Sixt9coug Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Just a technicality. then at that point it ceases to be 'stock'. Either way, ive got a 428 sitting in a friends garage thats far from stock. I look forward to dropping it into my Cougar this year. Just gotta save a few bucks for some needed parts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 then at that point it ceases to be 'stock'. Shelby was considered a manufacturer. The dual 4 bbl set up was stock on a Shelby, not on a Ford. Shelby Mustangs did not become Ford products until Shelby American handed over production to Shelby Automotive (a wholly owned subsidiary of Ford) in late '67. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 I sold 5 of them in 2007, every owner is completely happy with them, all paid over sticker. How many have you sold? How many have you owned? How many have you driven? If the answer is <1, what do you know about it again??? If you don't like it, don't buy it. Here's 3 of them I had handy, Sold this well over sticker, year later in for a checkup a couple months ago, yup, still happy: I think the GT500s are good looking vehicles. I like the KR's looks even better. I think the GT, while it looks good in any way, looks strange without the stripes. I'll take mine in white w/ blue stripes please! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomaro Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 then at that point it ceases to be 'stock'. Either way, ive got a 428 sitting in a friends garage thats far from stock. I look forward to dropping it into my Cougar this year. Just gotta save a few bucks for some needed parts. It doesn't matter if Ford put them on or if Shelby. In the early 60s Ford would put tri power setups in the trunk for customers to be installed later. All that matters is you could go to the dealer with check book in hand and buy it. The CJ was such a leap from the garden variety 428...which was actually 426cuin IIRC. Even with 2 4 barrels it couldn't touch a CJ. Considering a 68.5 GT with the CJ motor could easily beat a KR...it left a lot to be desired. They screwed up by not offering the 427 in the KR. Good luck with the 428. My stroker 390 went in this past summer. Nothing like the pull of an FE with all that torque. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 I was responding to the question of what was stock, and what was done as an after market modification. The 2 x 4 was stock from Shelby, and available from the dealer for Ford. The drive line in the 68.5 GT Mustang and the GT-500KR was identical. What made the GT faster? I have to agree about the 427. I have both a '68.5 CJ Cougar and a '68 Cougar GT-E 427. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixt9coug Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 (edited) I have to agree about the 427. I have both a '68.5 CJ Cougar and a '68 Cougar GT-E 427. And im a little jealous of that because i cant afford a 427. For what i have in the 428 as it sits now, i could probably afford a block and a crank from the 427. Cross bolted main FE's rule. going way OT - heres the 428 as its been sitting for too long.... anyone want to donate to my Radiator, Carb and header fund? lol Edited January 22, 2008 by Sixt9coug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 That good sir, is a work of pure beauty.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 I was responding to the question of what was stock, and what was done as an after market modification. The 2 x 4 was stock from Shelby, and available from the dealer for Ford. The drive line in the 68.5 GT Mustang and the GT-500KR was identical. What made the GT faster? I have to agree about the 427. I have both a '68.5 CJ Cougar and a '68 Cougar GT-E 427. What made the GT faster? Weight! Less of it to be precise. Could you stll get a 2X4 on the 68 KR? If so, did that negate the Ram Air? A few years ago I had a ride in Royce P.'s green 68 GTE (427 w/2X4s) pretty wicked with the mods! ....he has three or four GTEs I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomaro Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 The 68.5 had the weight advantage over the KR. Trans and gearing was the same as you already said. The KR was not available with 2 4 barrels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Hmmm... The 68.5 Mustang GT was actually heavier at 3620 lbs versus 3529 for the Shelby. The 135 series Mustangs that were built as race cars were lighter. The Shelby used a lot of fiberglass parts (Hood) to reduce weight. But for some reason, I seem to recall the Mustang as being faster... Maybe it was the drag cars that we remember? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sranger Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Wow...why would you compare a modded car to a stock one? Do the same mods to the Shelby and guess what happens to your Term?? And they are not doing it without a CAI and exhaust. Make sure to list all the mods. What a dumb post.barrels. Lets see there were several time where you tried to justify the $60,000 ( 42K+Dealer Mark up) GT-500 against a 15K older terminater. However, if you do a little mod to the 15K car it will outrun the $60K car... Any you have the nerve to call my post dumb??????? P.S. Yes they will do it without a CIA and Exhaust...Get over yourself.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 You are correct in that Ford did not offer the dual quad set up. Shelby was still building the cars and did the 2 x 4 on the 428 in 67. In early 68 the GT500 did get the 428PI plus ram air. April 1st 1968 was the release date for the 428CJ that went into the GT500KR. The assembly of the Shelby Mustangs, and the XR7-G (Gurney) Cougars were all done by AO Smith in Ionia Michigan. Must have been exciting times to work at Ford Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moby Vic Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 You could have made your point with a smaller picture, or at least one hosted on a server that runs at a decent speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 (edited) You could have made your point with a smaller picture, or at least one hosted on a server that runs at a decent speed. Sorry about about that Moby Vic, l will try to not to rattle the picture on your monitor of your Amiga, I will post smaller pictures in the future. My point is l like the Mustangs Ford GT both new and old, l wish l could say the same for the rest of Fords new car line-up. Edited January 25, 2008 by Ford Jellymoulds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 (edited) Well, all things being equal (and in this case the same body/engine combo), it doesn't make sense that a car that is lighter with more Horse Power is slower. http://www.theautochannel.com/vehicles/mus.../f68scont.frame PERFORMANCE: 1968 Shelby Mustang Cobra GT500KR Engine: 335hp 428CJ c.i. V-8 Weight 3780 lbs. http://musclecars.howstuffworks.com/classi...8-cobra-jet.htm The 1968 Ford Mustang 428 Cobra Jet Specifications Wheelbase, inches: 108.0 Weight, lbs.: 3,620 Both were 2 door HTs. Edited January 25, 2008 by timmm55 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moby Vic Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Sorry about about that Moby Vic, l will try to not to rattle the picture on your monitor of your Amiga, I will post smaller pictures in the future. My point is l like the Mustangs Ford GT both new and old, l wish l could say the same for the rest of Fords new car line-up. I'm on a Dell Optiplex GX620 with dual 19-inch monitors and a T1 connection. Your picture was gigantic and took forever to load. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomaro Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 (edited) Lets see there were several time where you tried to justify the $60,000 ( 42K+Dealer Mark up) GT-500 against a 15K older terminater. However, if you do a little mod to the 15K car it will outrun the $60K car... Any you have the nerve to call my post dumb??????? P.S. Yes they will do it without a CIA and Exhaust...Get over yourself.... I called you dumb because you tried comparing the performance of a modded car to a stock one. I can't help you are a cobra nutswinger. Also lets be for real, where are you getting a Term for 15K? That must be one abused car with 150K miles. To be fair the term was an upper 30K car when new. You can't help dealer greed...btw 5k over MSRP to MSRP appears to be the trend with the GT500. You are truly dumber than I thought if you think people are swapping to a 2.76" pulley without a CAI, exhaust, and tune. I can see possibly the exhaust as the ones from Ford flow well, but not the rest. Please stop, your hole is getting very deep. Case closed. Edited January 25, 2008 by atomaro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomaro Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 (edited) Well, all things being equal (and in this case the same body/engine combo), it doesn't make sense that a car that is lighter with more Horse Power is slower. http://www.theautochannel.com/vehicles/mus.../f68scont.frame PERFORMANCE: 1968 Shelby Mustang Cobra GT500KR Engine: 335hp 428CJ c.i. V-8 Weight 3780 lbs. http://musclecars.howstuffworks.com/classi...8-cobra-jet.htm The 1968 Ford Mustang 428 Cobra Jet Specifications Wheelbase, inches: 108.0 Weight, lbs.: 3,620 Both were 2 door HTs. I think here you are entering variables such as driver error, track conditions, etc. Edited January 25, 2008 by atomaro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I think here you are entering variables such as driver error, track conditions, etc. The basic point was that a stripped 68 CJ Mustang weighed less than a GT500KR, even with the fiberglass front clip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomaro Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 The basic point was that a stripped 68 CJ Mustang weighed less than a GT500KR, even with the fiberglass front clip. My bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Timm, not to argue, but if you use the same site for both sets of numbers, they don't support the GT Mustang being lighter (the Shelby number looks TOO low to me). They do support it being faster. I think that the difference might be rear axle ratio. My recollection is that the Shelby was available with the 3.90 trac lok (X code) and the Mustang could be had with 4.30 gears. Keep in mind I too recall it being faster, but I can point to many things that would have made the Shelby lighter than all but the specialy prepared 135 series race cars. Another oddity, the specs here show a diffference in HP at RPM when the drivelines were identical. I will try to find my original source for the weight and post it here... The 1968 Ford Mustang 428 Cobra Jet Specifications Wheelbase, inches: 108.0 Weight, lbs.: 3,620 Number built: 2,822 Base price: $3,600 Standard Engine Type: ohv V-8 Displacement, cid: 428 Fuel system: 1 x 4 bbl. Compression ratio: 10.6:1 Horsepower @ rpm: 335 @ 5400 Torque @ rpm: 440 @ 3400 Representative Performance 0-60 mph, sec: 5.4 1/4 mile, sec @ mph: 14.01 @ 101 The 1968 Shelby Cobra GT 500-KR Specifications Wheelbase, inches: 108.0 Weight, lbs: 3,200 Number built: 1251 Base price: $4,473 Standard Engine Type: ohv V-8 Displacement, cid: 428 Fuel system: 1 x 4bbl. Compression ratio: 10.6:1 Horsepower @ rpm: 335 @ 5200 Torque @ rpm: 440 @ 3400 Representative Performance 0-60 mph, sec: 6.0 1/4 mile, sec. @ mph: 14.3 @ 100 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Timm, not to argue, No problem. Not an arguement, per se. Just a discussion here. There were a lot of variables. But it's my recollection the KR weighted more due to creature comforts. There was a guy who raced his CJ Eliminator and a CJ Mach1, the Cougar was faster even though it weighed a little more and had less steep gears (4:11 vs 4:30 I think)....weight distribution perhaps??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixt9coug Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 No problem. Not an arguement, per se. Just a discussion here. There were a lot of variables. But it's my recollection the KR weighted more due to creature comforts. There was a guy who raced his CJ Eliminator and a CJ Mach1, the Cougar was faster even though it weighed a little more and had less steep gears (4:11 vs 4:30 I think)....weight distribution perhaps??? I wouldnt be shocked. maybe he just got him off the line. It could also be that that Cougar is just a cooler car as well :D THose 428 cars were pigs man. I weighed my 69 last week and it was 3520lbs. (3/8 tank, functional AC, 351W) the only lightweight stuff on it really is the aluminum intake and water pump. i bet the 17 inch wheels weigh more than the original 14 inch steelies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPBroncoBoy Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 Why does everyone rip on the gt500 calling it the gt447? I mean I see nothing wrong with it, I see over 500hp at the crank, I guess people forget theres about a 15% parasitic loss with a manual tranny to the tires. Also what were they're comparing the 68 to? a modern car? Whats with the need for IRS, a car can handle well with a live axel, there are plenty of road racing cars with live axels. Are people jealous because dealer markup made it so they can't own one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moby Vic Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 Why does everyone rip on the gt500 calling it the gt447? I mean I see nothing wrong with it, I see over 500hp at the crank, I guess people forget theres about a 15% parasitic loss with a manual tranny to the tires. They think they're being clever because some British sods who dynoed one got 447 hp at the wheels. They're too stupid to realize that NO manufacturer advertises wheel horsepower or that the GT500 name has nothing to do with the engine's power output. Also what were they're comparing the 68 to? a modern car? Whats with the need for IRS, a car can handle well with a live axel, there are plenty of road racing cars with live axels. They read in car magazines that IRS is better, so they believe it. They ignore the fact that the live-axle-equipped 2005 Mustang GT outhandled the IRS-equipped 2005 GTO. Are people jealous because dealer markup made it so they can't own one? They complain because they think it's their duty on the Internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.