Vintage Car Life Review: 1969 Ford Mustang 428 Mach 1 – Faster Than A Hemi

 

It only took Ford until 1967 to stuff a big block engine in the Mustang, but the 390 Mustang didn’t offer the performance to make up for its clumsier handling. In early 1968, Ford upped the ante with the hotter new 428 Cobra Jet, which for 1969 became optional in a new Mustang fastback model called Mach 1. Car Life road tested a 428 CJ Mach 1 in March 1969 and proclaimed it “the first great Mustang,” displacing a Hemi-powered Plymouth as the quickest four-place production car they’d ever tested.

I have to assume Ford Division marketing was over the moon about this Car Life road test — not only for its highly favorable headline, but also for making the new Mustang Mach 1 seem like the hottest thing on the road.

 

The Mach 1 was one of several new 1969 Mustang models, each essentially packaging certain options with a catchy name. A Mach 1 was a SportsRoof (fastback) Mustang with an array of sporty styling cues, including a normally nonfunctional hood scoop; racing mirrors; hood lock pins; grille-mounted sport lamps; chromed steel wheels; a pop-open gas gap; matte black paint on the hood; and assorted stripes, bright moldings, appliques, and call-outs. Inside, you got 55 lb of extra sound deadening, high-backed bucket seats, a center console, woodgrain trim, a “Rim-Blow” steering wheel, and a clock.

 

It wasn’t all tinsel, however — the Mach 1 did come with the otherwise optional 351-2V engine (with 250 gross hp rather than the 220 hp of the 302), as well as heavy-duty “competition” suspension and belted E70-14 Wide Oval tires. (The test car’s F70-14 tires were an extra-cost option.)

The photo captions above read, “MASSIVE AIR cleaner is a fitting crown for the massive 428-cid V-8. The tube coming out of the cleaner at left feeds warm air until the throttle is opened. SCOOP comes through the hood, and shakes wildly when the engine idles. PINS keep the hood closed, and nylon-covered cables keep the pins in place. INTERIOR had comfortable seats, logical controls, and adequate vision. LUGGAGE won’t fit in trunk. Half the space belongs to the spare.”

 

A cynic might call the 1969 Mach 1 a fastback Mustang Grandé tailored for NASCAR fans, but Car Life boldly proclaimed:

ARE YOU READY for the first great Mustang? One with performance to match its looks, handling to send imported-car fans home mumbling to themselves, and an interior as elegant, and liveable, as a gentlemen’s club?

It’s here. The Mustang Mach 1, equipped for the enthusiast, is:

• The quickest standard passenger car through the quarter-mile we’ve ever tested (sports cars and hot rods excluded).
• A superb road car, stable at speed, tenacious on corners, with surplus power and brakes for any road situation.
• Pleasant just being driven around. The potential is barely tapped on a trip to the store, but the driver doesn’t suffer reminders of the price he paid for qualities he isn’t using.

The key words in the above passage are “equipped for the enthusiast.” Although the Mach 1 did come with the competition suspension, most of the rest of the necessary performance equipment was optional at extra cost. As Car Life conceded (albeit in much smaller type, on page 3 of a six-page road test), with the standard Mach 1, “this warlike appearance is just brag, not fact.”

 

Although the first engine option for the Mach 1 was the 351-4V, priced at just $25.91, both the Car Life test car and the Candy Apple Red car shown in the color photos had the 428 Cobra Jet Ram-Air engine, which listed for an extra $357.46 on top of the $3,122 base price of a 351-2V Mach 1. The $357 price tag might sound excessive for an engine advertised with modest gross ratings of 335 hp and 440 lb-ft of torque, only slightly more than the uninspiring 390-4V engine. However, the 428 Cobra Jet was actually one of the most powerful street versions of the Ford FE series, with freer breathing heads, a new cast iron intake manifold, and low-restriction exhaust manifolds. According to Ford engineer Bill Barr, the principal engineer on the Cobra Jet project, the actual gross output of the 428 CJ engine was 411 hp; its net (“B curve”) output was 335 to 340 hp and 418 lb-ft of torque — about 40 hp more than the earlier 428 Police Interceptor engine. The colder, denser intake air provided by the optional Ram-Air system provided even more real-world power.

 

Car Life found that the Ram-Air 428 CJ engine gave the Mustang truly impressive performance:

The Mach 1 delivered its first notice of superiority at the dragstrip. The testers made the first run with a start from idle. The transmission was in drive all the way. An elapsed time of 14.04, at 102 mph. Cries of surprise and delight. Previous holder of the CAR LIFE passenger car record was a Plymouth Hemi, with a 14-sec. e.t. that came only after some practice.

Next, the Mach 1 was held at the line with brakes and full power. It only proved we were right when we tested the 1968 Shelby GT-500KR; too much power lit the tires and raised the e.t. to 14.47.

Now the testers know how to make the Mach 1 work. An easy start, shifting by hand at 5400 rpm, and the Mach 1 holds the record—13.9 at 103. Then a 13.87. Another driver, and a 13.86, best of the day. A third staffer tries his hand, and turns 13.96 at 103.

Thumbing through the CAR LIFE files turned up one car, a 427 Corvette, with a lower elapsed time. That’s a sports car, not directly comparable with passenger cars. As tested, with two men, test gear and a full tank, all belts tight, air cleaner attached, tire pressure normal, the Mach 1 is the quickest four-place production car ever tested by CAR LIFE.

They noted:

Cool air was a factor. First, the test car had the optional “Shaker” air cleaner jutting through a hole in the hood. At wide-open throttle, a valve opens, and lets in cool outside air. Second, the outside air was cool. The acceleration runs were made late in the day, after sunset. The outside air temperature was 15 or 20° lower than it was at mid-day, when we usually run tests.

If you look at the color photo below, you’ll notice that the air cleaner of the red car’s Ram-Air (R-Code) 428 Cobra Jet engine has an underhood air inlet (in blue) in addition to the “shaker” scoop. At idle or part-throttle, manifold vacuum held a flap under the scoop in the closed position, causing the engine to draw its intake air from under the hood. Flooring the throttle reduced the vacuum enough for the flap, causing the engine to draw cool outside air through the scoop.

 

Car and Driver had previously experimented with taping the flap shut to assess the value of this system. They found that the Ram-Air inlet increased power enough to add about 2 mph to the quarter-mile trap speeds, as well as reducing quarter-mile elapsed times by about 0.2 seconds.

 

Despite its very strong performance, the Car Life editors were confident that their test Mach 1 wasn’t a ringer:

Factory help, of the kind testers sometimes get without knowing about it, wasn’t a factor. Before the trip to the test track, the Mach 1 suffered a blocked gas tank vent. The car was taken to a nearby Ford agency. The agency has a diagnostic center. CAR LIFE is interested in service problems, and ran the Mach 1 through, for research. The test car checked out as completely stock, so much so that the ignition points were dirty, and the diagnosticians suggested a tune-up.

There was a downside to this performance, even beyond the high price of the R-code engine: According to the AMA specs, installing the 428, power steering, and power front disc brakes added 389 lb over the weight of a basic Mustang 302, with 298 lb of that deposited over the front wheels.

 

Weight distribution with the big engine was therefore rather disastrous: 58.3/41.7 percent with just the driver onboard. However, Car Life remarked:

Constant readers are surely braced, at this point, for the standard lecture about too much weight too far forward, with its attendant, dreaded understeer.

Relax. The lecture doesn’t apply to the Mach 1. The greatness shows up best on a winding, mountain road. By choosing the optimum combination of suspension geometry, shock absorber valving and spring rates, Ford engineers have exempted the Mach 1 from the laws of momentum and inertia, up to unspeakable speeds.

At first blush, this was a VERY different conclusion than Car and Driver had recently reached with the 428 Mach 1 (C/D, November 1968), whose handling they called “all thumbs.” C/D had complained:

The beak-heavy machine just won’t corner with any dignity at all. Does it understeer? Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full. It’s just not possible to pick a fine line through a corner at high lateral acceleration rates. The front tires howl and smoke and absolutely refuse to go in the direction they’re pointed. In really hard cornering situations, steering wheel corrections of a quarter turn have virtually no effect on the direction of travel. The Mustang wants to be thrown into a corner and helped through with lots of power and lots of steering wheel angle. Hardly a tidy way to go about things not to mention that in this already crowded world it takes up a lot of space.

However, C/D had tested the Mach 1 very early in the 1969 model year, and admitted that in order to test it in time for their print deadline, “most of our evaluations were made on a test track in variance with our usual procedure of about 30% test track, 70% public roads.” In contrast, Car Life seems to have driven their test car both on a road course and on public roads, and they thought the Mach 1 fared surprisingly well in the latter arena.

 

CL characterized the big-engine Mach 1 as “a superb car for seven-tenths driving,” which they explained like this:

Cale Yarborough and Richard Petty dueling at Daytona, using every horse in the engine, every inch of the track, and all their skill and nerve, are driving at ten-tenths. Little old ladies, of whatever gender and chronological age, never get past two-tenths. An enthusiast on his way to work drives at five-tenths, setting a good pace, but not extending the car.

With the car singing its song, the road and weather clear, the driver who likes to drive runs at seven-tenths, putting the engine, brakes and suspension to work. Nothing reckless: The car stays on its side of the road, the tires stay firmly on the pavement.

The Mach 1 thrives on it, and so does the driver. With just enough steering lock to give the front tires a grip, and enough power to squat the back wheels down on the road, the Mach 1 growls through turns, eating up bumps in the road and camber changes, while the big engine catapults it from turn to turn, and the big brakes haul it down to cornering speed, time after time.

When pushing the car harder on a road course, Car Life ran into the same handling problems Car and Driver had:

At eight-tenths, though, Nature takes back the reins. On Orange County Raceway’s road course, at racing speeds, using all the road and all the power, the Mach 1 was, well, both hands full. At the ragged edge, the Mach 1 displayed strong understeer. Once the front end was wrenched loose, it stayed loose. More power put the back end out, but the car still moved toward the outside of the track. At speed, the Mach 1 wasn’t responsive.

The CL editors also noted that while the Mach 1 had higher limits cornering limits, “the Mustang Grandé tested in the February CAR LIFE, with less tire and less power to make mistakes with, proved easier to control under extreme testing conditions and speeds.”

 

Car Life had fewer reservations about the disc/drum brakes of their Mach 1, which, in combination with the test car’s extra-cost F70-14 tires, “achieved that elusive balance of normal stops with little effort, and all-out stops with a forceful foot still able to limit effort just short of locked wheels.” They recorded a maximum deceleration rate of 29 ft./sec./sec. from 80 mph, with only “slight” control loss, and rated the brakes very good. The editors noted:

As a matter of policy, Ford equips all its test cars, and all cars for company use, with the optional discs. On the market, the buyer who orders power brakes gets the front discs, too. Good idea, Ford, and may you hasten the day when discs are standard equipment for all your cars, not just the ones in which your family may travel.

I’m not so willing to call this a good idea: Front discs which were NOT standard on the Mustang, even with the big engine — they were a $64.77 option — and according to Automotive Industries, only 30.5 percent of 1969 Mustang production had them. Standardizing front discs on all press cars therefore gave a distorted idea of Ford stopping performance, which wasn’t nearly as impressive with the drum-braked cars more commonly found on contemporary dealer lots.

 

Car Life liked the high-back Mach 1 seats and thought the driving position good:

The driver has a good seat, in the horsey sense of a comfortable fit and an immediate feeling of confidence and command. With the seat pushed back for the straight-arm driving position favored by international racers and their legion of imitators, the pedals and controls are still within reach.

However, the fastback roof limited rear seat room and trunk space, while also leaving a worrisome blind spot over the driver’s right shoulder. While CL didn’t mention it, the small trunk of the fastback body also prevented buyers from ordering a potentially helpful Mustang option: a trunk-mounted 85 amp/hour battery, which usefully improved weight distribution with the 428 engine, but was only available on the hardtop.

 

The CL test car had the C6 Select Shift Cruise-O-Matic transmission, a $222.08 option, which was a mixed blessing:

Shifts under full power came instantly, with force sufficient to spin the tires for a few feet. In traffic, shifts are still firm, but not harsh. The driver will notice it, but the passenger won’t. One minor complaint was the reluctance of the transmission to shift down at less than full power, a trait that sometimes delivered more acceleration than the driver could use.

After looking at the AMA specifications, I realized that the 3,420 lb curb weight listed in the Car Life data panel was definitely wrong. According to the AMA specs, a Mach 1 with the 351-2V, automatic, power steering, and power disc brakes weighed more than 3,500 lb, and that didn’t include the extra weight of the 428 engine.

 

I think the 3,607 lb Car and Driver quoted for their similarly equipped 428 test car was probably closer to the mark, and a really loaded Mach 1 with air conditioning would have had a curb weight of over 3,700 lb. This means the test weight of the Car Life car would have been higher as well, probably more like 3,900 lb.

The photo caption at the top of the above page reads, “CHARGING OFF the line with tires smoking, Mach 1 looks as fast as it is, the quickest stock passenger car Car Life has tested.”

 

This road test includes an uncharacteristic and troublesome discrepancy regarding the test car’s axle ratio. The main text says the test car had a 3.90 axle; the data panel specifications indicate a 3.50 axle with Traction-Lok. In 1969, the AMA specs say the Ram Air 428 CJ engine was available with 3.50, 3.91, or 4.30 axles; but given the performance Car Life recorded, the 3.91 seems much more plausible.

The axle ratio was no trivial difference: Ordering the 3.91 or 4.30 axle ratio with the 428 got you the stouter Super Cobra Jet engine, which included an external oil cooler, different con rods and pistons, a different flywheel or flex plate, a different harmonic balancer, and other internal changes to better cope with higher engine speeds. (Scott A. Hollenbeck has a summary of the differences between the Cobra Jet and Super Cobra Jet engines.) A 428 SCJ engine wasn’t more powerful, but it was much more able to withstand sustained dragstrip or road course use.

 

In any event, the CL editors said the high numerical axle ratio suited the car:

Uphill gears shave those vital fractions off the time it takes to cover the quarter-mile. or pass slower cars on the highway. The Mach 1 shares extra insulation with the Grandé, and engine noise wasn’t objectionable on the highway. The gearing takes its toil in mileage, and engine life. Buyer’s choice.

Here are the highlights of the Car Life performance results:

• 0 to 30 mph: 2.6 sec.
• 0 to 60 mph: 5.5 sec.
• 0 to 100 mph: 12.8 sec.
• Standing ¼-mile: 13.90 sec. at 103.32 mph
• Test average fuel consumption: 8.1 mpg

They listed a top speed of 121 mph at 6,000 rpm, which couldn’t be right no matter which axle ratio the test car had. (With the 3.91 axle, 6,000 rpm would be about 116 mph; with the 3.50 axle, it would be almost 130 mph.) I’m guessing the top speed was a (sloppily) calculated figure; Car Life was often annoyingly bad about differentiating between observed and calculated top speeds.

They concluded:

Greatness makes its own demands. An enthusiast will find the Mach 1 a rewarding car, provided he knows its limitations, and gives it the care and attention the Mach 1 deserves.

The Mach 1 was the second-best-selling Mustang model in 1969, selling 72,458 cars, about 24.2 percent of production. However, most of those cars had milder engines — according to Kevin Marti’s analysis of Ford production data, only 9,973 Mach 1 fastbacks had 428 Cobra Jet or Super Cobra Jet engines in 1969. Assuming the Car Life Mach 1 did indeed have the 3.91 axle and the SCJ engine, it was a fairly rare car: the R-Code 428 SCJ/automatic combination went into just 769 Mach 1 Mustangs in 1969.

 

A nice 428 CJ Mach 1 can now sell for six figures. (If you’re wondering, the red car in the color photos failed to sell back in 2021 even though bidding reached $70,000.) However, for every genuine example, there now seem to be at least three clones or tributes, along with a lot of SportsRoof paper tigers with the milder but better-balanced smaller engines, riding the coattails of their more powerful siblings and the reflected glory of reviews like this.

Related Reading

Vintage C&D Review: 1969 Mustang Mach1 428 Cobra-Jet – 59.3% Of Its Weight On the Front Wheels (by Paul N)
Curbside Classic: 1969 Mustang Mach 1 – Sliding Down The Slippery Fastback Slope (by Paul N)
Curbside Classic: 1969 Ford Mustang – Everybody’s Second Choice (by J P Cavanaugh)
Automotive History: The Ford FE Series V8 Engine (by Jason Shafer)