[Guest]

Hi, I was just wondering how your mustang compares speed wise and performance wise to the cars of today. I mean, when put up against your modern sportscar, say a porche or a camero, how does your mustang compare? performance wise and handling, ect. if you can, say what mods are on your car. Just thought this would be an interesting question.

 

[Columbo]

Totally depends upon your stang, doesn't it. Mine is a stock 66 C-coder. Just so you realise... I'm in Europe, and the cars here are different from yours in performance and engines etc.

Compared to todays cars, I outrun a lot of 4 year old models at almost every light, because of the torque and me paying attention very closely to the light changes. I often reach the speedlimit before they do, but because of its age I also like to take it easy on the car. I just know it can keep up very well. The brand new cars even with lots smaller engines are very tough to keep up with. I may be away from the light fastest, but then I'm overtaken pretty soon.

I don't compare my car to Porsches and the like, cause I lose it to them. But they are modern superbred cars, the mustang back then, was not a real sportscar, so it still isn't now. Some models excepted of course.

Of course, any mustang can be made to go like a porsche, just depends on your funds....and desires. I like to keep my car stock and because in todays traffic it isn't really outperformed to the unbareable, it is still great to drive!

I just wanted to say this as many of the replies you'll be getting are from modified Mustang's owners and I just didn't want the stockers to be left out...

Columbo
http://members.brabant.chello.nl/a.schroeders/Columbo66.jpg http://members.brabant.chello.nl/a.schroeders/Columbo66_2.jpg
First time rolling restoration, 66 289 nearing completion.

 

[AussieMustang]

IMHO there is no comparison!
The early mustangs were simply a Falcon in better clothes. The market was taken by the look of the car . The engineering was basic even by the standards of the early 60s. After all it was a mass produced FORD for heavens sake. A company more driven by the profit motive than a desire for excellence. The car was purely a marketing and styling exercise. All be it a very successful exercise.
Again ,IMHO , to compare these cars to ALMOST any modern car , in engineering terms, is redundant . Like comparing a Model T to a Mustang. The industry is dynamic and ever improving, thanks to market forces and government regulation .
Modern cars are far safer in both primary and secondary safety (air bags ,4wheel discs, ABS etc) more comfortable, more fuel efficient ,less polluting ,faster, better handling . Some of these four pot rice burning buz boxes would leave most early mustangs for dead. WRX < EVO 4 etc
Modern cars are simply better in EVERY way .
Except one.
Modern cars, in the vast majority ,are as boring as bat ****e.
Mustangs are not.!!!!!!!!!!!!
IMHO

If in doubt give it a clout
If at first you don't succeed , find a bigger hammer
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1584152&a=12055089&p=43600042&Sequence=15&res=high.jpg

 

[abn]

My opinion is that we tend to lose it in aerodynamics, and hence high speed performance. We also tend to lose it in overall refinement. But loosely within the speed limit, we can perform quite well, with period modification, we can do it way cheaper (remember to tack on 7K+ in interest, 2k in tax and title, and outrageous insurance to that 22-28K modern "Pony-car"). As far as the stock super-cars go (Corvette being the low price point)...I think a 35-45K budget Mustang, intelligently modified may avoid being embarrased under 150 mph (pure speculation). And as far as my car goes...I can freeway merge with the best of them, in classic style that has endured the test of 32 years, for less overall than a wheel/tire package on an AMG. There's always somebody faster, but there are plenty slower.

And just to be long winded...cars don't compete, drivers do, and we each have our own standard as to what constitutes a "win".

 

[sharkfin]

Here is my 2 cents worth...... I have a bone stock 66 GT Coupe with a four speed. My daughter has an 89 LX with the High Output 5.0 and a 5 speed. The newer car is faster, it stops better, and handles better. Would I trade her? Never!!!! The 66 is about attitude. It might be slower, but it feels soooooo much better going through the gears! For me the Mustang thing is partially about re-living my youth, (17 year old kid with a 67 coupe, and a hot rod 289) partially about my love of old cars, and partially about driving something else that very few people have. I always get people commenting on my car. People with $ 60,000 cars always say the wish they had the Mustang of their youth. The important thing is to drive your Mustang and just enjoy it for whatever reasons!

1966 Coupe - GT - 4 speed
http://www.workforcescc.com/pdf/Side4.jpg

 

[66emberglow]

you said government regulations helped improve cars. Government regulations have NEVER helped the auto industry. They only limit the possibilities.

Imagine the performance we could be enjoying without catalytic converters and CAFE standards. I'm not saying that these things are bad, but they certainly don't improve our cars.


/forums/images/icons/blush.gifClick here to see free live bare topless Coppertonecam images./forums/images/icons/blush.gif
/forums/images/icons/smile.gifMy new 64 1/2 vert/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[66emberglow]

If you're trying to compare a 36 year old car to a new one on the basis of performance, I'm afraid you're going to lose. If your goal is speed and power, I would suggest a fox-bodied 5.0 with a supercharger. 400-500 hp with a little handling to boot.

But, if you like to drive something that feels good, plenty responsive to the throttle, and turns heads everywhere, the classic Mustang is the right choice.



/forums/images/icons/blush.gifClick here to see free live bare topless Coppertonecam images./forums/images/icons/blush.gif
/forums/images/icons/smile.gifMy new 64 1/2 vert/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[Guest]

Generally speaking, the Corvettes, f-body's and Mustangs of today are low, mid and high 13 second and 14 second cars right off the showroom floor. Some of these cars can even break into the 12's with a good driver (certain high priced models). As mentioned earlier, you would have to do some SUBSTANTIAL performance modifications to a Classic Mustang to hit these numbers. Many times these modifications will be a tradeoff to comfort and reliability. Handling wise, a classic mustang handles much like a Milk Truck. But for cruising, nothing turns the heads or stirs conversation like a nice classic Mustang. It all comes down to what you want to do to the car and what you are willing to live with, and how much you are willing to spend to go fast. Good Luck with what ever you decide to do!

Rex
1966 GT 350 Clone
289 (rebuilt with JE, Eagle, Arp)
Edleborck RPM Heads, RPM Air Gap intake,
Comp Cams hyd roller, Crane Golds,
Holley 650 DP, Hookers 1 5/8, Dual exhaust w/ X Pipe, T-10, 3:55's

 

[Gene_J]

Daughters 96 V6 Mustang is a LOT better in ride, handling, performance etc. It looses a lot in interior room tho. The 84 Fox body is also superior in every way but looks.

I still would not give uo my 66's!

Gene J

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1584519&a=12058180&p=43615717.jpg
66 Coupe/66 Convert/84 GT Turbo/96 coupe

Gene's cars

 

[GolfBoy]

Our mustangs were never meant to compete with Porsche. Some of the cars were modified to compete with Corvette (Shelby's), but overall, they were manufactured and marketed as the average family car.

You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me!!!
66 200 3-spd Coupe - emberglo, daily driver
65 289 4-spd Conv - Rangoon Red (what else)
66 Shelby - Red and Ready to be Restored

 

[66emberglow]

but they were actually marketed as a secretaries' cars. So affordable, even a secretary could afford one.

Are they "chick cars"?



/forums/images/icons/blush.gifClick here to see free live bare topless Coppertonecam images./forums/images/icons/blush.gif
/forums/images/icons/smile.gifMy new 64 1/2 vert/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

 

[Guest]

well, i read once that that the newer mustangs had a higher percentage of women buyers than men.

my friend in Germany has been collecting original ads for the last year, here's a near little web page with those:
http://www.early-mustang.com/ads.html

Charles Turner
MCA Gold Card Judge(64.5-65, 66)
'65 Fastback
'00 GT Conv, triple black


Check out my 65 [color:blue]fastback!</font color=blue>

 

[thespazardman]

No, but they're babe magnets

Thespazardman

 

[Guest]

i would rather fork out the extra money and have a vintage mustang that outperforms a corvette, porshe, etc. it would probaly still be cheaper than buying a corvette. then u have the best of both worlds, thats what im trying to do, slowly, ill let u know when my car can hit 200 mph though, lol.
besides i think corvettes are a midlife crisis car. l luv the old ones though, an old corvette is actually a little more rare than a vintage mustang. thats just my opinion though.

Corpus Christ TX

 

[Guest]

No comparison in terms of performance, handling, braking, comfort & reliability -- the newer cars beat the old mustangs hands-down. (mine is a '66 289 C code with auto)

I must say, though, that at 6'2," it's certainly nice to have the legroom of the mustang. Personally, I just love the looks, smell & sound of older cars...

my two cents...

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1590821&a=12112344&p=43884139.jpg

 

[Guest]

Because I use my 3rd car for weekend summer fun, I recently SOLD my Porsche 911 and BOUGHT a vintage Mustang. The Porsche was almost too fast and very stiff. It's a race car with a license plate. The Mustang gets more looks and positive comments and it's much more enjoyable to drive. If you want to cruise and watch the watchers, buy a Mustang. OR... if you plan to race with the wine and cheese crowd, buy the Porsche

My 2 cents, and worth every penny.

jim


68 California Special- Acapulco Blue- Will someone please sell me one Marchal fog lamp lense?

 

[Dean_T]

Well, My dad's '65 coupe has p/s, a/t, 2bbl 289 V8, and a/c. A similarly equipped '78 Fairmont (except with a 302 vice 289 and power brakes) can stomp it flat from standing start. The Fairmont can haul more stuff, get better mileage, and runs cleaner.

Where it gets stomped flat is the resale value. When the '65 was 23 years old a running beater (need resto but no major rust or collision damage) can fetch about $1500. I'd be lucky if I can get $900 for the Futura.

So the Vintage 'Stangs ('65-'73) will always have a greater "coolness" to bucks factor.

I like the old iron 'cuz if kept stock it won't depreciate or can be modified to perform as well as modern car (update by assimulating new technologies).

I like the old 'Stangs 'cuz they have character, something the new cars don't always have since the emphasis on better quality - which built the character right out of them.

My rambling thoughts,

Dean T

Shikatta Ga Nai - "It cannot be helped"

 

[Guest]

I personally think if there done right, old stangs can compare, and there a hoot to drive!!! New cars are BORING!!!!

65 coupe 302
(rebuilding a 351W)