I resent that remark about chevys. There are not bad cars. In fact, they were built better then any ford back in the day, but im not going into that. I know alot about chevies, since i am a chevy guy, that just ventured into mustangs. The older 64 1/2 though 67 are the only mustangs that i care about and i dont really like any other Ford product besides them.

 

We can all question the validity of that comment about Chevrolet's Charles. You are making an unqualified remark about the validity of the 60's Ford engines, etc., as compared to the chevies. Not a valid comment, IMO. They were certainly not built better body-wise, as history has proven the GM bodies fell apart during the 70's era. I know....I owned several, to include a 1972 Monte Carlo. What a POS that body was. However, I have to agree with you that the 350 engine in it was a strong runner.

 

NO NO NO. I'm actually talking about the bodies of the 50's and 60's. I know a few people, who have both owned Camaros, and Mustangs, including my dad. They ALL have said, the Camaro was a stronger better built car. My dad says his 68 wasn't as fast as his 65 hipo, but it had the feeling of a better built car. I know you know what kind of feeling im talking about.

 

Again, we have a disagrement. Body by Fischer was a joke.

 

lol, WHATEVER you say Glen. Ok, heres a test on your sanity. What car would you rather be broadsided in? A 65/66 mustang, or my 62 impala. My impala has a frame, and much thicker metal between you and the other car.

 

The frame may have added some rigidiy to the Fischer body, but all the parts fell off after a few miles. I was driving my brand new '72 Monte Carlo downtown, and the driver's side window fell down. I pulled a boat (small one) for a few miles, and the rear end gave out from the stress. The Axle bearing burned out. Nah, I am not a fan of the early 70's GM products. But, you may as well point out that all American car companies were putting out crap during that gas crunch era. However, I never had an early model 70's Ford fail me in the same way that the GM cars did. Yes, the 350 engine in the Chevy's are strong engines. So are the 302's, and 351's from that same era.

 

How can you compare a mustang to an impala. why dont you compare it to a galaxie or a fairlane 500?

 

Well, Like i said, I dont like any 70's model car, they were all junk to me. except 70-71. My impala is still here, all parts are intact, and it just passed it's 44th birthday. As far as engines, i like the ford engines, i dont much care for the FE's. Yes, They do make great hp, but they are just alittle harder to work on. Believe me, that 352 we have is a pain in the ****. I love my 289, and cant wait to build it, and see what kind of power it can get. I also like the chevy engines too. 350's are cool, but they are like a 302. There are SO many of them, just little differences here and there. Now one motor i want to get,is a Chevy 409, with 409 hp, but i'd take the 390 hp version too.

 

Im not saying chevies are bad cars, ive always have bad luck with them, but thats just me. Im still wonderin how you can compare an impala to a mustang, two completely different beasts

 

Because this is a mustang forum...... i was trying to compare a camaro to it, but since i have an impala, i just decided to use it. I mean listen, im not trying to dis the mustangs, if i was i wouldn't be on here everyday helping people. Just some grew up riding in different cars, working on different cars, thus, having different opinions on cars. NOW, guess what the first car i actually drove on the street was... My 66 mustang, and i loved it.