According to the car mags I have read from back then they were both about the same in the quarter at about 15.5 seconds.

 

Bluntly put here.

In 67 one of my friends bought a new 390 S Code. A Guy from Beardstown had a 65 K code. Both stock as they recieved them.

MANY times on Chicken (A strip of highway out side of Rushville, ? maybe 1/4 mile or there abouts) the K code would wipe the S code.

Take this for what's it worth--Remember, the driver playes a bit of the equasions.

Dan @ Chockostang

 

The March '67 issue of Road and Track lists a 17.4 time with a trap speed of 84 on a 289 A code, 4 speed, 3.00 rear end, 2980 pound coupe.

The March '67 issue of Hot Rod lists a 15.31 time with a trap speed of 93.45 mph on a 390 S code, 4 speed, 3.25 rear end, 3262 pound fastback.

Lastly, the November '66 issue of Car & Driver lists a 15.2 time with a trap speed of 91 mph on a 390 S code, C6 automatic 3.00 rear end, fully loaded 3414 pound fastback with the A/C blasting.

 

Anyone have a time for a K code fastback?

 

'65 Hi-Po w/ 4:11 rear: 15.7 @ 89 mph. top speed 117... Sports Car Graphic 9/64

'65 Shelby GT-350 w/ 3.89 rear: 14.7 @ 90 mph top speed 124 ... Road & Track 5/65


'66 Shelby GT-350 w/ Paxton w/ 3.89 rear: 14.0 @ 92 mph, top speed 127. (15.5 @ 82 mph w/o Paxton connected, ... Car Life 7/66

remember that the 390 times were from Mustangs that weighed 600 pounds more than the '65 - '66 Hi-Po's.

Z. Ray

 

I've seen Road Tests that said 15:30's for the 67 Shelby, 4 speed (like mine). This makes sense as I took it out to US 30 (Gary IN) a couple of months after I bought it, and it ran 15:30's
I also put headers on it, had a little head work done, and a different distributor. Then it would run 14:50's/14:60's.
And, almost every single 390 67/68 Mustang around thought they could take me. Never happened.

 

The S-code edged out the K code in 1/4 acceleration and for the money and reliability the S-code effectively put the solid lifter K-code out of business, it was dropped in 1968. Imagine putting money down on a solid lifter high reving powerplant and along comes a garden variety big block with a mild cam and hydraulic lifters that can beat the K-codes performance without a lot of fanfare? Do the math.

 

hmmm....considering the car magazines of the time ripped the 390 a new a##hole I think you are wrong.

Edging out in the quarter mile is pretty darn subjective. I know my own quarter mile times have varied pretty darn good.

 

I still would buy the K code back then or now!
When the Boss 302 came out it would be the Boss 302 over the big block.

 

My vote would be for the big block..The heavier the car is the more advantage the big block's torque has..

 

I'd have to vote for the big block, but that being said I think I saw more tailights with the FE in my car simply because it blows the tires out of the hole until you let up on the throttle, launching one of those things on stock size tires is d*** near impossible, I can see where a small block would have an advantage. The guys that drove them for Ford probably had each one down as far as technique for the best times.

 

hmmm....considering the car magazines of the time ripped the 390 a new a##hole I think you are wrong.

Edging out in the quarter mile is pretty darn subjective. I know my own quarter mile times have varied pretty darn good.

I didn't make that up, it's common knowledge. Try finding something to the contrary and post it for us. It is true the BB engine WAS more powerful when the two cars were ran in their STOCK configurations. Again, that's part of the reason the K-code was dropped.

 

take a 5.0 and a 393 stroker, with good traction the 393 will win every time.

 

take a 5.0 and a 393 stroker, with good traction the 393 will win every time.

That's not a good comparison because those are both SBFs. Those both have the same parts, so the only difference is the cubes, giving a huge advantage to the 393 with just a slight weight disadvantage.

 

I didn't make that up, it's common knowledge. Try finding something to the contrary and post it for us. It is true the BB engine WAS more powerful when the two cars were ran in their STOCK configurations. Again, that's part of the reason the K-code was dropped.

Maybe I am mis-reading your post here since there are postings in this thread already that put the 289k and the 390 within tenths at the 1/4 which means its a drivers race with no clear winner IMO.

This site http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60times.html
which you can take it for what it is...another site on the internet with data that may or may not be 100% accurate but certainly claims it used numbers posted by magazine testers says this:

1964 Ford Mustang (289ci V8 w/4spd) 7.5 15.7

1967 Ford Mustang (390ci V8 w/4spd) 7.4 15.6

Now, I actually have absolutely no idea why Ford did away with the k code, although I'm willing to bet there is a larger chance it had to do with the change to the 302 and cost cutting since there were many more motor choices available to the consumer than an actual exec saying "hey you know what, that 390 is soooo badarse of a motor it blows everything away so we should just drop that k code setup"

 

Emission laws probably helped kill it off also.

 

The March '67 issue of Road and Track lists a 17.4 time with a trap speed of 84 on a 289 A code, 4 speed, 3.00 rear end, 2980 pound coupe.

The March '67 issue of Hot Rod lists a 15.31 time with a trap speed of 93.45 mph on a 390 S code, 4 speed, 3.25 rear end, 3262 pound fastback.

Lastly, the November '66 issue of Car & Driver lists a 15.2 time with a trap speed of 91 mph on a 390 S code, C6 automatic 3.00 rear end, fully loaded 3414 pound fastback with the A/C blasting.

I've got the March 67 original R& T mag, and have a '67 4 speed A code 3.00 rear GT FB. I have always suspected their time as being a little on the slow side - not much, but just a bit pessimistic. I'm sure that even with a corrected speedo (ie reading 63 MPH as a true 60 MPH given the 3% error margin specified in the article), my car gets to 60 in 9.4 or 9.5 seconds, as opposed to the 9.8 R&T obtained. Also, R&T's coupe had the California emissions system on it, so maybe that added a couple of tenths to the 1/4 times? So it reasons that a no emissions car would be a couple of ticks faster, which corroborates my SOTP time meter as well. But nowhere near K or S code territory, I know!

Interestingly, in the Feb '67 R&T, they tested a GT500 with auto, AC and an open rearend, and got 15 to 15.5 seconds in the 1/4 mile. They commented that they "found the big 7 litre engine disappointing, as the Mustang's 390 does about as well". Well, as it turns out, Mustang Monthly or some similar mag recently found the actual test car R&T used. It was the first GT500 done (red, auto) and apparently it was shipped out Shelby's door with the original 390 still occupying the boiler room except for the dual quad intake added to it. So, R&T was correct in it's assessment in that particular case.

 

I didn't make that up, it's common knowledge. Try finding something to the contrary and post it for us.

Look here...

http://www.woodyg.com/fairlane/390years.html

 

That article is truly biased and written to show the result they wanted. NHRA 390's are not stock 390's. I could write that same article about Alex Denysenko's MoneyMaker to show the K beats the pants off a 390.

I am not saying a 390 Mustang is not a cool car because I know they are. The original question was how a stock 390 compares to a stock K code. Basically, they run the same. It is also true that magazines of the time were very critical of the 390 especially compared to the Chev 396. The 390 was 325 hp and the 396 could be bought with 375 hp.

Tasca was a force behind the introduction of the 428 CJ because the 390 was not cutting it on the street.

Now, why was the K discontinued. We can all speculate. Perhaps one reason is Ford expected the 1968 302 tunnelport to replace it. When the tunnelport proved to be a dud in 1969 they introduced the 302 boss.

 

I am sure that this is the case. Ford did not really "eliminate" the K code in 1968, they just planned to replace it with the 302 tunnelport. The introduction of the Boss 302 in 1969 pretty much proves that Ford saw the niche filled by the K code as still there. In other words a car just about as fast as the big block in the 1/4 mile but that could also corner at more than 10 mph because it did not have that "boat anchor" effect up front caused by the T-Bird engine.

 

The S-code edged out the K code in 1/4 acceleration and for the money and reliability the S-code effectively put the solid lifter K-code out of business, it was dropped in 1968. Imagine putting money down on a solid lifter high reving powerplant and along comes a garden variety big block with a mild cam and hydraulic lifters that can beat the K-codes performance without a lot of fanfare? Do the math.

And the 390 was about $250 cheaper.

 

By my reckoning, it's more like $170, but that was then, in today's money it's more like $1200. So, try explaining to a car buyer today why he should spend over a thousand dollars more on the smaller engine. Lack of sales killed the K code. Even the smog was solved, halfway through 67 they began equipping the K code with a smog pump, just like they later did with the 390GT, 428CJ, and BOSS 302. But Ford only sold a few hundred K codes the whole year. By comparison, the 68 J code, its replacement, sold by the thousands, a pretty successful engine, although it was eclipsed by the 351W in 69.

 

hmmm....considering the car magazines of the time ripped the 390 a new a##hole I think you are wrong.

Edging out in the quarter mile is pretty darn subjective. I know my own quarter mile times have varied pretty darn good.

I didn't make that up, it's common knowledge. Try finding something to the contrary and post it for us. It is true the BB engine WAS more powerful when the two cars were ran in their STOCK configurations. Again, that's part of the reason the K-code was dropped.

also, the 390 was cheaper than the Hi-Po.

Z. Ray

 

+1

The same factors that influence VMF members today influenced car buyers back in the day...cost. A couple of hundred dollars may not seem like much today but again, when the car itself cost about $2600, a couple of hundred was a much more significant figure. Buyers voted with their wallets and something like 470+ K codes were built while many more S codes were built in '67.

 

Buyers voted with their wallets and something like 470+ K codes were built while many more S codes were built in '67.

Let's face it, a 390 looks so much better under the hood of a '67 then a K code does, rarity aside.

 

Back from the dead thread. irate:

15s.... Jeez, what dogs. Woof Woof! What did a 396 Camaro run?

 

On average, just a tad faster, which is why Ford retaliated in mid-68 with the 428CJ.

 

Speaking from experience, the 390 Does walk all over the 289.

I used to have a 67 coupe with an A-code that was built to about 300 Hp at the Crank, Built C4 and 3.00's. One night I stopped at a light next to a Powder Blue 68 GT Coupe and we got on it off the line and by the end of 2nd gear he had me by 2 car lengths. I never knew what hit me until about a year later I came across him at a filling station and that is when I found out it was a GT390, C6, 3.00's.

Funny, I was just telling this story earlier today. I had him in First Gear, but after that I never stood a chance, he walked by me like I was standing still. Andrew

 

Also chevy came out with the 302 290 hp plus had the 327 300 or 360hp for the camaro. the 390 had to complete with 396 325 or 360hp.