- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If you had to choose, which one would you restore? '67 Mustang Coupe or Fastback?
Posted on 9/17/19 at 7:35 pm to troyt37
Posted on 9/17/19 at 7:35 pm to troyt37
Basing my comments on the many hours of reading I've done about that movie and Steve McQueen.
The Charger was much faster than the Mustang.
The Charger was much faster than the Mustang.
1
Posted on 9/17/19 at 7:35 pm to CuyahogaTigerJr
This 65 was not original, had a 289 put in, it leaked all fluids, had drum breaks all around that didn’t work good at all, but it would throw u back in your seat and chirp the tires when it shifted into second gear.
Posted on 9/17/19 at 7:36 pm to CuyahogaTigerJr
But I was 17 and should of died a few times
Posted on 9/17/19 at 7:41 pm to kywildcatfanone
Posted on 9/17/19 at 7:44 pm to N2cars
quote:
Basing my comments on the many hours of reading I've done about that movie and Steve McQueen.
The Charger was much faster than the Mustang.
Based on at one time owning a 68 390 GT Mustang, and being called out by every idiot with a Charger, even a few with 318’s, the 440 Charger was faster top speed, depending on the rear end gear of the Mustang. I was only willing to run mine up to 130 or so, because top speed racing is idiotic.
I never lost to a 440 Charger in the quarter. I usually pulled out a car length or two off the line, and although the Dodge was pulling me, never had enough to get me at the quarter. And if you think that land yacht was quicker around the streets of SF, I have a bridge you might be interested in.
ETA: the movie Mustang didn’t even have a limited slip rear end. The best thing about that Mustang was the soundtrack. If you judge the 390 FE by that movie, let me do you a favor and tell you not to bet your Vette on it.
This post was edited on 9/17/19 at 7:49 pm
Posted on 9/17/19 at 7:47 pm to finchmeister08
I’d still take my 1987 LX notchback grey 5.0 h o 5 spread over any car I’ve driven since.... for $1500 at 16 I should of never owned that car and I still have dreams of me driving down my back streets every now and then.
Posted on 9/17/19 at 7:52 pm to CuyahogaTigerJr
quote:
I’d still take my 1987 LX notchback grey 5.0 h o 5 spread over any car I’ve driven since.... for $1500 at 16 I should of never owned that car and I still have dreams of me driving down my back streets every now and then.
I graduated HS in 1988. Buddy had an 87 notch we used to have a lot of fun in. Ran a 350 IROC twice, owner couldn’t believe a little 302 was dragging his arse. He blew it up on the third race.
Posted on 9/17/19 at 7:55 pm to kywildcatfanone
quote:
This is the color of my neighbors.
Those are the colors from the Shelby GT350 they sold to Hertz for rental. They had a Rent a Racer program at the time. One of the VERY few early 4spd versions is my personal grail of Mustangs.
I painted my first Mustang in those colors. It was a 67 (the Hertz Shelbys were 66) and I moved the Lemans stripes out to run through the turn light indicators on the hood.
Posted on 9/17/19 at 7:56 pm to troyt37
I appreciate your loyalty to your car.
That is a pretty famous movie as you know. Every credible thing I've ever read says the Mustsng could not hang with the Charger, to the point that the Mustang needed extensive head/engine work to hang.
Also, if you'll notice, they did some pretty long runs in the movie, which agrees with your assessment. That very probably would make the Mustang look slow by comparison.
I don't think any 6Os car would handle too well on SF streets, tbh.
article attempts to recreate Bullitt battle
That is a pretty famous movie as you know. Every credible thing I've ever read says the Mustsng could not hang with the Charger, to the point that the Mustang needed extensive head/engine work to hang.
Also, if you'll notice, they did some pretty long runs in the movie, which agrees with your assessment. That very probably would make the Mustang look slow by comparison.
I don't think any 6Os car would handle too well on SF streets, tbh.
article attempts to recreate Bullitt battle
This post was edited on 9/17/19 at 8:03 pm
Posted on 9/17/19 at 8:15 pm to finchmeister08
One of my best friends from high school had a red stock 69 fastback.
I had a 73 Buick Regal, with a bench seat. Some nights, if he had a date, and I didn't, we'd switch cars. It wasn't a Mach 1, and it didn't have a 429 engine, just a 351, but it was fun to drive.
I had a 73 Buick Regal, with a bench seat. Some nights, if he had a date, and I didn't, we'd switch cars. It wasn't a Mach 1, and it didn't have a 429 engine, just a 351, but it was fun to drive.
Posted on 9/17/19 at 8:22 pm to troyt37
They were bad in the rain but I was 15-16
Posted on 9/17/19 at 8:25 pm to finchmeister08
Convertible
Fastback
Coupe
69 or 70 FTW
Fastback
Coupe
69 or 70 FTW
Posted on 9/17/19 at 8:29 pm to N2cars
quote:
That is a pretty famous movie as you know. Every credible thing I've ever read says the Mustsng could not hang with the Charger, to the point that the Mustang needed extensive head/engine work to hang.
The Mustang was giving up 50 cubic inches to begin with. Had it been an actual GT, it would have had a limited slip 9” rear end, which it clearly didn’t.
quote:
I don't think any 6Os car would handle too well on SF streets, tbh.
Agree, but the Charger was much bigger and heavier. Power to weight, plus the size difference, pretty much dictates that the Stang would run circles around the Charger in town. The only place the Charger was faster was on the open road.
Posted on 9/17/19 at 8:52 pm to N2cars
quote:
I don't think any 6Os car would handle too well on SF streets, tbh.
Correct. Plus, the 390 Mustang and the Charger would neither have been the best choice.
The actual Bullitt Mustang was crippled with a non-locking diff and a 3.0 rear end gear not ideal even with ~425 pound feet of torque.
In 68 Ford didn't offer a great road track (or Frisco street race) Mustang. The FE engine made them too front heavy and they didn't offer a HiPo small block. A '67 HiPo GT would have been a better option as would the '69 Boss 302.
The other thing many people do is romanticize the 1/4m times for 1960's muscle cars. A 68 390 GT was a 13.8-14.0 car. To put this in perspective that is near enough to a 2019 Accord 2.0T and Camry V6 times to make it a drivers race.
Posted on 9/17/19 at 9:03 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
The other thing many people do is romanticize the 1/4m times for 1960's muscle cars. A 68 390 GT was a 13.8-14.0 car. To put this in perspective that is near enough to a 2019 Accord 2.0T and Camry V6 times to make it a drivers race.
And to put that into perspective. The 1964 Ford Thunderbolt, with it’s 427 SOHC was advertised to turn 11’s or better in the quarter, with about 9”wide bias ply tires, which is very close to the new mid engine vette. That’s a 55 year old car.
Posted on 9/17/19 at 9:32 pm to finchmeister08
68 Hemi Dart laughs out loud at your weak sister pony cars.
Posted on 9/17/19 at 9:38 pm to fr33manator
quote:
Fastback, easily
This. But I’d go with a 69 Fastback.
Posted on 9/17/19 at 9:49 pm to mulletproof
quote:
68 Hemi Dart laughs out loud at your weak sister pony cars.
I show about 2600 426 Hemis to have been produced in 1968, both race and street. How many were put in a Dart? Regardless of your unicorn, the 428 Cobra Jet Mustangs more than held their own.
Posted on 9/17/19 at 9:57 pm to troyt37
quote:
The 1964 Ford Thunderbolt, with it’s 427 SOHC was advertised to turn 11’s or better in the quarter, with about 9”wide bias ply tires, which is very close to the new mid engine vette. That’s a 55 year old car.
And to put that in perspective the Thunderbolt was a factory-built race car put in production to win the NHRA SS class.
Muscle cars from the 60s and early 70s were darn slow compared to today's cars. It is an inescapable fact. Consider the Boss 429 would be a heads up race with a current Accord in the 1/4.
Posted on 9/17/19 at 10:06 pm to finchmeister08
OMG I had a baby blue Fastback. Fold down back seat, foot pedal wiper control, bucket seats ..... Fuk I wish I had that car back
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News