I've had buddies say the larger size of say a 1969 mustang makes the handling inferior to the smaller very early mustangs BUT the larger engines make them faster. Do you agree and which year(s) do you think, overall, is the most fun to drive and why?
Schoenbrau
Which year is best driving experience and why?
Smaller engine sizes can always be compensated for with superchargers.....
That said, it's a matter of personal taste. If you like "stoplight racing" there's nothing like a big block. If you want to carve corners you might prefer a small block. I like the curves, so I'd take a '65-68 with a 289/302-based powerplant, a '69-70 B302, '69 351W-4V or '70 351C-4V. There isn't a big difference in chassis between '65 to '70 and as long as you watch the weight they are all equally capable.
That said, it's a matter of personal taste. If you like "stoplight racing" there's nothing like a big block. If you want to carve corners you might prefer a small block. I like the curves, so I'd take a '65-68 with a 289/302-based powerplant, a '69-70 B302, '69 351W-4V or '70 351C-4V. There isn't a big difference in chassis between '65 to '70 and as long as you watch the weight they are all equally capable.
For handling and rough roads verts are always worst because the body/chassis is more flexible with no roof.
For road handling the fastbacks are probably best because of long stiff roof. Best daily use car IMO is coupe. Least blind spots, no sun baking, no headroom back area of the fastback/sport roof.
Verts are overall pain but I love 'em!
Overall perfomance...Boss 302.
Room and comfort 71-73.
For road handling the fastbacks are probably best because of long stiff roof. Best daily use car IMO is coupe. Least blind spots, no sun baking, no headroom back area of the fastback/sport roof.
Verts are overall pain but I love 'em!
Overall perfomance...Boss 302.
Room and comfort 71-73.
No doubt, a matter of personal taste. Nothing (in my opinion) beats a cruise in a SB '69 convertible just as the summer sun's going down. I might be a little bias on this subject, but, well... y'know 
Best for driving-
Really hard to pick, but here's what I have had- the current DD is the 64 convert I've had for 26 years and put over 382,000+ miles on it. I love driving it and usually pick it over the others. The 69 GT convert is more comfortable, has the 351W w/ 4V and we did 15,000+ in 2 years. The 08 6 cyl coupe was even more comfortable, but had a major defect- a roof! The newest is the 2016 GT convert w/ CDC Outlaw package that we put over 7,000 miles on in 7 weeks from new. Lots of bells & whistles and is a blast to drive. In the past 2 Pony Drives, I took the 64 on the 50th and the GF drove her 69. Last PD in Sept., I drove the 64 and she drove the 08. For the MCA 40th, I'll be driving the 64 and she'll have the 16! The ONLY car better to drive than the 64 was my 65 K GT convert, but like most idiots, I sold it!
Really hard to pick, but here's what I have had- the current DD is the 64 convert I've had for 26 years and put over 382,000+ miles on it. I love driving it and usually pick it over the others. The 69 GT convert is more comfortable, has the 351W w/ 4V and we did 15,000+ in 2 years. The 08 6 cyl coupe was even more comfortable, but had a major defect- a roof! The newest is the 2016 GT convert w/ CDC Outlaw package that we put over 7,000 miles on in 7 weeks from new. Lots of bells & whistles and is a blast to drive. In the past 2 Pony Drives, I took the 64 on the 50th and the GF drove her 69. Last PD in Sept., I drove the 64 and she drove the 08. For the MCA 40th, I'll be driving the 64 and she'll have the 16! The ONLY car better to drive than the 64 was my 65 K GT convert, but like most idiots, I sold it!
Attachments
Well, you can get a bigger engine in a smaller car, you know
For example, I know of a '66 fastback that's running around with a 408 and twin superchargers. 650hp at the rear wheels on only 2 lbs. of boost, and who knows what it would dyno at with more boost (we're all too afraid to find out). If that ain't the definition of "goes like piss" I don't know what is! :lol: No mods to the shock towers or body or anything, just plopped the engine right in there and made it work.
For example, I know of a '66 fastback that's running around with a 408 and twin superchargers. 650hp at the rear wheels on only 2 lbs. of boost, and who knows what it would dyno at with more boost (we're all too afraid to find out). If that ain't the definition of "goes like piss" I don't know what is! :lol: No mods to the shock towers or body or anything, just plopped the engine right in there and made it work.
I'm a complete 65-66 snob. But at one point when I was younger in the 1980's 5 different friends of mine had 70 mach 1's. One of my buddies had a 30,000 original mile 351 auto and unrestored, The car was an awesome cruiser,no mods just a great comfortable road cruising car,not a race car,no big cam,no obnoxious radio,no loud exhaust,no rubber band tires,etc. . I used to say to other Mustang people that 65-66 cars want to be 70 machs when they grew up. LOL
Bone stock car for car,the best. I've driven and been in Boss 9's,302,s every type of shelby,etc.
Bone stock car for car,the best. I've driven and been in Boss 9's,302,s every type of shelby,etc.
Actually, any 65-73 mustang is fun to drive for a multitude of reasons and personal taste. "Just pick your poison".
I was reading a article a few months back about the driving experience of the:
69 Boss 302
69 Boss 429
71 Boss 351
The article claimed the least desired of the bunch as the best drivers car for the Street, the Boss 351. The B302 was rev happy and fun but lacked decent low end torque for the street. The Boss 429 was too front end heavy and was handcuffed by the stock cam and carb. The Boss 351 was just right with a mix of low end torque and a rev happy mill with balanced handling.
Who knows if this is really true or not....
At the end of the day driving old cars is about preference, style and what appeals to you.
69 is when the Mustang went full muscle car, I like that muscle car look, so 67-70 is tops for me...also it is durning that era that the Mustang also had muscle car HP and cubic inches which is a big draw.
69 Boss 302
69 Boss 429
71 Boss 351
The article claimed the least desired of the bunch as the best drivers car for the Street, the Boss 351. The B302 was rev happy and fun but lacked decent low end torque for the street. The Boss 429 was too front end heavy and was handcuffed by the stock cam and carb. The Boss 351 was just right with a mix of low end torque and a rev happy mill with balanced handling.
Who knows if this is really true or not....
At the end of the day driving old cars is about preference, style and what appeals to you.
69 is when the Mustang went full muscle car, I like that muscle car look, so 67-70 is tops for me...also it is durning that era that the Mustang also had muscle car HP and cubic inches which is a big draw.
I'm a bit biased but I love my 65 fastback. It's the lightest stock mustang between 1965-1973, it has a 351w with aluminum heads that has more than double the HP of a stock 289 and with the aluminum heads/intake/lightweight internals it weighs less than a stock 289 as well. It stops on a dime with 4 wheel power disc brakes and goes like a bat out of hell. But with the Shelby 1" drop and all of the other suspension upgrades that I've just recently done, it also handles very well in the corners and isn't harsh to ride in plus it runs at approximately 2200 rpm on the freeway at 70mph and sounds great.
i'v had many 65-66 that i roadraced. i had a 69 i roadraced. i use to race a friends 73 in a straight line, and it was heavy. the lighter 65-66 are the most agile. you can make them very light. you can lighten the 67-70 but they will still be heavier than the 65-66. the 71-73 is the heaviest. it depends on how you are using it. for daily driving it really doesnt matter to me because i drive a 7900 pound 2006 f350 for work. on the roadrace track a gutted out 65-66 with light weight fiberglass parts is the way to go.
I also have a 351W in my 66 coupe, so if someone wanted to, they could get bigger displacement out of that block in the smaller car. I love the agile feeling in the 66, I suppose I need to ride/drive in later year mustangs as well, but I still have a feeling that I'll be more favorable for my 66.
I liked my old 71 for the PS Set up
always felt tight and responsive and no pesky leaks and rams to worry about
always felt tight and responsive and no pesky leaks and rams to worry about
IMO, once you get over a basic level of hp, it comes down to the weight of the car. That is, a 300hp car that weighs 2,800 pounds is going to be funner to drive than a 420+hp car that weighs 3,600. My '14 GT is an example of the latter. It's plenty fast, but that weight often keeps it from feeling "quick" (and I prefer quick over fast).
Well, weight and Hp are simple metrics, but the reality is far from that.
If the suspension is crap, the weight distribution is poor and the steering geometry has bump steer and other poor characteristics (all 3 were part of the core engineering for the Mustang!) then the answer is a bit more complicated...
800 Hp in a stripped shell at 2500lbs with soft rear springs, overly hard fronts and mushy shocks will not handle as well as a stock T code with some very minor suspension upgrades.... straight line a different story, but to me the "driving experience" is more than a 60ft or 1/4 mile speed... some want go-straight-fast, some want handling, the two are hard to balance well in an old Mustang....
I'll take my friends '97 Mazda RX-7 over any Mustang for "driving experience", its a car that was made to handle and go... not one you have to tweak to accommodate/adapt to overcome all the engineering flaws of a "sporty" inexpensive sedan...
As CS said, correctly IMHO, "its a secretaries car"...:smile2:
If the suspension is crap, the weight distribution is poor and the steering geometry has bump steer and other poor characteristics (all 3 were part of the core engineering for the Mustang!) then the answer is a bit more complicated...
800 Hp in a stripped shell at 2500lbs with soft rear springs, overly hard fronts and mushy shocks will not handle as well as a stock T code with some very minor suspension upgrades.... straight line a different story, but to me the "driving experience" is more than a 60ft or 1/4 mile speed... some want go-straight-fast, some want handling, the two are hard to balance well in an old Mustang....
I'll take my friends '97 Mazda RX-7 over any Mustang for "driving experience", its a car that was made to handle and go... not one you have to tweak to accommodate/adapt to overcome all the engineering flaws of a "sporty" inexpensive sedan...
As CS said, correctly IMHO, "its a secretaries car"...:smile2:
Stop listening to them. The 69-70 Mustang had the same wheelbase, frame rails, and substructure as the 65.
The 71 was slightly longer, but still had the same rear rails and springs.
In stock form they're all so-so in the suspension dept. yet I think any and all can be made into something really special with the help of aftermarket vendors that support our cars. I love my 68 FB that I've taken the time and energy to improve in all respects over stock and wouldn't trade it for any other model/year. The people on this forum and vendors really helped me learn how/what to do to make it ride and handle nice.
I will say that the nicest riding (in a comfy sort of way) and most stable feeling at high speed Mustang I ever road in was my buddies 72 coupe back in high school.
I will say that the nicest riding (in a comfy sort of way) and most stable feeling at high speed Mustang I ever road in was my buddies 72 coupe back in high school.
I love this forum. So much great info here, thank you all for contributing and helping me out. What do you think are the:
Easiest
Most affordable
Biggest improvement
Mods that can be done to improve handling? I'm sure that there's a different answer for each of those 3 things.
Easiest
Most affordable
Biggest improvement
Mods that can be done to improve handling? I'm sure that there's a different answer for each of those 3 things.
Well, if you look into it from an engineering standpoint...
Technically the 67+ cars have a more solid body because of the addition of torque boxes in the front.
They also have adjustable strut rods and do not require shims in order to adjust chamber, making aligning the cars much easier.
Convertibles (such as mine) are a flopping spaghetti noodle, even with all the bracing due to the lack of a roof. For corner carving, a 67/68 car with a solid roof is probably one of the best IMO, especially because they are slightly smaller than the 69/70 cars but have more strength than the 65/66 cars.
Now, all of these changes can be made to the early cars to make them just as strong as the later cars, but then you're limited to wheel width because they're still physically smaller cars.
But who cars, I'll take what I can get
Technically the 67+ cars have a more solid body because of the addition of torque boxes in the front.
They also have adjustable strut rods and do not require shims in order to adjust chamber, making aligning the cars much easier.
Convertibles (such as mine) are a flopping spaghetti noodle, even with all the bracing due to the lack of a roof. For corner carving, a 67/68 car with a solid roof is probably one of the best IMO, especially because they are slightly smaller than the 69/70 cars but have more strength than the 65/66 cars.
Now, all of these changes can be made to the early cars to make them just as strong as the later cars, but then you're limited to wheel width because they're still physically smaller cars.
But who cars, I'll take what I can get
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
