71-73 Own section???
5th Gear Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,089
From:
RE: 71-73 Own section???
71's don't have detuned engines. They have the same/better engines than previous years.
72-73 has the wimpo-motors.
72-73 has the wimpo-motors.
ORIGINAL: paddy187
+1 one on what soaring said all you have is a detuned engine if stock!!!!
+1 one on what soaring said all you have is a detuned engine if stock!!!!
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 45
RE: 71-73 Own section???
ORIGINAL: Colorado_Mustang
71's don't have detuned engines. They have the same/better engines than previous years.
72-73 has the wimpo-motors.
71's don't have detuned engines. They have the same/better engines than previous years.
72-73 has the wimpo-motors.
ORIGINAL: paddy187
+1 one on what soaring said all you have is a detuned engine if stock!!!!
+1 one on what soaring said all you have is a detuned engine if stock!!!!
1st Gear Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 59
From:
RE: 71-73 Own section???
own a 73 mach 1 q code..cj...has the old 4300d spread bore carb..266 rated rear wheel horse power..alot of 60's horse power rating were took at the fly wheel...alot of 1970's cars produced were tested at the rear wheel and not the fly wheel....so my cleveland cj at the fly wheel should be producing about 280ish horse ...not bad for a small block stock..it has a c6 auto trans and 9inch traction lock..looses about20 too 30horse power to the rear tires or more.
little known fact...351c 4v c6 autotrans has a small bell housing....it has a custom made fly wheel to make it fit and a stock 3000rpmtorqe converter ..good combo for the 4v heads that dont like to lite off till 3,000 rpm and above...4v heads are a little much for the street..but they can flow as good or better than alot of aluminum heads..219 valve lift..huge ports...easy to build up too 600+ horse
why do people think71-73 so heavy? ..just cause there big?.all unibody...curb weight is only 3100 too 3200ish pounds.. less than a new mustang gt with a 302 curb weight of 3300
little known fact...351c 4v c6 autotrans has a small bell housing....it has a custom made fly wheel to make it fit and a stock 3000rpmtorqe converter ..good combo for the 4v heads that dont like to lite off till 3,000 rpm and above...4v heads are a little much for the street..but they can flow as good or better than alot of aluminum heads..219 valve lift..huge ports...easy to build up too 600+ horse
why do people think71-73 so heavy? ..just cause there big?.all unibody...curb weight is only 3100 too 3200ish pounds.. less than a new mustang gt with a 302 curb weight of 3300
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42
From:
RE: 71-73
Iwould be interested in how the three years varied and an apples to apples comparison for the power outputs. I thought that the 71 was gross and then the 72 was net -accessories and that 73 was net +accessories. But I really don’t know the definitive answer.
1st Gear Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 59
From:
RE: 71-73
yup,,during 1972 is net horsepower ratings...all other years of stangs before 72 is actual horse power...the 1971 351 cleveland is rated at 285 at the fly wheel..the 1972 351 cjis rated at 271 horse with ac and all options runing...the 1973 cj is rated at 266 with all options runing....only 10 to 5 horse decline....i dont see why people consider the 72 and 73 turd years...they run just about the same...not alot of dif
think when it comes to the 71 to 73 years people get bias...let alone the myth that these are heaviest mustangs ever built,,i still hear that crud..i even emailed mustang monthly asking them why they said in there mag that the 1971 to 73 mustangs weight in at a whopping 4,000 pounds..lol....why does the curb weight say 3100 to 3200 pounds in all my manuals? and the editor emailed me back and said,,well maybe not quite 4,000 pounds..but a guy we know at the drag strip pulled theres across the scale and it was 3600 or more.......and im thinking..ummmmm.thats with passager and gas and oil..not plain curb weight...still not close to the 4,000 pounds...why would people take as the pure truth put that on a mag without checking it out?..made me think..cause there not popular yet in there eye and they even believe the myth's without checking them out completely...alot of spun webs when it comes to these years of stangs...i enjoy mine and just about all years of stangs..i even think the mustang 2 cobra's look good now days..lol..i use to hate them..lol
think when it comes to the 71 to 73 years people get bias...let alone the myth that these are heaviest mustangs ever built,,i still hear that crud..i even emailed mustang monthly asking them why they said in there mag that the 1971 to 73 mustangs weight in at a whopping 4,000 pounds..lol....why does the curb weight say 3100 to 3200 pounds in all my manuals? and the editor emailed me back and said,,well maybe not quite 4,000 pounds..but a guy we know at the drag strip pulled theres across the scale and it was 3600 or more.......and im thinking..ummmmm.thats with passager and gas and oil..not plain curb weight...still not close to the 4,000 pounds...why would people take as the pure truth put that on a mag without checking it out?..made me think..cause there not popular yet in there eye and they even believe the myth's without checking them out completely...alot of spun webs when it comes to these years of stangs...i enjoy mine and just about all years of stangs..i even think the mustang 2 cobra's look good now days..lol..i use to hate them..lol
I ♥ Acer
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 17,565
From:
RE: 71-73
ORIGINAL: hyena429
yup,,during 1972 is net horsepower ratings...all other years of stangs before 72 is actual horse power...the 1971 351 cleveland is rated at 285 at the fly wheel..the 1972 351 cjis rated at 271 horse with ac and all options runing...the 1973 cj is rated at 266 with all options runing....only 10 to 5 horse decline....i dont see why people consider the 72 and 73 turd years...they run just about the same...not alot of dif
think when it comes to the 71 to 73 years people get bias...let alone the myth that these are heaviest mustangs ever built,,i still hear that crud..i even emailed mustang monthly asking them why they said in there mag that the 1971 to 73 mustangs weight in at a whopping 4,000 pounds..lol....why does the curb weight say 3100 to 3200 pounds in all my manuals? and the editor emailed me back and said,,well maybe not quite 4,000 pounds..but a guy we know at the drag strip pulled theres across the scale and it was about 3600 or more.......and im thinking..ummmmm.thats with passager and gas..not plain curb weight....why would amagazine that people take as the pure truth put that on there without checking it out?..made me think..cause there not popular yet in there eye and they even believe the myth's without checking them out completely...alot of spun webs when it comes to these years of stangs...i enjoy mine and just about all years of stangs..i even think the mustang 2 cobra's look good now days..lol..i use to hate them..lol
yup,,during 1972 is net horsepower ratings...all other years of stangs before 72 is actual horse power...the 1971 351 cleveland is rated at 285 at the fly wheel..the 1972 351 cjis rated at 271 horse with ac and all options runing...the 1973 cj is rated at 266 with all options runing....only 10 to 5 horse decline....i dont see why people consider the 72 and 73 turd years...they run just about the same...not alot of dif
think when it comes to the 71 to 73 years people get bias...let alone the myth that these are heaviest mustangs ever built,,i still hear that crud..i even emailed mustang monthly asking them why they said in there mag that the 1971 to 73 mustangs weight in at a whopping 4,000 pounds..lol....why does the curb weight say 3100 to 3200 pounds in all my manuals? and the editor emailed me back and said,,well maybe not quite 4,000 pounds..but a guy we know at the drag strip pulled theres across the scale and it was about 3600 or more.......and im thinking..ummmmm.thats with passager and gas..not plain curb weight....why would amagazine that people take as the pure truth put that on there without checking it out?..made me think..cause there not popular yet in there eye and they even believe the myth's without checking them out completely...alot of spun webs when it comes to these years of stangs...i enjoy mine and just about all years of stangs..i even think the mustang 2 cobra's look good now days..lol..i use to hate them..lol
The engines didn't start getting pussyfied until 1974. So, you old 71-73 guys can relax. But, you still have less than 300 Horsepower.
6th Gear Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,007
From: Citrus County, FL
RE: 71-73
i even think the mustang 2 cobra's look good now days
while i think any mustang is cool, and i really like anything older - i always thought the 71-73's were too big and bloated looking. meanwhile most mustang owners crap on the II's, but did you know they sold more in 1974 than they did over the last couple years before the II's came out? i dont have the numbers in front of me but it was a huge jump, and that was without ford offering a V8 that year. i absolutely love these little cars, the front suspension is awsome, they drive like go-karts. heres a pic of a nice resto-mod II t-top car for ya to gaze at...
