Mustang Evolution Forum banner
1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,981 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Some of these 0 to 60 times really surprised me. Especially as to how slow some of the "muscle cars" from the late 60's and early 70's really were.
Surely the 12.2 second 0 to 60 time of the 1974 Mustang II must be a low point in automotive history.........and yes, I had one of those.....:eek:

Car and Driver
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,964 Posts
No Terminator? Hm.
Too many other Mustangs that aren't on the list that should be.

Pick your poison.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,770 Posts
Some of these 0 to 60 times really surprised me. Especially as to how slow some of the "muscle cars" from the late 60's and early 70's really were.
Surely the 12.2 second 0 to 60 time of the 1974 Mustang II must be a low point in automotive history.........and yes, I had one of those.....:eek:

Car and Driver
I remember when that new body style came out in '74. Sad day for the Mustang.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
 

·
Registered
2014 Shelby GT500, SGM, " 1 of 1 "
Joined
·
894 Posts
Ford set the bar pretty high with the 13/14 GT500.
Base coupe - $ 54,800
0-60 - 3.5 sec.
200 mph top end
NO GAS GUZZLER TAX.

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,578 Posts
I remember when that new body style came out in '74. Sad day for the Mustang.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
Looking back, we all chuckle about the Mustang II, but it was actually a very successful car for Ford, selling nearly as many units in it's first year of production as the first generation did!
If you remember, everyone was buying imports at that time, due to the oil crisis of the early 70's. It was the right car, at the right time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,578 Posts
Ford set the bar pretty high with the 13/14 GT500.
Base coupe - $ 54,800
0-60 - 3.5 sec.
200 mph top end
NO GAS GUZZLER TAX.

.
In the 60's and early 70's the automobile manufacturers used to think that it was clever to send highly tuned "ringer" cars to the automotive publications for performance testing. In 1965 Pontiac sent the magazines a Catalina, powered by a 421 tri-power, that did a 3.9 second 0-60... On skinny bias ply tires no less!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,578 Posts
Some of these 0 to 60 times really surprised me. Especially as to how slow some of the "muscle cars" from the late 60's and early 70's really were.
Surely the 12.2 second 0 to 60 time of the 1974 Mustang II must be a low point in automotive history.........and yes, I had one of those.....:eek:

Car and Driver
Aside from a few exceptions, the performance numbers of cars from the muscle car era were pretty uninspiring, by today's standards anyways. I believe that this was largely due to the tire technology of the day. Radial tires didn't become widely available until the mid-70's, and by that time even the big block engines were so choked down by emission controls that they weren't even breaking 300 hp. On top of that, the government regulations for improved safety typically added a couple of hundred pounds of extra weight to the vehicles. It wasn't until the mid-80's that things started to pick up again.
But look at us now! You have a Mustang that will almost do a quarter mile in the time that it took your old Mustang II to get up to 60 mph.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,770 Posts
Looking back, we all chuckle about the Mustang II, but it was actually a very successful car for Ford, selling nearly as many units in it's first year of production as the first generation did!
If you remember, everyone was buying imports at that time, due to the oil crisis of the early 70's. It was the right car, at the right time.
But what a change in looks from '73 to '74. Especially the Ghia.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
I'm not sure how many of you lived the late 60's and early 70's or how many of you raced with these cars...take a stock Mustang GT and what are the 1/4 mile times?
My "real" 68 Z28 ran mid 13's on stock tires and through the exhaust with nothing but a tune...slicks and headers and it was in the 12.8's. My 68-1/2 CJ Mustang was in the high 11's although I bought it as a drag car and it was setup fairly well.
70's SS 454 Chevelles and hemi Road Runners were turning low 13's and over 110 through the traps on stock tires, with a set of slicks and headers they were almost into the 11's.
I'm basing what I saw and ran at the strip, not on the street.
Tires and headers were what you needed to wake most muscle cars up back in the day, now both of these technologies have advanced quite a long way in the past 30+ years.
So...I assume that most of you guys weren't even a twinkle in your parents eye when we were racing and tuning muscle cars...Without Computers!...and a 13 second street car was Very Fast!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,770 Posts
I'm not sure how many of you lived the late 60's and early 70's or how many of you raced with these cars...take a stock Mustang GT and what are the 1/4 mile times?
My "real" 68 Z28 ran mid 13's on stock tires and through the exhaust with nothing but a tune...slicks and headers and it was in the 12.8's. My 68-1/2 CJ Mustang was in the high 11's although I bought it as a drag car and it was setup fairly well.
70's SS 454 Chevelles and hemi Road Runners were turning low 13's and over 110 through the traps on stock tires, with a set of slicks and headers they were almost into the 11's.
I'm basing what I saw and ran at the strip, not on the street.
Tires and headers were what you needed to wake most muscle cars up back in the day, now both of these technologies have advanced quite a long way in the past 30+ years.
So...I assume that most of you guys weren't even a twinkle in your parents eye when we were racing and tuning muscle cars...Without Computers!...and a 13 second street car was Very Fast!
I was there. Born in '64 with a gear head brother born in '51. I saw the death of the muscle car due to the gas crisis and rising insurance rates. Very sad time. Fortunately, even though the manufacturers were changing things, the enthusiasts stuck with the old stuff and kept running them. My first car was a '70 Cutlass followed by a '73 'Cuda.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,981 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 · (Edited)
^^^ Guard was probably telling everyone that his car was running low 12's back then. :lol:
LOL:lol:...........I wonder what the 1/4 mile time was on that car! I do remember mine was a white over black MACH I (!!) V6 automatic (and SURELY everyone here over the age of 45 remembers the T-shaped chrome handle and curved PRNDL floor display on that transmission, right?)--- and it couldn't get out of its own way...SLOW doesn't begin to describe the experience.
:nonono:

Here's a good one for you to have as well.....

http://mustangattitude.com/mustang/1974/1974_00034_09.shtml
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,981 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 · (Edited)
Those mid 70's Mustangs made great Pro Stock cars!
Man, I would think that short Pinto wheelbase and lack of a frame would have made them a handful with that kind of HP and torque.:eek:
Not much different than the Vega's or Pinto's that they made into Pro Stock cars then though.
I do think that the longer wheelbase Maverick's made better looking racers than any of the above............
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
I was there. Born in '64 with a gear head brother born in '51. I saw the death of the muscle car due to the gas crisis and rising insurance rates. Very sad time. Fortunately, even though the manufacturers were changing things, the enthusiasts stuck with the old stuff and kept running them. My first car was a '70 Cutlass followed by a '73 'Cuda.


Sent from my iPhone using Mustang Evolution
I was born in 44, so I was there, building, driving and racing what at the time were the "real deal" Muscle cars of the 60's and early 70's...no computers, fuel injection or blowers/turbo setups that make it easy to achieve high HP/TQ numbers...all we had were carburetors unless you were in FC or TF...you youngsters don't know how easy you have it with you're factory hot rods!
Even my Maverick...which was at the 1979 Winternationals in B/SM turned 10.40's/.30's with a single carburetored Boss 302 and Liberty 4spd with 10.5" slicks and that was still almost .2/.3sec off the national record.
Didn't mean to ramble or reminisce about the old days...some great memories!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
Man, I would think that short Pinto wheelbase and lack of a frame would have made them a handful with that kind of HP and torque.:eek:
Not much different than the Vega's or Pinto's that they made into Pro Stock cars then though.
I do think that the longer wheelbase Maverick's made better looking racers than any of the above............
The Pinto's were short lived although the Vegas lasted a longtime...as drag cars go...I loved my Maverick and it took some serious HP/TQ...for 10 year ago... to get that 3200 lb car to the 9.80's with my big butt in the seat...still with a single carburetor.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,981 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
The Pinto's were short lived although the Vegas lasted a longtime...as drag cars go...I loved my Maverick and it took some serious HP/TQ...for 10 year ago... to get that 3200 lb car to the 9.80's with my big butt in the seat...still with a single carburetor.
I've always liked the styling of the Maverick -- especially the Grabber edition. Very nice looking cars. I even liked the name, although the car only lasted -- What --- three years?
I've never driven one, but they put the 298 or 302 in them in the Grabber with a manual trans, didn't they? That would have made a pretty nice street car.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
The made both the Maverick and the Comet from 1970 to 1977. 70's only came with 6 cyld, then an option for 302 in late 71...never came with 4spd's though.
There were really nice cars and in B/SM back in the day they were killer drag cars.
With a little work they could be built to corner with the best of them.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,578 Posts
LOL:lol:...........I wonder what the 1/4 mile time was on that car! I do remember mine was a white over black MACH I (!!) V6 automatic (and SURELY everyone here over the age of 45 remembers the T-shaped chrome handle and curved PRNDL floor display on that transmission, right?)--- and it couldn't get out of its own way...SLOW doesn't begin to describe the experience.
:nonono:

Here's a good one for you to have as well.....

White 1974 Mach 1 Paper Car Ford Mustang II Hatchback - MustangAttitude.com Photo Detail
The V6 would run about a 19 second quarter mile. Very similar performance to the Pinto. As a matter of fact, if you lined up a 6 banger Mustang II against a 4 cylinder Pinto, it probably would have been a driver's race.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,578 Posts
The cool thing about 60's and early 70's cars, is that you could order various displacement engines. And you could get those engines in different configurations, as far as compression ratios, induction, cylinder heads, etc. This makes it difficult to interpret quarter mile and 0-60 times, since there were so many power plant options. The performance numbers of a particular vehicle could vary wildly, depending upon how the car was optioned.
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top