Drag Race: 2020 GT500 vs 1967 GT500

[kilobravo]

Chris: What a GORGEOUS photo of the Boss 429!

Definitely adding that one to the gallery, thanks.

Advertisement

 

[fastergt350]

Chris: What a GORGEOUS photo of the Boss 429!

Definitely adding that one to the gallery, thanks.

When I see them I save them. Those 2 years that they were built are some of the Biggest Bad Ass Mustangs of all time till now, I am in love again.

 

[Strokerswild]

The Boss 429 was the pinnacle of Ford's muscle-era engineering and development, IMO. I love to see them at shows, but rarely do anymore.

By the looks of the pics of the maroon car, it's likely a clone although still cool. My brother is slowly building one himself out of a mint, low-mile Calypso Coral '69 fastback he bought out east. He's doing it right and it will have the proper shock towers and underpinnings among other hideously expensive factory parts, and will appear at a glance to be a "real" Boss 9 but will have modern brakes and suspension bits, a 6-speed, and a 500+ CI Boss parked under the hood. It's going to be something, assuming his other projects don't drag it out forever.

 

[kilobravo]

Dave: Your brother's project sounds DAUNTING but I wish him all the best. Love to see that beauty when it's completed.

I totally agree about the Boss 429 being the pinnacle of the day. I love those old big blocks and their sound but one has to admit that technology has made it possible to take performance to an unbelievable level today.

 

[Erik427]

How about these, and this piece of Ford history.

That's a Beautiful Mustang.......back when displacement meant something.

 

[Genxer]

Beautiful, clean cars. Not sure if I've ever seen a Boss 429 at a regular car show. I've seen plenty of the Boss 302, Mach 1, and tons of Shelbys.

 

[cbrookre]

In a video where Jay Leno drives the new GT500, he goes on and on about "in my day...", talking about the changes in tech over the years. He compared driving the old muscle cars to stuffing your pants with a rolled up sock.

I saw a recent video where they dyno'ed a Ferrari Testarossa. How many posters of that car were sold in the 80s, right? It put out 320 to the wheel. Still sexy as heck to look at but not exactly a beast by today's standards. Cars just keep getting quicker. Go back 15 years and there's quite a difference. Old muscle cars are turning into more of a museum piece, a work of art.

Agreed, but from a "seat of the pants" feel the Testarossa, with it's unrefined suspension and lack of "nannies" probably felt just as exhilarating to drive as a new GT500, but from a very different perspective. My standard GT is so refined at 435HP that it does not feel like driving the Mustangs of the 80's that seemed to be trying to kill you on a regular basis when you pushed them hard.

 

[okfoz]

My 67 Buick Riviera does the 1/4 mile in 15.0... it weighs 4300lbs... And are you telling me it is faster than the Shelby GT500 from 1967??? That is craaaazzzzyyy

 

[Rick#7]

Nearly 1,000 LB difference really shows how much lighter cars were then. Imagine the 67' with 760 HP.

It amazing how corporate build priorities change over time, usually guided by the gov't requirements. In the 80's cars were made lighter to improve mpg while still having better safety and crash survivability due to better engineering and manufacturing technology. At the time, 60s -70s cars were thought of as heavy, unsafe, gas hogs, but still faster than most new cars. During the 90s average weight started climbing as more and more features became standard, as well as more stringent crash test requirements which meant putting additional reenforcements in strategic areas of the unibody, more air bags and other safety features/equipment, all of which adds weight. Nowadays a compact car like the focus weighs more than those older, "heavy" musclecars of the 60s, but is much safer and more comfortable to drive while still getting 3x the mpg!

 

[okfoz]

I believe in part the reason why the 67 was so slow, was you cannot get the high octane fuel like we used to... Premium used to be 96+ octane

 

[Rick#7]

Higher octane by itself does not make a car faster. If the '67 ran without pinging, then putting 96 octane in it wouldn't make any difference in it's ET.

 

[biminiLX]

My dad has that exact and I mean exactly optioned ‘67 GT500. At least what I can tell from pics.
If you’ve seen the FAST (factory appearing stock) drag racing, you’ll see these cars can perform better than that ‘67 above demonstrated, but it just takes a high degree of tune and some tire mods if you’re stuck with factory bias plys.
Either way, a ‘67 GT500 is at best a high 12s car optimized for the strip.
Looks good doing it though.
-J

 

[okfoz]

Higher octane by itself does not make a car faster. If the '67 ran without pinging, then putting 96 octane in it wouldn't make any difference in it's ET.

True... to a point. The Mustang was more than likely tuned to run 96 Octane from the factory, then it will perform better on 96 than on a 93 tune. With that said, he more than likely has it tuned for 93, then you are correct it will not have much or any benefit to go to 96... My old car would run like a raped ape when I found some racing fuel, but I always kept it on the edge it made all the difference in the world. Just like people tuning their S550 GTs to run on E85, E85 performs better because the Octane rating can be 105. The down side to E85 is the amount of Fuel you use increases because it has less energy per ounce, where the old High-test 96 octane gas you did not lose mpg...