Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This can be summarized in one sentence - The 70's was a sucky time for muscle cars. PERIOD
The oil embargo was enacted, smog controls were now in place (and automobile manufactures were still developing technology to adapt to the new unleaded gas and cat converters), and the 55 MPH speed limit was soon imposed.
If you don't want these cars I will take them - the aftermarket makes it VERY EASY to increase HP on these engines with simple carburetor, manifold, and exhaust improvements. maybe cams. I'm not talking rice mobile type improvements, but turning a 200HP car to 400HP (might need a head replacement for this - but you are still technically in bolt-on territory).
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Funny someone would bring up the 72 Montego GT. A very good buddy of mine bought on of thesecars just a few yrs back. Car from AZand was perfect. The stock 429 was still in place an unmolested. The car was a looker but gutless. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]The major issue with the 429 was a lack of compression. After showing the car in it’s stock fourm fora year I helped my buddy build a single turbo setup that was perfect for thelowcompression motor. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Putting 10lbs of boost into an otherwise stock motor minusthe required Carb changes to handle the boost. The car really woke up andeventually ran in the low 13’s. Motorstayed together for about 5 yrs before the car was sold. My understanding is the new owner did a 351EFI motor swap but I never actually saw it again. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
...and then there are us freaks...well, ok, maybe I'm the only one , that looks at that 442, and thinks "that would actually make a pretty nifty sleeper..."
...and then there are us freaks...well, ok, maybe I'm the only one , that looks at that 442, and thinks "that would actually make a pretty nifty sleeper..."
Nope. A wrecked Mustang II would have been a piece of mercy. It was just that bad.
I remember the Mustang II's. A horrific wrong turn by Ford. Most of them were 4 cylinder. My friend had one back then, it was just like my mom's Pinto. Seriously - same engine, same interior design, same everything. It was a Pinto with a different body. An economy car.
Mustang's have never really been muscle cars by the way and were never really introduced to the market as such (although their have been some very fast models, and modified 5.0s still rule the dragstrip today because they are so cheap to make fast). The 6 cylinder Mustangs of the 1990s were really bad, I used to get them as rental cars and hated them, they were just sluggish.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, that looks at that 442, and thinks "that would actually make a pretty nifty sleeper..."
