Classic Mustangs (Tech) Technical discussions about the Mustangs of yester-year.

Depressing

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 30, 2007 | 11:07 AM
  #1  
jrrhd73must's Avatar
jrrhd73must
Thread Starter
3rd Gear Member
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 540
From: Georgia
Default Depressing

I just bought my daughter a 67 Mercury Cougar with a 289 2bbl. I have a 73 Mach 1 that came originally with a 351C 2bbl. I was noticing that the 289 came stock with more HP (200) than my 351C (165).

My Cleveland has a ton more now, but that is dpressing that they detuned it that much.
Old Jan 30, 2007 | 11:10 AM
  #2  
shr's Avatar
shr
3rd Gear Member
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 533
From: Kansas
Default RE: Depressing

YEP! thank the goverment, insurance and gas companies for that!
Old Jan 30, 2007 | 11:59 AM
  #3  
Soaring's Avatar
Soaring
I ♥ Acer
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 17,565
From:
Default RE: Depressing

It all started in 1972. It all started to come back to normal in 1978-79 after the Mustang II's went their gas saving ways. I remember driving a friend's 76 Mustang with a 4 cylinder engine. It wouldn't pull the hat off your head.
Old Jan 30, 2007 | 12:33 PM
  #4  
paddy187's Avatar
paddy187
4th Gear Member
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,264
From: Eke, Belgium
Default RE: Depressing

I loved those late 70 v8's 5l oddand about 130 bhp and a car weighing shed loads make a hair dryer look powerful
Old Jan 30, 2007 | 01:10 PM
  #5  
fastbackford351's Avatar
fastbackford351
Foghorn Leghorn
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,923
From: I reside in a near constant state of amazment.
Default RE: Depressing

Say what you will about the 74 - 78 Mustangs, but they offer a really neat platform for a performance car. Granted that from the factory they couldn't pull a sick ***** off of a wet bedpan but I have driven a couple that had some snot put under the hood and they are LIGHT YEARS ahead of our classics as far as handling and fit and finish go.
Old Jan 30, 2007 | 01:16 PM
  #6  
gothand's Avatar
gothand
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,287
From: North Fulton, GA
Default RE: Depressing

Your '73 HP figures are probably net and the '67 HP is gross. The way they were rated was changed sometime in there.
Old Jan 30, 2007 | 01:19 PM
  #7  
THUMPIN455's Avatar
THUMPIN455
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,566
From: Marquette Mi
Default RE: Depressing

Also the method of rating HP changed in 72.. Prior it was perfect conditions, nothing on the engine like water pumps/alternators etc, and open exhaust, where as after 72 is at a different atmospheric condition with the full exhaust system and accessory drives in place.. So its more the rating that changed than the engines.. We still rate them the same way today, with a few changes, to SAE corrected numbers..

The Cleveland made more power than the 289 did, its just rated differently.
Old Jan 30, 2007 | 01:24 PM
  #8  
kalli's Avatar
kalli
6th Gear Member
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,417
From: Cork, Ireland
Default RE: Depressing

are you depressed that they detunded the car so heavily or that your daughters car is quicker than the car you're having now *fg* ;-)
Old Jan 30, 2007 | 01:37 PM
  #9  
jrrhd73must's Avatar
jrrhd73must
Thread Starter
3rd Gear Member
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 540
From: Georgia
Default RE: Depressing

ORIGINAL: kalli

are you depressed that they detunded the car so heavily or that your daughters car is quicker than the car you're having now *fg* ;-)
Actually her car is much lighter, I have the largest heaviest mustange ever made - but it is absolutely with out a doubt my favorite car!! Just depressing that a 289 is RATED at more HP than my 351C....
Old Jan 30, 2007 | 02:20 PM
  #10  
kalli's Avatar
kalli
6th Gear Member
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,417
From: Cork, Ireland
Default RE: Depressing

true ... and you're right 351ci rated with 165 HP sounds awful



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:37 AM.