|
Re: Boss 302 Mustang or old Mopar *DELETED*
[Re: ccarson]
#1494506
10/12/13 03:07 PM
10/12/13 03:07 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,456
Fly Over States
PHJ426
OP
master
|
OP
master
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,456
Fly Over States
|
What a way to pick up a street race. Take 1000 # of tools and people out of the car....... back in the day some guys had an El Camino with the tail gate filled with ballast would take two guys to lower the gate.....helped with launching the car off the line. other guys had taken manhole covers and set them in their trunk for ballast. but this isn't drag racing and anybody can drive fast in a straight line......for the most part. I'm pretty sure there are a couple people that could prove that statement incorrect. 
|
|
|
Re: Boss 302 Mustang or old Mopar *DELETED*
[Re: TC@HP2]
#1494507
10/14/13 07:24 AM
10/14/13 07:24 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
Pale_Roader
Swears too much
|
Swears too much
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
|
Quote:
Yes, the Challenger Drag Pack was targeted towards NHRA Stock and Super Stock classes only. Much like the Mustang Cobra Jets.
So its safe to say the new Mustang does not get the same bad rap for its grill layout that 72-74 Challengers have?
New Shelby
Challenger
Even the early Shelby grills don't get the same stigma as the Challengers and they are almost identical.
What bad rap or stigma...??? The 72-3 Challenger was the first car i truly fell in love with. Saw a couple in the local papers for sale and one parked down the street from my junior high school in a car lot. Hell, i dont think i saw a 70-1 Challenger or ANY Cuda until i went out and bought a car mag some time later. How can you not like that grille?
Love that Challenger in the pic though, 335's on the rear!
|
|
|
Re: Boss 302 Mustang or old Mopar *DELETED*
[Re: PHJ426]
#1494511
10/17/13 06:15 AM
10/17/13 06:15 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
Pale_Roader
Swears too much
|
Swears too much
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
|
Quote:
Worse than the grille was the tail lights on the 72 -74 Challengers.
The Cuda faired out much better in 72 - 74 just proves that Plymouth had better styling in the E and B line ups from. 72 - 74.
See... we'll never agree on anything. I think the 72-up Cuda tailllights were the ugliest Mopar idea since the early 60's. Hate hate hate them. I like the Challenger tails, not as much as the 70-71's, but i wouldn't bother to 'fix' them like i would if i bought a later Cuda.
|
|
|
Re: Boss 302 Mustang or old Mopar *DELETED*
[Re: PHJ426]
#1494512
10/17/13 06:21 AM
10/17/13 06:21 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
Pale_Roader
Swears too much
|
Swears too much
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
|
Quote:
More verification that I am doing the right thing by not cutting up a car that is 1 of 1022 factory air grabber hood Road Runners built in 72 across all engines available. Add to that the car is factory TX9 Black so it's not a Hemi Cuda ragtop but still desirable in it's own clique.
Really really neat car, but i wouldn't let desirability/value keep you from modifying the car you want to modify. What should keep you from doing it is that you would always be behind the 8-ball physics-wise trying to make that car perform like a Z06 Vette. Pick a smaller, flatter, lighter car and be miles ahead. As i said before, even the same year Charger would be a measurably better choice, for a few reasons. 'Cut up' an early E-body, or an A-body. Be patient and find the perfect car to start with, and you'll be glad you did.
|
|
|
Re: Boss 302 Mustang or old Mopar *DELETED*
[Re: 67autocross]
#1494514
10/17/13 11:58 PM
10/17/13 11:58 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,388
Pikes Peak Country
TC@HP2
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,388
Pikes Peak Country
|
Quote:
_What bad rap or stigma...???
The one below...
Quote:
Worse than the grille was the tail lights on the 72 -74 Challengers.
Based on what I've seen here, this is hardly an isolated opinion.
Quote:
I think the 72-73 Challengers would have looked killer if the had come with split bumpers like the early 70's Camaro. Someone should photoshop one and see how it would look.
Hmmm, maybe, but that is a awfully large opening to leave hanging out there. Of course it might look a bit like a '57 300C.
IMO, Dodge missed the boat by not blacking it out and offering hidden headlights like the Charger. Even if it was only an SE options, it would have looked killer. '74 challenger with hidden headlights below.
|
|
|
Re: Boss 302 Mustang or old Mopar *DELETED*
[Re: Pale_Roader]
#1494516
10/18/13 11:20 PM
10/18/13 11:20 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,456
Fly Over States
PHJ426
OP
master
|
OP
master
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,456
Fly Over States
|
Quote:
Quote:
More verification that I am doing the right thing by not cutting up a car that is 1 of 1022 factory air grabber hood Road Runners built in 72 across all engines available. Add to that the car is factory TX9 Black so it's not a Hemi Cuda ragtop but still desirable in it's own clique.
Really really neat car, but i wouldn't let desirability/value keep you from modifying the car you want to modify. What should keep you from doing it is that you would always be behind the 8-ball physics-wise trying to make that car perform like a Z06 Vette. Pick a smaller, flatter, lighter car and be miles ahead. As i said before, even the same year Charger would be a measurably better choice, for a few reasons. 'Cut up' an early E-body, or an A-body. Be patient and find the perfect car to start with, and you'll be glad you did.
I like the weights Dan posted on the 65 - 67 Mustang notch back cars under 3100#'s that has to be a great starting point. There were boat loads of these cars made so cutting up another one is not a big deal, add some 200tw tires, decent suspension and steering and how can you possibly go wrong. The only thing better would be a Cobra or a Miata maybe even a TDI Cup Challenge car.....
|
|
|
Re: Boss 302 Mustang or old Mopar *DELETED*
[Re: PHJ426]
#1494517
10/19/13 06:49 AM
10/19/13 06:49 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
Pale_Roader
Swears too much
|
Swears too much
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
More verification that I am doing the right thing by not cutting up a car that is 1 of 1022 factory air grabber hood Road Runners built in 72 across all engines available. Add to that the car is factory TX9 Black so it's not a Hemi Cuda ragtop but still desirable in it's own clique.
Really really neat car, but i wouldn't let desirability/value keep you from modifying the car you want to modify. What should keep you from doing it is that you would always be behind the 8-ball physics-wise trying to make that car perform like a Z06 Vette. Pick a smaller, flatter, lighter car and be miles ahead. As i said before, even the same year Charger would be a measurably better choice, for a few reasons. 'Cut up' an early E-body, or an A-body. Be patient and find the perfect car to start with, and you'll be glad you did.
I like the weights Dan posted on the 65 - 67 Mustang notch back cars under 3100#'s that has to be a great starting point. There were boat loads of these cars made so cutting up another one is not a big deal, add some 200tw tires, decent suspension and steering and how can you possibly go wrong. The only thing better would be a Cobra or a Miata maybe even a TDI Cup Challenge car.....
I dont know where the 3100lb figure comes from, but i'd say its pretty far off... but in your favor. Here's the (vague) math:
70 Challenger: 3006lbs base.
70 Mustang FB: lighter.
69 Mustang FB: lighter still.
67-8 FB: lighter still.
65-6 FB: lighter still.
65 Notch: you get the point.
The downsides would be space for meat, but thats about it. Aftermarket, weight, size, simplicity, racing heritage/info, hell... even the engine has an advantage over a SBD in a light light car. You could rule the world.
I've thought about a 67 Fastback, cloned to a Shelby GT500 with a 4.6DOHC and 6-speed, but i know nothing about old Fords and the cost ov entry is still quite high on 67 Fastbacks. I have an even more cunning plan...
|
|
|
Re: Boss 302 Mustang or old Mopar *DELETED*
[Re: Pale_Roader]
#1494518
10/19/13 09:30 AM
10/19/13 09:30 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,165
Plymouth, MI
Blusmbl
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,165
Plymouth, MI
|
The unfortunate part about the vintage Mustangs is the lack of engine compartment space. Mod motors don't fit in them without a decent amount of cutting and fabrication. It isn't like an LS motor in a GM product or a new Hemi in an old Mopar, which practically fall into place.
'18 Ford Raptor, random motorcycles, 1968 Plymouth Fury III - 11.37 @ 118
|
|
|
Re: Boss 302 Mustang or old Mopar *DELETED*
[Re: Pale_Roader]
#1494519
10/19/13 10:54 AM
10/19/13 10:54 AM
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 841
Santa Fe Springs, CA
Dan@Hotchkis
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 841
Santa Fe Springs, CA
|
Quote:
I dont know where the 3100lb figure comes from, but i'd say its pretty far off... but in your favor. Here's the (vague) math:
70 Challenger: 3006lbs base.
70 Mustang FB: lighter.
69 Mustang FB: lighter still.
67-8 FB: lighter still.
65-6 FB: lighter still.
65 Notch: you get the point.
We 4-corner every car that comes through the shop. That weight for the 65 Mustang is a REAL car. Full steel, iron motor, 2 layers of sound deadening, heater and tunes.
Our Challenger weights are all steel car with Glass hood, Aluminium top end on the motor, full interior, no heater, no tunes.
Quote:
The unfortunate part about the vintage Mustangs is the lack of engine compartment space. Mod motors don't fit in them without a decent amount of cutting and fabrication. It isn't like an LS motor in a GM product or a new Hemi in an old Mopar, which practically fall into place.
Amen to that. After working on the last couple of Mustangs, I wouldn't put anything bigger than a non-mod 5.0 in them.
|
|
|
Re: Boss 302 Mustang or old Mopar *DELETED*
[Re: Dan@Hotchkis]
#1494520
10/19/13 12:47 PM
10/19/13 12:47 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,160
Texas
dannysbee
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,160
Texas
|
Unfortunately the new engines will not fit the engine compartment of the early mustang. But the positive thing is the 85-94 5.0 engine design is the same with a lot of research and development in place and 400 hp easily achievable in a light weight package.
Getting old just means you were smarter than some and luckier than others.
|
|
|
Re: Boss 302 Mustang or old Mopar *DELETED*
[Re: dannysbee]
#1494523
10/19/13 02:04 PM
10/19/13 02:04 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,456
Fly Over States
PHJ426
OP
master
|
OP
master
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,456
Fly Over States
|
Quote:
Unfortunately the new engines will not fit the engine compartment of the early mustang. But the positive thing is the 85-94 5.0 engine design is the same with a lot of research and development in place and 400 hp easily achievable in a light weight package.
Check this Mustang out with the Coyote engine in it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csScrn44P04
|
|
|
Re: Boss 302 Mustang or old Mopar *DELETED*
[Re: PHJ426]
#1494524
10/19/13 02:56 PM
10/19/13 02:56 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,160
Texas
dannysbee
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,160
Texas
|
I agree 100 percent on you decision to not modify your road runner. Too heavy and of the caliber it should be preserved and enjoyed as it is. Plenty of fish in the sea to modify.
The 69 mustang you posted is neat.
If I was to do a early mustang it would have to be a 65-66 coupe as my parents bought a new 65 when I was 10 years old.
Getting old just means you were smarter than some and luckier than others.
|
|
|
Re: Boss 302 Mustang or old Mopar *DELETED*
[Re: Dan@Hotchkis]
#1494525
10/20/13 06:53 AM
10/20/13 06:53 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
Pale_Roader
Swears too much
|
Swears too much
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
|
Quote:
Quote:
I dont know where the 3100lb figure comes from, but i'd say its pretty far off... but in your favor. Here's the (vague) math:
70 Challenger: 3006lbs base.
70 Mustang FB: lighter.
69 Mustang FB: lighter still.
67-8 FB: lighter still.
65-6 FB: lighter still.
65 Notch: you get the point.
We 4-corner every car that comes through the shop. That weight for the 65 Mustang is a REAL car. Full steel, iron motor, 2 layers of sound deadening, heater and tunes.
Our Challenger weights are all steel car with Glass hood, Aluminium top end on the motor, full interior, no heater, no tunes.
Okay, i thought he was talking BASE (shipping) weights. 3100lbs for a driving hotrod is a different story. I'm only using shipping (base) weights to compare ultimate potential here.
Quote:
The unfortunate part about the vintage Mustangs is the lack of engine compartment space. Mod motors don't fit in them without a decent amount of cutting and fabrication. It isn't like an LS motor in a GM product or a new Hemi in an old Mopar, which practically fall into place.
Amen to that. After working on the last couple of Mustangs, I wouldn't put anything bigger than a non-mod 5.0 in them.
Worth the cut in my opinion... but then again, i'm head over heels in love with the Ford mod. The old 5.0L with AFR's and the usual stuff would still make more than enough easy power to have a truly fast car in an early Mustang though. I recently drove a very fuel-limited (stock injectors), untuned, very mild-cammed AFR 165-headed 306 in a stockish 3200lb Fox. Just that was fast enough to slam most road Mopars. There was an easy 60HP left in that engine, and thats before you drop the vehicle weight 200lbs or more...
|
|
|
|
|
