really slow on getting a comparable small-block into the Mustang and, frankly, it’s very understandable: why would they? The Mustang was the only game in town up to 1967, and was still, far and away, the market leader for years after.
Then, when the Mustang ‘did’ get the 351, it was the lackluster Windsor version in the larger 1969 car. It wasn’t until the much improved Cleveland showed up in 1970 that the Mustang was finally on equal footing with the 340 Mopar and 350 SBC. But, by then, it was too late. An aircraft-carrier-sized 1971 Mustang, insurance premium hikes, the gas crisis, emissions standards and, worst of all, the Pinto-based 1974 Mustang II were all just around the corner, stifling the snappy 351C (in any version) virtually before it had a chance.
A real shame as the 351C in the 1967 Mustang would have made a great car. But, the simple fact is it wasn’t necessary at the time. GM and Chrysler might have had much better small-blocks (and big-blocks, too, for that matter), but Ford was winning the sales race, and that’s what mattered.
It seems Ford’s actual performance lagged behind their very effective “total performance” image campaign. By the time their street performance matched that image Ford was done with racing.
The Cleveland was the best pushrod V8 Ford ever made, but as the aftermarket has proven, the Windsor 351 had potential to be as much of a contender. Ford’s engine development seemed unnecessarily wasteful, unlike Chevy with basically two tried and two engine families, with good parts commonality in each Ford would come out with all new families frequently, and high performance engines were completely specialized, with unique oiling systems, different mains, etc. 427s had virtually no parts commonality to other FEs, and through much of the 60s the 427 was as exotic in the Ford lineup as a Hellcat is today. The 428CJ that put Ford on the radar was a parts bin engine, economical combination of 427 parts on the previously underperforming standard 428. The 351W was yet another example, they built it to be a truck motor, and then made an exotic version of the same displacement and bore spacing in the Cleveland. Why not just use the Cleveland head design on the new 351W block(ala boss 302)? No excuse.
I think rudiger nailed it, Ford was winning the sales race. While it was possible to make Ford competitive I suspect they didn’t see any reason to until the game was just about over. Today you can build a Windsor that will make as much power or more than the competition but back in the day they were just station wagon engines as far as us gearheads were concerned.
A friend of mine was a “Ford guy” back in the day and he often suggested exactly what you did, which was a Hi-po “Clevelandized” 351W. His idea was that Ford should have built a 351 version of the Boss 302 and put it in a Maverick. I used to counter with “what could have been” by citing the potential of an LT-1 Nova. And the Mopar guy with the ’71 340 Duster just smiled….
Ford always seemed to be a day late and a dollar short in the performance game back then, but they did sell a lot of cars.
This is “sort of” what happened in the development of the 351C. To summarize the story, the 351C was to be built in Cleveland because the Windsor plant didn’t have enough capacity. While they were preparing for the new plant, they decided to make a few upgrades to the 351 since the 351W was kind of a stop gap engine. It started out with the improved heads, and then they decided the could reduce leaks and simplify the construction with a integrated timing chain housing and while they were add it they decided to save a few bucks by altering the oil system. The end result was an engine significantly different, but it wasn’t supposed to be that way initially.
FWIW, Clevors were once a popular mod, installing 351C heads on a 351W block. Aftermarket head technology has surpassed factory Cleveland heads, so it doesn’t seem to be overly popular any more. No doubt, the Cleveland was Ford’s ultimate pushrod engine design. Today it has a small and dedicated following, and the aftermarket does offer significantly improved head options. However, the cost of a 351C build over a 351W makes it not worthwhile to many. It certainly has performed well at the Engine Master’s competitions with the tall deck 400’s built by John Kaase winning a couple of years in a row.
These really were the ultimate performance Mustangs – at least to look at them. I have a hard time seeing how Ford could have gotten the styling any better on these for 1969. The coupe – that is another matter.
Totally agree, from 65-68 the Coupe looked as good as the Fastback to me. 69 was the ultimate sleekest fastback, but the coupe completely lost it’s light airy look.
No, big block ‘stangs were never known for their handling prowess.
The Z/28, though, should really be compared to the Boss 302 Mustang which was created to compete directly against it in the SCCA Trans Am series. They were comparable in weight, and Ford Windsor small blocks (recall that the Boss 302 was a hybrid of a Windsor 4-bolt main block with Cleveland heads) are actually lighter than Chevy small blocks owing to their “thin wall” casting technology. Both were high-winding mills that made all their power in the upper RPM ranges, not torque monsters like a 428 or 396.
A 396 (350 or 375 HP version) Camaro is more comparable to the 428 CJ, and would have been lighter owning to it’s lighter block design (Ford FE motors with their long-skirt block design) and, in slush-box form, lighter TH trans vs. the C6. I seem to remember that Mustang 428 CJ drag racers back in the day who raced automatics would swap in a built C4 to take advantage of its less weight.
Great reprint- thank you again. It’s important to remember those CJ428’s were set up as drag racers, not track cars. A friend down in the valley owns two- a base ’69 Coupe with the CJ428 motor and a 4 spd, and a ’70 Mach 1 with the same powertrain. Not surprisingly, the ’69 is the rarest combination. Both are stock, unrestored, but in mint condition.
On the street, all the big block ponycars had the same traction and handling problems to some degree. Worst were the E body Mopars, but Camaros and Mustangs were not much better. Great for burning rubber, but no good off the line unless the car was set up strictly for drag racing and then already poor handling got even worse. These cars were great conversation pieces in the Safeway parking lot, and if you went up against one from a roll they were a threat but the intermediates were generally better at putting all that power to the ground. The intermediates often (not always) made a bit more actual power due to better exhaust manifolding and plumbing . It could be tough to keep big inch ponycars cooled on a hot night as well. Great idea on paper but….
The ’69 Mach I did set a few trends that would carry on into the ’70s such as streamlined mirrors, shaker hoods and one of the early adopters of fake bodyside cooling vents. The 428CJ was a great street engine but as someone noted above it was much better suited to the Fairlane Cobra. I do wonder just how healthy C/D’s test example was, 100 mph trap speed seems a little low.
I’m not really a Mustang fan but if I did have one it’d be a ’70, though I suspect I’m in the minority on that.
Put a little snow on the ground and you will find out about your car’s balance. Under this criteria Mustangs with 289s were light in the butt too. These must have been undrivable on anything other than dry pavement.
Interesting you should mention that. In the interior of BC these were 6 month of the year cars, everyone I knew who had a hot car parked it in winter and used a winter car. Reason one was keeping it out of nasty salt, sand and slush. Reason two is many of these cars really were dangerous on snow and ice. I had a roached ’69 Z-28 that circumstances forced me to drive one winter. It was already a rust bucket and I bought it for the engine and drive train so I wasn’t too concerned about reason one. Even with 4 used studded snows and a trunk full of sandbags it was treacherous.
I quickly found the money for a ’65 Pontiac Laurentian with a 230 six and 3 speed, which I took places I’d think twice about going in my Canyon 4×4 today!
Yup!
My high school best friend, who loved to compare & contrast his 289 ’65 Mustang to my ’67 Corvair Monza, made the fatal error of trying to keep up with me driving home from school, during one of the intense rain storms that so often soak New Orleans.
His macho looking Goodyear Polyglass, Raised White Letter tires, coupled with the car’s nose heavy imbalance, just couldn’t keep the back end of his ‘stang connected to the ground.
After …trying…to follow my Michelin X radial tires equipped Vair around a sharp suburban curve, he and the Mustang did a 180 degree, uncontrolled spin, took out the side of a curb parked Olds Cutlass (along with 3 trash cans) and skidded to a stop in a vacant lot.
I don’t think the dark spot on the front of his levis, evident as he staggered out of the Mustang and leaned against what was left of his pride and joy, was from the rain.
I must admit to laughing like an escaped lunatic asylum patient, all the way home, after dropping his still shaking self off in his parent’s driveway.
🙂
Anyone here ever had the “pleasure” of replacing the spark plugs in a FE 390/428 Mustang?
5K on a set of spark plugs was about right for this time period, given highly leaded gasoline, inefficient, rich running carburetors and primitive points & condenser ignition systems.
Two or three plug changes per year would had been “cruel and unusual punishment” for me.
Yep. Passenger side not bad, middle 2 on the driver’s side not nice. It could be done with a flex and extension, and a length of rubber hose was useful for reinstalling.
Both you and the engine need to be fully cooled off before starting the job. It’s also a good idea to keep small children away, lest they learn new words….
I learned most of my “forbidden” words & phrases (that got a worn down bar of lava hand soap shoved between my lips) by sitting in the driveway, out of my Father’s direct eyesight, and observing and listening to him work on his various cars.
🙂
While there is no doubt the weight distribution and handing of a ’69 428 CJ Mustang was poor, there are a couple of things that should be clarified. The 390 Mustang’s came with either a FMX or a C6 transmission. Regardless, a FMX was pretty much the same weight as a C6 transmission (the FMX is cast-iron), so this wasn’t the reason for the weight gain. I couldn’t find a test with the weight distribution for a 390 Mustang, but I bet it wasn’t much different. I’d suspect part of the handling also had to do with poorly selected springs. Super stiff front springs can cause add to the understeer.
The 396 Camaro’s also suffered from terrible weight distribution and handling as well. Car Life’s test of a ’69 SS396 showed a weight distribution of 59.3/40.7 and complained the Camaro had poor handling suffering from severe understeer. The Camaro’s big engine “unblanced” the car, while it was considerably slower than the Mustang running 14.77 secs @ 98.72 MPH in the quarter. FWIW, Car Life also tested a ’69 Mach 1 with a 428 CJ a C6 and 3.50 gears. It ran the quarter in 13.90 secs @ 103.32 MPH. They measured 58.3/41.7 weight distribution.
These large displacement pony cars were purely straight line runners. The Boss 302 Mustang had good handling and performance, and was very comparable to a Z/28. Otherwise, a 289/351W or a 327/350 were far better engine choices for the Mustang and Camaro for having some semblance of driving manners.
If you want a Ronson Robot-Liter, there are two for sale on ebay right now! Get one while they’re hot! (Can you imagine the fire hazard??)
I don’t know the figures but the Morris/Leyland Marina 6 would be a contender, swapping a 6 in place of a 4 with so little room behind the radiator they had to use an electric fan.
Equipped with a 302 or a 351 these Mustangs could be pretty well balanced cars. Those F series big blocks were just too heavy, and the 390 was a poor performance engine. I wonder how many were actually sold. Stylewise I think that the ’69 is just a bit better looking than the ’70, though I prefer the cleaner looks of the ’70. I’d happily have either one.
Agree!
A ’69 Mustang fastback, equipped with a 351 4-BBL engine, automatic tranny (with a Trans-Go shift kit), power steering, power disc brakes and factory air conditioning would be “my” preferred Mustang.
We can dicker on exterior/interior colors.
Trans-Go shift kits are all I use when rebuild an automatic. B&M kits stink.
Seems most people love the styling of the ’69 Mustang especially. what i don’t get is most people thing the ’62 Dodge is the ugliest car of all time. compare the front end on this to the Stang. Hive mind thinking. Both front ends look aggressive and muscular to me.
Well as someone who isn’t repulsed by the 62 Dodge design(or really much of any of Exner’s Chrysler work), I feel obliged to point out some very key differences.
-The outboard headlights are in a different plane from the higher up inboard headlights on the Dodge
-The outboard headlights on the mustang are deeply inset and fared in from the inboards, with the net effect of having the whole grille protrude forward. On the Dodge the grille is flush with the outboard headlight bezels at the bottom, before gently protruding forward towards the top
-The Mustang has a flat thin bumper with a prominent lower valance and distinctive opening with integral parking lights, while the Dodge has thick V shaped bumpers, mostly covering the lower valance, with the parking lamps located above, sandwiched under the grille
-The Mustang doesn’t have eyebrows
The only similarity between the two are the high beams in the grille and the low beams in the body colored fender area, but the execution is completely different. I think this is less hive mind thinking than tearing down the Mstang to build up the Dodge
Oh I get it.
They don’t even have the slightest resemblance with the Dodge being 7 years a priori. I guess must have forgotten my glasses.
wow
the point is they’re both great looking taking nothing from the Mustang. Exner’s design was just too far ahead of it’s time. the front end resembles a jet fighter like an F-100 and so does the Mustang. with full size lights in the grille. I don’t care if they were even on a different astral plane…
I don’t comment on these cars because there are too many die-hards like my brother who will crack if anyone says anything negative about them. I learned at an early age to say nothing because eventually their owners will find out on their own, lie about it, and then try to sell these cars for thousands more than they are worth.
As for me, a guy who loves efficient, practicality, handling, quality and economy, they are a 180 degree from my kind of vehicle. They have 250 or more horsepower than they will ever need or find a place in the real world to drive them in the manner in which they are sold.
My ideal Mustang is a red Fox body 5.0 with a nice roomy hatchback. (The convertible version twists and squeaks like like I do when I play Twister after eating a plate of tacos.)
So, regarding this car, my opinion is
One of the most difficult jobs I ever performed while working at my Father’s Exxon gas station back in 1972 was changing the spark plugs on a Mustang with the 390 cubic inch engine so we could tune it up. There was virtually no room under the hood to get your hands and a spark plug wrench on some of the rear-most spark plugs. The 428 Mustang must have been just as bad, since the blocks were the same external physical size. The front weight bias must also have been just as bad in the 390 engined Mustangs as it was in the 428 engined Mustangs.
I drove my 68 Cougar, 428 Cobra Jet, C6 trans, 3.50 open diff during 2 or 3 Minnesota winters. Snow tires, using momentum and very light throttle inputs. Never got stuck. Main thing was always have foot firmly planted on the brake pedal when dropping it in gear and gently release the brakes. If you dropped in drive or reverse it would spin the tire on slick surfaces. Tune up at least twice a year. Plugs were a bitch, especially on the drivers side, power brake booster and master cylinder get in the way. Best done when engine is dead cold. The best part is the car is a total sleeper. Dark red/maroon with a factory hood scoop. No badging, no special trim, looked like ordinary stripper Cougar (pun not intended). Surprised many street racers. Straight line racing was it, nobody was worried about handling. The biggest handicap was the crappy tires. The ones to watch for were the night racers on University avenue, In the dark you might miss the guy who had a set of drag slicks on his car.. Illegal but fast as hell off the light.
My college roommate’s brother won one of 100 in a nationwide competition (two per state) that Ford and I believe Standard Oil held (Assemble all the puzzle pieces to complete the Mach I, and you win!), and he paid a bit extra to have the 428 engine instead of accepting it with the 351. One day I got to drive it about 300 miles covering rural road, Interstate highways, as well as Chicagoland traffic. It had an automatic transmission. I was twenty years old, and I loved every mile of my journey.
I never understood why Ford didn’t just add a bit more stroke to the 302 and run a 331 (327) or even go to 3.40 stroke and run a 342.. those blocks have been proven to run up to 500 horsepower without problem which is way more than they would have been able to put in back then. Stubbornness is why I suppose. Another impossible to understand call Ford made was to cancel the engineering change of dropping the upper control arm 1”. This little zero cost change dramatically improved cornering and flex on these suspensions. Just shake my head….
Love the styling of the ’69 and ’70 ‘Stangs and got to drive a beautiful dark green ’69 with a 390 FE which was meticulously maintained and really good mechanically – a real dream car.
What a disappointment, though! Felt nice and solid, but just did not go. Okay, I was used to my C2 ‘Vettes, but it was a complete stone. The owner said it was running strong and had thought it would be somewhat near my ’66 427, but could not believe just how much faster that car was.
Even with the power defecit, the Mustang suffered from a distinct lack of traction off the line, despite good modern tires. The ‘Vette, with it’s 51/49% weight distribution and independent rear end just squatted down and walked away from it.
“The Mach 1 weighed in with 59.3% of its weight over the front wheels. Is that a record for front-engine RWD cars?
Needless to say, handling suffered, as well as traction.”
If it was a record it was matched by the ’69 Camaro with a 396. Car Life magazine tested one in the May issue and the weight distribution was 59.3% front and 40.7% rear.
Same results
I think that this is why I like my V6 Mustang better than I would’ve liked a GT. Not really sure of the stats on the 2007, but having driven both, I felt my V6 handled better than the GT of similar vintage that I test drove.
My Dad’s was probably the best of both worlds. His 2014 3.7L V6 with the Pony Package was like a GT without the excess weight of a V8 up front. That thing handled great!