C&D history of mustang 0-60 times

[dpAtlanta]

Interesting read... it gives the 0-60 times throughout the life of the pony cars.

ENJOY, if you have not seen it yet.

https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g15105913/ford-mustang-gt-0-60-times/

Sponsored

 

[Shifting_Gears]

I think they skipped a few essential models like Fox coupe vs hatch, 94/95 5.0, 99-04 GT, 18+ 10 speed car.. for a few examples.

None the less, great read. Thanks for posting.

 

[obgod3]

How cool that white ‘83 is exactly the car I had, thought is was so fast then....both my tundra and my Mazda 6 will smoke it today....LOL

 

[Hack]

They were mean to the 1971 Boss 351! I love me some 351 Cleveland engine. Maybe that car wasn't fast to 60, but it was quick through the quarter mile (for the time).

 

[Spork3245]

It’s amazing how in the late 60s and early 70s that 0-60 and quarter times were dropping steadily, even starting to come to today’s crazy standards, them BOOM, 10+ seconds was considered acceptable. IIRC, this had a lot to do with people wanting better mpg and lead being removed from gasoline, but still... Not Mustang related but it’s incredible that a Ford GT MKII ran the numbers it did, numbers that are still considered “quick” today.

 

[Hack]

It’s amazing how in the late 60s and early 70s that 0-60 and quarter times were dropping steadily, even starting to come to today’s crazy standards, them BOOM, 10+ seconds was considered acceptable. IIRC, this had a lot to do with people wanting better mpg and lead being removed from gasoline, but still... Not Mustang related but it’s incredible that a Ford GT MKII ran the numbers it did, numbers that are still considered “quick” today.

It could happen again sooner than you think depending on who makes the rules that govern vehicles and their performance. Getting from 0-60 quickly is definitely not an efficient use of energy.

 

[tokuzumi]

They were mean to the 1971 Boss 351! I love me some 351 Cleveland engine. Maybe that car wasn't fast to 60, but it was quick through the quarter mile (for the time).

We look back on the muscle car era with rose colored glasses. Only a couple of cars were actually quick by today's standards. Most of those cars ran a 15-16 second 1/4, and would be left in the dust by a early 2000s Honda Civic Si. I think it was C&D who had an article with early 00s MazdaSpeed 3, Sentra R, and a Civic Si, and talked about how the 0-60 of most of those cars were lower than the holy grail cars from the late 60s. They felt fast because of all that torque, but when you have to shift at 4k because the engine ran out of power band, it's kind of hard to get any real good performance numbers.

However, some vehicles did leave a lot on the table, and if you adjusted a few carb settings, timing, along with some other minor tweaks, you could extract a lot more performance.

I would much prefer to own a 71-73 Mustang, compared to a newer Civic, but I also don't forget how much cars have improved over the decades.

 

[Spork3245]

It could happen again sooner than you think depending on who makes the rules that govern vehicles and their performance. Getting from 0-60 quickly is definitely not an efficient use of energy.

Porsche Taycan? Model S 100D? Model 3 Performance?
Regardless, I never stated that the current hp bubble wouldn’t burst.

 

[Grintch]

It could happen again sooner than you think depending on who makes the rules that govern vehicles and their performance. Getting from 0-60 quickly is definitely not an efficient use of energy.

Right this was driven by government regulation, not by consumer desires. Though the gas crisis did cause a somewhat sudden (but relatively short lived) shift to looking for MPG. If Obama's massive increase in the CAFE standard had gone through, we wouldn't have seen a GT500 or a 2018+ Mustang with a V8.

Maybe the crap cars of the '70's were made up for with free love and drugs?

 

[jake1164]

How cool that white ‘83 is exactly the car I had, thought is was so fast then....both my tundra and my Mazda 6 will smoke it today....LOL

My first mustang was an 84 5.0.. I so miss that front end, I so did love that car.

 

[Norm Peterson]

They were mean to the 1971 Boss 351! I love me some 351 Cleveland engine. Maybe that car wasn't fast to 60, but it was quick through the quarter mile (for the time).

I didn't see it that way. If anything, the car was a victim of the times. Eco, mpg, and insurance premium pressures.


Norm

 

[Bikeman315]

I didn't see it that way. If anything, the car was a victim of the times. Eco, mpg, and insurance premium pressures.
Norm

Not sure about that Norm. The Boss 351 was a one year car as the Government regs didn’t kick until 1972. Car did have some strong power numbers though. It was a damn good looking car too.
https://www.cjponyparts.com/resources/boss-351

 

[rcengr]

I had an 1989 5.0 LX and while it was fun to drive, I prefer my faster EB.

I also owned a 1967 390 GT. I was a little surprised at the poor 0-60 times for that car. But even with traction bars there was no way to get enough weight transfer to the back to hook up the stock tires.

 

[Hack]

Boss 351 engine in 1971. There was a buildup and test done in 2009 where they tried to do a build very close to stock and dynoed it. Pretty good for the times. I think 0-60 was mostly limited by tires.

Quick summary:
Boss 351 pumped out 383 hp at 6,100 rpm and 391 ft. lb. of torque at 4,000 rpm. Torque production exceeded 350 ft. lb from 3,000 rpm (and likely even lower) to 5,700 rpm.
http://www.mustangandfords.com/how-to/engine/mump-1001-boss-351-block-buildup

A little off topic for this forum, but I think the Cleveland had a similar high winding feel to it like the modern Coyote.

 

[Bikeman315]

But even with traction bars there was no way to get enough weight transfer to the back to hook up the stock tires.

Exactly. It was all about suspension and tires. These early muscle cars had a hell of a time hooking up. I would love to see the numbers with only a set of Cup 2 added.

Sponsored