Mustang ready to go to war vs. GM/Dodge

[06StangAwesomecar]

The 2007 Ford Mustang has been named Most Wanted Convertible Under $35,000 by Edmunds.com editors -- the second time Mustang has won the designation.

 

"These are the vehicles our editorial team would chose to have in our own driveways," said Edmunds.com editor-in-chief Karl Brauer. Edmunds.com praised the Mustang's performance, retro styling and affordable price.

 

The Edmunds' honor is just the latest in a string of critical accolades for Mustang that, along with consumer popularity, have spurred competitors to revive their muscle cars, primarily the new Chevrolet Camaro and Dodge Challenger.

 

"Without the uncanny success of the Mustang, with its retro styling cues, V8 rumble, brash manner and affordable price, GM and DaimlerChrysler would surely not have bothered replaying these oldies," said Kevin Smith of Edmunds.com.

 

If this sounds familiar it's because automakers are reliving a scene originally played out some 40 years ago. In what auto writers dubbed the "Pony Car Wars," domestic automakers battled each other in the 1960s and early 1970s to see which company could create the most popular American muscle car.

 

"We embrace the Pony wars," said James Owens, Mustang marketing manager. "Mustang is the authentic American muscle car. In fact, Mustang is the only one of the original pony cars from the 1960s to live on into the 21 st century with no interruption in production."

 

In the wake of the Mustang's success in 1964, competing automakers set about developing products to challenge Ford's pony car – the Plymouth Barracuda, the Camaro and Firebird, the American Motors Javelin and the Dodge Challenger.

 

Times changed, however, and growing concerns over safety, fuel efficiency, environmental issues and insurance costs in the 1970s and 1980s diminished interest in muscle cars.

 

By 2002, when production of the Camaro ceased, all Mustang rivals had disappeared from the marketplace. Then, in 2004, Ford introduced a Mustang redesign embraced by auto writers and consumers.

 

"The 2007 Ford Mustang represents a deft blend of classic American muscle car styling cues and modern design," wrote the editors of Edmunds.com "Whether you choose a V6 or V8, a coupe or convertible, this is one of the best values on the market for consumers seeking traditional rear-wheel-drive performance."

 

One reason for Mustang's longevity is the car's appeal to a wide range of car buyers.

 

"Mustang has two kinds of buyers," Owens said. "People under 40 and people over 40. That sounds like a joke, but its true. Our target customer "Drew" is a younger person who likes the Mustang because its basically cool. But our consumption customer is the baby boomer, who no longer needs a mini van or SUV and who fondly remembers the Mustang of their youth."

 

While neither competitor is in production yet, the Chevy Camaro concept made a stir at the 2006 North American International Auto Show. The production model is expected to be a coupe and reach showrooms during the first quarter of 2009. Specific details are unknown at this point, but GM indicates the Camaro will be offered in a variety of models with a choice of manual and automatic transmissions and V-6 and V-8 engines.

 

Daimler/Chrysler will debut its new Dodge Challenger in 2009. Details are even scarcer than for Camaro, but a Hemi engine is a good bet.

 

In another flashback, Ford announced it is reviving the legendary 5.0-liter 302 cubic inch V-8 engine for the aftermarket with a new line of BOSS 302 crate engines, which will go on sale in early 2007. Making its debut in 1969, the original BOSS 302 powered a limited production Mustang model sold for two years, which was known as the BOSS 302. The new line of BOSS crate engines will deliver up to 500 horsepower.

 

Despite challenges, Mustang's production streak looks destined to continue with sales up more than 30 percent in September 2006 compared with the same period in 2005. Mark Fields, executive vice president and president-The Americas, announced in September that at least one new Mustang variation would be introduced every year.

[hemisbc]

''''''In another flashback, Ford announced it is reviving the legendary 5.0-liter 302 cubic inch V-8 engine for the aftermarket with a new line of BOSS 302 crate engines, which will go on sale in early 2007. Making its debut in 1969, the original BOSS 302 powered a limited production Mustang model sold for two years, which was known as the BOSS 302. The new line of BOSS crate engines will deliver up to 500 horsepower."""

 

Personally I always considered Mustangs, even my '65 model, a "niche" car, but no more a "MUSCLE" car than any model Porsche which could eat most muscle cars alive.

If the Mustang Muscle cars are so bad, why do they only win in FFW and never in NHRA.

 

As for the "legendary" SBF, 4" X 3", 301.59 CI it was not a 302 and certainly not a 5,0L which would require 305 CI. Ford, knowing the faithful would neither know or care used these designations in order to distance themselves from the jillions of 283 SBCs that were bored out to 4" X 3" and referred to as 301 which was correct.

The only thing legendary about the SBF is that Ford, as they did in dozens of other performance items, simply recognized the great things about the really "legendary" SBC and built similar engines. It is safe to say the '55 SBC and it's descendants have won more races than all other engines combined.

[jpd80]

As for the "legendary" SBF, 4" X 3", 301.59 CI it was not a 302 and certainly not a 5,0L which would require 305 CI. Ford, knowing the faithful would neither know or care used these designations in order to distance themselves from the jillions of 283 SBCs that were bored out to 4" X 3" and referred to as 301 which was correct.

 

If you consider rounding up 301.59, 302 is more correct. That's how we had the 302 Ford and Chevrolet Trans Am engines:

 

In 1967, Chevrolet was busy promoting their new pony car, the Camaro, and part of the promotional efforts included racing the Camaro in the SCCA Trans-Am series. In order to make the Camaro competitive, Chevrolet introduced the Z/28 option package which included among other things, a special 302 cubic inch small block. The engine size was a result of the SCCA's 305 cubic inch displacement limit in the Trans-Am series at the time. The 302 turned out to be one of Chevrolet's finest small block offerings, and the engine stood in stark contrast to the ever increasing size of the big blocks used in the muscle cars of the day.

 

 

Btw, If Ford wanted to make a new 302 Mod motor, they would just use the 3.68 bore from the 1980s 255 Small Block Ford. With the 3.55" stroke this adds up to 302 motor.

Edited November 7, 2006 by jpd80

[swenson88]

''''''In another flashback, Ford announced it is reviving the legendary 5.0-liter 302 cubic inch V-8 engine for the aftermarket with a new line of BOSS 302 crate engines, which will go on sale in early 2007. Making its debut in 1969, the original BOSS 302 powered a limited production Mustang model sold for two years, which was known as the BOSS 302. The new line of BOSS crate engines will deliver up to 500 horsepower."""

 

Personally I always considered Mustangs, even my '65 model, a "niche" car, but no more a "MUSCLE" car than any model Porsche which could eat most muscle cars alive.

If the Mustang Muscle cars are so bad, why do they only win in FFW and never in NHRA.

 

As for the "legendary" SBF, 4" X 3", 301.59 CI it was not a 302 and certainly not a 5,0L which would require 305 CI. Ford, knowing the faithful would neither know or care used these designations in order to distance themselves from the jillions of 283 SBCs that were bored out to 4" X 3" and referred to as 301 which was correct.

The only thing legendary about the SBF is that Ford, as they did in dozens of other performance items, simply recognized the great things about the really "legendary" SBC and built similar engines. It is safe to say the '55 SBC and it's descendants have won more races than all other engines combined.

 

Rounding up leads to both 302 designations and 5.0L designations. The reason both of these designations have any fame at all is because of the Mustang, not the other way around. Had it been called a 301 or a 4.9 the vehicle would have been just as popular. Those names didn't catapult the Mustang to it's success, contrary to your odd belief. And whether or not a vehicle wins in NHRA have little to do with its success at the dealership, if you hadn't noticed.

[hemisbc]

"""""""""And whether or not a vehicle wins in NHRA have little to do with its success at the dealership, if you hadn't noticed."""""

 

Did I mention or imply, no.

 

""""Rounding up leads to both 302 designations and 5.0L designations. The reason both of these designations have any fame at all is because of the Mustang, not the other way around. Had it been called a 301 or a 4.9 the vehicle would have been just as popular. Those names didn't catapult the Mustang to it's success, contrary to your odd belief."""""""

 

Did I mention or imply anything about success, no.

 

Who makes the decision as to which is correct to round UP or round DOWN. If you round down you have what you claim, plus some. If you round up you do not have what you claim.

 

jpd80>>>>"""Btw, If Ford wanted to make a new 302 Mod motor, they would just use the 3.68 bore from the 1980s 255 Small Block Ford. With the 3.55" stroke this adds up to 302 motor."""""

 

Yeah, but it would not perform like a 4" X 3"; there was/is something magic about that particular combination of bore versus stroke and it was discovered in the late 50s/early 60s by people like myself boring out 283s and we always referred to them as 301s. I also had 327s and in '64 had a stroked 4" X 3.5" and all these engines burned nitro in fuel dragsters, but none performed as well based on size as the 301.

Even tho Ford was observing from the sidelines, I'm sure they knew of the outstanding performance of these 301 engines, in fact everyone did.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Rounding up is an old tradition. According to theDecember 2006 Collectible Automobile article on the '63 1/2 Fords, the 427 was actually only 425 c.i.d. For anyone not familiar with Collectible Automobile, it is one of the best auto mags around.

[swenson88]

Who makes the decision as to which is correct to round UP or round DOWN. If you round down you have what you claim, plus some. If you round up you do not have what you claim.

 

In math rounding generally conforms to simple rules: anything greater than or equal to x.5 gets rounded up to the next highest whole number. Anything less than or equal to x.4 gets rounded down to the next lowest whole number. This applies to each decimal point depending on the smallest reported decimal point. If you are only reporting to the nearest tenth, then you round based on the hundredth decimal point, and so on. Therefore 301.59ci would clearly round up to 302ci, since no manufacturer ever reports decimal points in denoting cubic inches. Also, IIRC the "5.0L" is technically something like 4.96L, but given that engine size is denoted only to the tenth of a liter, it was rounded up since x.x6 would round up. Do I know if any manufacturers round down according to the rules? I don't know, maybe, the only reason this comes up is because people for some reason think Ford was trying to cheat the customers by calling a 301.59ci engine a 302 or a 4.96L engine a 5.0L. A rose by any other name . . .

[matthewq4b]

jpd80>>>>"""Btw, If Ford wanted to make a new 302 Mod motor, they would just use the 3.68 bore from the 1980s 255 Small Block Ford. With the 3.55" stroke this adds up to 302 motor."""""

 

Yeah, but it would not perform like a 4" X 3"; there was/is something magic about that particular combination of bore versus stroke and it was discovered in the late 50s/early 60s by people like myself boring out 283s and we always referred to them as 301s. I also had 327s and in '64 had a stroked 4" X 3.5" and all these engines burned nitro in fuel dragsters, but none performed as well based on size as the 301.

Even tho Ford was observing from the sidelines, I'm sure they knew of the outstanding performance of these 301 engines, in fact everyone did.

 

 

Actually the 4"x3" bore and stroke had more to do with Fords love of the 4" bore all the FE's until the 390 were 4" bore motors. In fact every year of the Whole production history of modern OHV Ford engines they had 4" bore engine in production. The SBF ford had a Maximum castable and planed bore of 4" Yes they can be bored over that but the early mass production thin wall castng proseses could never gaurentee you that you would end with enought meat in the bore if they were over bored much beyond that . The 335's were also all 4" bore motors. The 385 Series finally broke from Ford tradtion of 4" bore motors

 

4" bore x 3" stroke was the pratical mass production limit of the SBF. Any longer of stroke and you would have to start carving material outta the block if the rod throws were not off set ground Also displacment limits for Trans Am proboly gave them a push as well to stroke out the 289 to 302.

 

Ford has used the 4" bore as a standard for modern OHV V8 engines. As I said the only modern Ford OHV engines that never used it were the 385's.

 

To imply Ford copied Chevy engines modified to 301 is a stretch at best.

 

It's more of coincendance than any thing else.

 

 

 

In math rounding generally conforms to simple rules: anything greater than or equal to x.5 gets rounded up to the next highest whole number. Anything less than or equal to x.4 gets rounded down to the next lowest whole number. This applies to each decimal point depending on the smallest reported decimal point. If you are only reporting to the nearest tenth, then you round based on the hundredth decimal point, and so on. Therefore 301.59ci would clearly round up to 302ci, since no manufacturer ever reports decimal points in denoting cubic inches. Also, IIRC the "5.0L" is technically something like 4.96L, but given that engine size is denoted only to the tenth of a liter, it was rounded up since x.x6 would round up. Do I know if any manufacturers round down according to the rules? I don't know, maybe, the only reason this comes up is because people for some reason think Ford was trying to cheat the customers by calling a 301.59ci engine a 302 or a 4.96L engine a 5.0L. A rose by any other name . . .

 

The excpetions to that rule are the 351's all which were rounded down. Actual displacment is 351.89. This was more than likly done to diferantiate them from the older FE 352 which also was 4"x 3.50" bore stroke engine. Like the 351W 351C 351M

 

Matthew

Edited November 8, 2006 by matthewq4b

[hemisbc]

""""""""To imply Ford copied Chevy engines modified to 301 is a stretch at best."""""""

 

It's common knowledge and common sense. What are the odds that there would have ever been a SBF if there had not been a SBC. Every engine that starts in Nascar, Sprint cars, thousands of Sat. nite bullrings over the years and the great majority of NHRA entries has roots in the '55 SBC. Why is this so hard for folks with common sense to swallow.

This is no different than dozens of other performance and convienence features such as OHV, starter, battery/dist. ign, clutch and selective gear trans, autotrans, hyd brakes, 4 wh. brakes, ind. frt. whl. susp, canted valves, and the list goes on. Ford has always been forced to follow automotive advancements.

[swenson88]

""""""""To imply Ford copied Chevy engines modified to 301 is a stretch at best."""""""

 

It's common knowledge and common sense. What are the odds that there would have ever been a SBF if there had not been a SBC. Every engine that starts in Nascar, Sprint cars, thousands of Sat. nite bullrings over the years and the great majority of NHRA entries has roots in the '55 SBC. Why is this so hard for folks with common sense to swallow.

This is no different than dozens of other performance and convienence features such as OHV, starter, battery/dist. ign, clutch and selective gear trans, autotrans, hyd brakes, 4 wh. brakes, ind. frt. whl. susp, canted valves, and the list goes on. Ford has always been forced to follow automotive advancements.

 

 

So by your logic it sounds like you believe Ford Motor Company has never made a single innovation and GM/Chevy have made all of them. Does that sound right?

[hemisbc]

"""""""""So by your logic it sounds like you believe Ford Motor Company has never made a single innovation and GM/Chevy have made all of them. Does that sound right?""""""""

 

That is not what I wrote. Which of the items mentioned do you think is not correct????????

 

And did anyone mention synchromesh trans. gears, hypoid cut rear end gears and helical cut transmission gears, Straight cut were easier, cheaper and noisier, but who cared, back then the body rattles drowned out the gear noise.

[matthewq4b]

""""""""To imply Ford copied Chevy engines modified to 301 is a stretch at best."""""""

 

It's common knowledge and common sense. What are the odds that there would have ever been a SBF if there had not been a SBC. Every engine that starts in Nascar, Sprint cars, thousands of Sat. nite bullrings over the years and the great majority of NHRA entries has roots in the '55 SBC. Why is this so hard for folks with common sense to swallow.

This is no different than dozens of other performance and convienence features such as OHV, starter, battery/dist. ign, clutch and selective gear trans, autotrans, hyd brakes, 4 wh. brakes, ind. frt. whl. susp, canted valves, and the list goes on. Ford has always been forced to follow automotive advancements.

 

 

Flawed logic Hemi the SBF Ford was built to supply the New Itermediates with a V8 as the FE just did not fit.

 

Even after it was launched all 221Cui It was not the SBF that directly battled the SBC it was the FE. It was not till the Mid 60's that the SBF was pitted more directly against the SBC. The creation of the SBF had more to do with the need for smaller V8 for the new compacts and itermediates and not to do battle with the SBC. Ford had the FE's that were doing that job just fine at the time.

 

The FE displacments in the early years were 331 and 352 Competitive performance displacmnts against the SBC.

 

It was not like the SBF came out a couple years after the SBC either. It was 7 seven years and then only when the need for it was demanded.

 

The SBC had no thing to do with the creation of the SBF and every thing to do with market demnds for smaller cars.

 

Even if there was no SBC the SBF would have been built so Ford could put a V8 in it's intermidiates.

 

If cars had not downsized in the early sixties the SBF would have never been built. Do not think the SBC determained weather or not the SBF was built. It was market forces and nothing else.

 

Matthew

[hemisbc]

matts biased speculation>>>"""The SBC had no thing to do with the creation of the SBF and every thing to do with market demnds for smaller cars.

 

Even if there was no SBC the SBF would have been built so Ford could put a V8 in it's intermidiates.

 

If cars had not downsized in the early sixties the SBF would have never been built. Do not think the SBC determained weather or not the SBF was built. It was market forces and nothing else."""""""""

 

If you look at a cutaway cross section of the 283 SBC and the 289 SBF side by side it is hard to tell which is which.

 

You would then realize just how badly wrong you could be.

 

Your post is only your opinion, mine is based on a many years pattern of Ford playing follow the leader.

 

Did anyone mention fuel injection that the Ford fans all sniggered at when it appreared on the '57 SBC.

 

Check out the Ford powered entries on this.

 

http://www.nhra.com/2006/events/race23/elsc.html

 

http://www.nhra.com/2006/events/race23/elcomp.html

 

http://www.nhra.com/2006/events/race23/elsg.html

[matthewq4b]

matts biased speculation>>>"""The SBC had no thing to do with the creation of the SBF and every thing to do with market demnds for smaller cars.

 

Even if there was no SBC the SBF would have been built so Ford could put a V8 in it's intermidiates.

 

If cars had not downsized in the early sixties the SBF would have never been built. Do not think the SBC determained weather or not the SBF was built. It was market forces and nothing else."""""""""

 

If you look at a cutaway cross section of the 283 SBC and the 289 SBF side by side it is hard to tell which is which.

 

You would then realize just how badly wrong you could be.

 

Your post is only your opinion, mine is based on a many years pattern of Ford playing follow the leader.

 

Did anyone mention fuel injection that the Ford fans all sniggered at when it appreared on the '57 SBC.

 

Check out the Ford powered entries on this.

 

http://www.nhra.com/2006/events/race23/elsc.html

 

http://www.nhra.com/2006/events/race23/elcomp.html

 

http://www.nhra.com/2006/events/race23/elsg.html

 

 

 

Look at the crossection of any short skirt V* and it is nearly imossible to tell the apart. there is onlt so much you can do with a short skirt OHV V8

 

 

And if ford was so concenred and quick to copy the SBC and the supposed way superior design. They would have not waited 7 years to build their own small block.

 

 

Face it Hemi the only reason the SBF was built was due to the downsizing happening in the early sixties.

If it had not happened it would have not been built.

 

 

In the SBF's orginal displcements of 221 and 260 it had no drag race or Nascar intentions. It was only with the introduction of the Stang that it began to see any kind of sporting intentions. It was a small cheap V8 for smaller less expensive cars.

 

Matthew

[jpd80]

Mathew, you forgot the 352 FE, No you didn't, sorry. Ford hadn't discovered rounding down back then. How many engines is that with 4" x 3.5" dimensions? Shows this is another favorite combination of numbers.

 

Also guys, Ford had the 272, 292, 312 Customline Y Block engines? I assume the new light-weight SBF was to replaced these eventually?

 

Modern 5.0 mod have squarer bore /stroke ratio to help emissions, it's to do with volume to surface area ratio. Mods were developed partly because they didn't require air pumps to clean up emissions. Pity SBF, 351W and 400 weren't amalgamated and made as the "new modular engines" back then, 3 deck heights, a change to common pistons, bearing sizes and heads. Could have turned out nicely.

Edited November 13, 2006 by jpd80

[ford-boy]

If you look at a cutaway cross section of the 283 SBC and the 289 SBF side by side it is hard to tell which is which.

 

So, by your logic the new aluminum Chevy engine is a copy of the old Ford Y block? Deep Y sides for rigidity, 10 head bolts per head as opposed to what 17 or 18? Jesel must have copied the Y block shaft rocker system as well, because thats what makes for the most stabile valvetrain. Chevy guys used to make fun of the old Y block shaft rockers back then. If you look at a cross section of the Jesel shaft and the Y blockshaft the similarity is uncanny. Edelbrock must have copied the AIR GAP manifold from the Y block, too. Chevy has even copied the Y block firing order. Ford firing order= 15486372. That would be the Chev 4-7 swap. If NASCAR teams were allowed to change their firing order to the Y block they would do it in a heartbeat.

[hemisbc]

""""If NASCAR teams were allowed to change their firing order to the Y block they would do it in a heartbeat."""

 

More fodder; when company G has won some 50% more races than Company F and 4 times as many Cups, it seems that even a dummy would know that company G is not going to get excited about what company F is doing.

 

There can be very little difference in the physical firing order of a V-8 engine with a 90 degree crank. The biggest difference that causes a different Ford firing order is because the cylinders are numbered differently. I suppose when Ford started building V-8s they decided to use a different cylinder numbering scheme than the other V-8 manufacturers had been using knowing some people think that different is better.

 

In your opinion did the early OHV Ford Y-blocks make power to justify the skirts; it was not needed and was nothing more than an advertising scam.

 

Again I call attention to the fact that the only place Ford powered cars win drag race events is at FFW events where GM and Mopars are not allowed.

 

Tell me if you recall the Y-block "blubber" and if there could possibly be a need for valvetrain stabilization.

[ford-boy]

""""If NASCAR teams were allowed to change their firing order to the Y block they would do it in a heartbeat."""

 

More fodder; when company G has won some 50% more races than Company F and 4 times as many Cups, it seems that even a dummy would know that company G is not going to get excited about what company F is doing.

 

There can be very little difference in the physical firing order of a V-8 engine with a 90 degree crank. The biggest difference that causes a different Ford firing order is because the cylinders are numbered differently. I suppose when Ford started building V-8s they decided to use a different cylinder numbering scheme than the other V-8 manufacturers had been using knowing some people think that different is better.

 

In your opinion did the early OHV Ford Y-blocks make power to justify the skirts; it was not needed and was nothing more than an advertising scam.

 

Again I call attention to the fact that the only place Ford powered cars win drag race events is at FFW events where GM and Mopars are not allowed.

 

Tell me if you recall the Y-block "blubber" and if there could possibly be a need for valvetrain stabilization.

 

I don't know the actual number of races won by Ford compared to Chevy, NOW. I do know that Ford had won MANY more races up until early 70's. 348's and 409's were terrible. They barely qualified. Those 409 engines were just no match for the FE motors ( 390, 406, 427) of the day when they were running head to head. You can certainly look that up. All manufacturers boycotted NASCAR at one time or another, some for much longer periods of time than others. So to say that Chev is better than Ford is not correct. Chev may just not have had any competition for many years. When Ford did get back to funding teams, Bill Elliots Cleveland T-Bird was uncatchable. In fact, I think that car still holds the top speed record for many NASCAR tracks as of today! And I wouldn't place too much emphasis on NASCAR as they were almost ALWAYS fiddling with spoilers and front air dams to slow one make down and give another make a little help. If the rules were the same for all makes during the 70's , Chevy would not have won a single race if as long as the 351 Clevelands were around. Just ask an oldtimer what made more power, a 350 Chev or the 351 Cleveland. Lets be honest now.

 

As far as firing order is concerned, there are many different sequences that can be used. Some are much better than others. Some place uneven loads on main bearings, some cause unwanted crankshaft harmonics. Chevys 18436572 ......IS..... the Ford 15426378. The GEN III and GEN IV Chevy (LS- series) engines have both copied the Ford Windsor and 5.0 small block firing orders. Whats up with that? We had it first and Chevy just outright copied it!! What Ford has used in the past is NOW commonly called the Pro Stock firing order. It was originally used by Ford since the flathead V-8 was released. It continued over onto the Y block. Now the new Corvette is using a variation of THAT firing order. 4 outer cylinders fire in sequence, then the 4 inner cylinders fire in sequence and so on. What is Chevy trying to pull here? They now have a Y block, 10 bolts per head, AND a Ford firing order? What else have they copied from Ford for their NEWEST engine. Does that motor use a rocker shaft too?

 

As for the Y block blubber, it weighed more than the 283, yes. However, in '56 thru '58, when the Y block was professionally prepared, it was equal to or better than the 283 at that time. How else can you explain the MULTIPLE Ford wins in NASCAR back then? NASCAR wasn't trying to EVEN things up THEN. I am not trying to defend the Y block to the extent that is was the greatest engine of all time, but it only had ONE, that is ONE year of as a performance engine and set many records in the process. If you want, I can list some of them as written in Drag News rsults from that time frame. Records that were set WITHOUT the Supercharger, lest you think it was unfair!! There are some that were set WITH the supercharger as well. In fact, the 312 in N/A form and supercharged form held the highest track records for MPH. Thats all they reported back then, was MPH and class winner. I will say this, from my research of reported results, NO CHEV Super Stock time was better than the Y block THEN. One of the reasons was that Chevys had to use what they were originally built with, i.e. the 3 speed manual trans. NHRA "allowed" Chevy to use the 4-speed trans in full size cars by about 1960. Just for the record, NO Bel Air or other full sized 1957 Chevy was EVER built with the 4-speed transmission. NHRA also allowed '56 sedan deliveries to use the 4 speed HYDRO in stock classes as well. Even a Chevy supporter would have to say that NO car was EVER built that used these performance parts. They magically were allowed to be used in the NHRA STOCK classes somewhere around 1960. If those '56 and '57 Chevys had to rely on Powerglides and 3 speed manual trannies, (as everyone used) things would not have played out the way they did.

Edited November 14, 2006 by ford-boy

[DJB]

Stop using logic or well supported discussion against Hemi, it doesn't work. Another successfully hi-jacked thread to fuel his anti-FORD crusade. Oh well. Where does it all stem from? Maybe a bad man with a FORD did something to him as a kid...? We'll never know...

 

As for the Mustang, all I can say is they better put a bloody IRS into it soon. I mean really, the friggin' Explorer has an independant rear, but the Mustang doesn't? And don't give the 'solid rear axle is better for drag racing' bs either. For the dinos who can't seem to figure out the IRS, give them the option of a drag pack (or whatever you want to call it...) with a solid axle. Plenty of other cars have an IRS and seem to cover the 1/4 pretty quickly...so give us the best of both worlds FORD.

 

'...knowing some people think that different is better.'

 

Hey, wait! Isn't that Dodges' mantra...? Or did they translate it incorrectly at the German head office...?

[06StangAwesomecar]

I guess he didnt read this part

"Without the uncanny success of the Mustang, with its retro styling cues, V8 rumble, brash manner and affordable price, GM and DaimlerChrysler would surely not have bothered replaying these oldies,"

 

Again the mustang sales disagree with him. say whatever, call it shit, call it, a copycat of a smallblock Chevy. Sales tell the story, Gm cancelled the Camaro for a reason, because it was a money loosing, unpractical car, with a stupid hump in the floor. And Chrysler had what? (crickets chirpping)

Edited November 14, 2006 by 06StangAwesomecar

[ford-boy]

I was at Englishtown Raceway just this last Friday nite and I saw 2 Shelby GT 500's clicking off some impressive times. One was a convert and the other a red fastback. The convert went well into the 12's at 117 mph. Pretty freakin good, I'd say. They are no liteweights either. I had been talking about the IRS and solid axle to one of those guys and he liked the IRS better. However, others think the solid is better. I don't know how well made the Corvette IRS is, but some guys I race with have late 60's L-88 and others with small blocks and they do have breakage issues with them when using slicks. I think a case can be made both ways. With the IRS, camber changes can occur when launching. Something that doesn't happen with the solid axle.

[DJB]

Well, I agree, a lot of what killed off the last Camaro/Firebird was their lack of practicality. As able a performance car as they were, they just were hard to live with. And REALLY hard to look at. When you buy a car like this, looks are a big consideration, and you do have to use it as transportation too. And since '94, the Mustang has had both practicality & looks over the Camaro/Firebird. Even the mighty LS (not next-gen small block...!!!) motors couldn't over come the short comings. I seriously looked at a black '95 Z28 when I was shopping for my Mustang (the 275hp was a big factor in looking at the Camaro; hard to ignore that...!), and I dropped it because I couldn't physically fit in the car with a standard and drive it. Sure, you could fit with the seat reclined and the steering wheel up, but what's the point? Sale lost. My Mustang gave me many years of wide smiles...

 

I was at Englishtown Raceway just this last Friday nite and I saw 2 Shelby GT 500's clicking off some impressive times. One was a convert and the other a red fastback. The convert went well into the 12's at 117 mph. Pretty freakin good, I'd say. They are no liteweights either. I had been talking about the IRS and solid axle to one of those guys and he liked the IRS better. However, others think the solid is better. I don't know how well made the Corvette IRS is, but some guys I race with have late 60's L-88 and others with small blocks and they do have breakage issues with them when using slicks. I think a case can be made both ways. With the IRS, camber changes can occur when launching. Something that doesn't happen with the solid axle.

 

I'd agree with the solid axle camp if the Mustang were only used for drag racing. With a proper IRS design, it would be able to do good on the strip, road race well, and excel on the street. The Mustang could be taken to a whole new level with a more refined suspension. How many more sales are you going to get with .2 or .4 quicker in the quarter? There will be some. However, if you were able to really improve the handling and maintain it's muscle I think you'd see a lot more sales. It'd eat into groups of buyers that would never have considered a Mustang before. Turn one model into what the Lincoln LS could have been, only less expensive. Start embarassing the BMW's in the twisties...

[hemisbc]

"""""""""""""I don't know the actual number of races won by Ford compared to Chevy, NOW. I do know that Ford had won MANY more races up until early 70's."""""""""

 

In 1957, a young boy spectator was killed during a NASCAR race wreck and shortly the AMA, Chrysler, Ford, and GM all agreed on a self imposed exile which lasted until 1962, when Ford surprisingly announced "We're back into racing." Now if you believe Ford has been sitting on their hands all this time and not preparing for this comeback then your first name has got to be Edsel. Chrysler came back shortly, but GM/Chevy stayed out for several years. In an 8 year span Ford won 173 races to Chevy's 15. During this 8 year span, Ford drivers won their first ever championship and two of their total of 8.

[hemisbc]

DJB>>>>""""Hey, wait! Isn't that Dodges' mantra...? Or did they translate it incorrectly at the German head office...?""""Translate This

[DJB]

DJB>>>>""""Hey, wait! Isn't that Dodges' mantra...? Or did they translate it incorrectly at the German head office...?""""Translate This

 

What, it's ok for your beloved Chrysler Co. to be absorbed by Mercedes...? Seem to remember a lot of Mercedes vehicles carrying Nazis...

 

Wasn't this thread about the Mustang being ready for the new Camaro & Challenger...?