Mustang Weak Performance

[Mustang5ohMan]

Yeah times they are awesome with muscle cars nowadays. But a lot of things happen in cycles. Maybe not quite exactly the same but similar. I can see the ICE getting choked out again within the next decade (the political pendulum swings), but there will likely be more electrics to fill the gap. I'm not a hater of the EV, but get more thrills from the ICE for sure.

we were thinking the same thing.

Sponsored

 

[DarkHors5]

this we are which is amazing! This is era is so far a bit over 10 years or so in the making. I hope it doesn’t end. There is political talk about killing the v8s and making things more fuel efficient. It’s why things are going towards all these turbo charged 6s and 4s now.

The sad thing is my GT is 2 liters more displacement, 160 more hp and gets better mileage than my 6cyl CUV did. If I drove the CUV like I drive the Mustang it would get 15-19mpg Baby it and I could get 22-24, road trips were 26-30.

The GT is averaging 22.5 and I'm enjoying the car. I'm looking forward to seeing how it does on a road trip this summer

The smaller engines do not always equate to better mileage in the real world

 

[TeeLew]

For some of us older guys the weak performance ended in the early 80's and also I think the mustang brand was rescued with the release of the 1986 Mustang GT.. Those who got the chance to drive a "stock" example after dealing with some 70's-80's cars will understand where I'm coming from...the 83?..84-85 with the factory holleys weren't far off..

This.
1979 The Fox chassis Mustang was introduced. The best version was an Indy Pace Car model which had a V8 or turbo 4 at ~150 HP and a 4 speed. (I had a 302 one!)

1980-81 No 302/5.0, just a lame 255 V8. Disregard.

The GT made it's debut in 1982 with a 5.0L 2bbl carb with a 4 speed and something like 160 HP. For the time it was pretty decent.

1983 it got a 4 bbl carb and 175 HP. T-5 transmission.

1984 200 HP & 4 shocks on the rear axle to stop it from jumping around (which it still did). The SVO turbo model was introduced.

1985 210 HP These were pretty cool. These were the last with a 4v carb and the strongest of the flat tappet engine cars.

1986 200 HP, but more torque and the first Speed Density EFI with a roller camshaft engines. These were torquey, but revved out early. Also, the last year of SVO turbo.

1987-1993 225 HP/300 ftlb torque. The quintessential 5.0. In 1988, they started using a MAF sensor for the EFI. For the time, this car was fast as shit. Now, you wouldn't think it was all that fast, but I guarantee if you've ever really hauled the mail in a 5.0 you've had your hands full. They were fun, but they had no problem snapping loose and dumping you in a ditch, either. The chassis was a flexi-flyer sled which would crinkle fenders when you started to put power to it.

In 1993, there was also a Cobra variant that was rated at 230 HP (due to a different way of rating power, the standard fell to 215 HP, but it was the same engine)

If you want to criticize a Fox Mustang, you'll have no problem finding places to do so. Keep in mind, Ford sold an unchanged car for 7 straight years and they sold TONS of them. They were cheap, fun and _everyone_ modded them. I called it a 75% car. The last 25% was whatever you wanted it to be.

 

[RalphK]

this we are which is amazing! This is era is so far a bit over 10 years or so in the making. I hope it doesn’t end. There is political talk about killing the v8s and making things more fuel efficient. It’s why things are going towards all these turbo charged 6s and 4s now.

I do see more of that happening, but I believe there will always be a V8 option for some time to come, you will just have to pay through the nose in some sort of government gas gussler or similar tax/punishment.

 

[GeorgeC]

I remember my 271hp 289 1965 Mustang was no match for most other V8s. Same for the 390 and 428 Cobra Jet against other big blocks. The 406 Galaxies and 427 Thunderbolts were very competitive, but they weren't Mustangs. Once you got into the mid 70's the performance of all cars were pretty awful. Some of the mid 80s Mustangs were sort of OK and may have performed better than Camaros. But, nobody cared.

I had a new 67 go and I would avoid running 289 hipo's cause even if you won you were beating a 289 and a lot of times if the 289 had gears in a short race you would lose. I belive the 289 hips was badness

 

[Balr14]

I had a new 67 go and I would avoid running 289 hipo's cause even if you won you were beating a 289 and a lot of times if the 289 had gears in a short race you would lose. I belive the 289 hips was badness

My 289 hipo Mustang got totaled by a woman who blew through a stop sign in an Imperial. The Mustang suffered massive body damage, but the drive train was still good. So, I bought the car back and put the drive train in a 29 Model A two door that weighed about 2500 lbs. Nobody picked on me after that.

 

[1958cyclist]

Well, I thought that John Clor's column in last months MCA "Mustang Times" about the Mustang II was telling from one particular point...the perspective of what was going on during when a particular Mustang model was being conceived. His main point with the Mustang II was that sure, it may have been one of the lowest performing Mustangs, but it existed during a slew of new regulatory restrictions placed upon it, and to add insult to injury, a gasoline crisis.

It's easy to broadly span the spectrum from 1964 1/2 to the present and draw conclusions about better and worst, but to be fair, consider the environments in which these vehicles were created. And, another consideration...the Mustang has had uninterrupted production since it's inception...no other competitor can say this...

 

[15GTCA]

Well, I thought that John Clor's column in last months MCA "Mustang Times" about the Mustang II was telling from one particular point...the perspective of what was going on during when a particular Mustang model was being conceived. His main point with the Mustang II was that sure, it may have been one of the lowest performing Mustangs, but it existed during a slew of new regulatory restrictions placed upon it, and to add insult to injury, a gasoline crisis.

It's easy to broadly span the spectrum from 1964 1/2 to the present and draw conclusions about better and worst, but to be fair, consider the environments in which these vehicles were created. And, another consideration...the Mustang has had uninterrupted production since it's inception...no other competitor can say this...

And because of this uninterrupted progress, we have the S550 today.

 

[noac]

1982 Mustang GT was the revival...”The Boss is back!”.

 

[XS]

For anyone interested, Engineering Explained on YouTube has an interesting and eye opening video about specific output. In short HP/Liter is a useless measure of output. However that's the traditional punching bag American cars are subjected to. Also people judge past cars performance biasedly almost always. They'll compare a $2,700 V8 car to a $10,000 exotic of the time or a special edition that sold in tiny numbers (GNX vs the world anyone?). Technology has drastically changed in so many areas too. However, I've been to enough drag days to know these old cars with modern tires and shocks and decent drivers can school any keyboard warrior hotshot in their brand new Supra/Corvette/SRT/CTS-V/BMW/Lexus/etc. Their 100hp/liter all of a sudden doesn't mean squat when some 65 year old guy is pulling away in a 50 year old Boss Mustang hahahaha. I've seen it dozens of times. Now, don't get me wrong, I had an '88 LX and THANK GOODNESS technology has come this far, my S550 is world's better of a car. But don't count out the oldies either.

 

[CCCP1999]

Beating an early C4 is not a big deal, I used to do it all the time in a 1980 VW Scirocco. Those vettes were slugs.

Most all cars were dumbed down after around 1973 until around 2000. Some of the Vettes only had around 200hp for years. Not until the rare LT5 C4 came out did they have any good power in the 90's. Even the last made C4 only had around 330hp.

 

[Norm Peterson]

For anyone interested, Engineering Explained on YouTube has an interesting and eye opening video about specific output. In short HP/Liter is a useless measure of output.

It's really a measure of an engine's state of tune. And indirectly an indication of its rpm capability. Probably of more value in racing where there are classes with displacement limits than at drag racing where it's 'run what you brung".


Norm

 

[Grintch]

In the classic muscle days, I think it was Ford's policy to underrate the HP to help with insurance and classing. So the baddest Boss 429 only had 385hp on paper, significantly less than the baddest Camaro . This didn't seem to fool the insurance companies, or the race sanctioning bodies.

 

[Dave TBG]

Most all cars were dumbed down after around 1973 until around 2000. Some of the Vettes only had around 200hp for years. Not until the rare LT5 C4 came out did they have any good power in the 90's. Even the last made C4 only had around 330hp.

This is especially true of the American auto industry. Most of the world embraced smaller, lighter cars with smaller engines and then augmented that with fuel injection, forced induction, more valves, etc. Ford, GM and Chrysler simply detuned the same pushrod V8s until they were forced to admit that they couldn't compete anymore.
Prior to the fuel crisis, a BMW or Audi was an oddity, Toyotas and Datsuns were even rarer and Honda made motorcycles. The automotive world changed, it took the US a while to catch up. Imagine where we'd be if we figured out how to make a car handle a couple decades sooner.

 

[Grintch]

This is especially true of the American auto industry. Most of the world embraced smaller, lighter cars with smaller engines and then augmented that with fuel injection, forced induction, more valves, etc. Ford, GM and Chrysler simply detuned the same pushrod V8s until they were forced to admit that they couldn't compete anymore.
Prior to the fuel crisis, a BMW or Audi was an oddity, Toyotas and Datsuns were even rarer and Honda made motorcycles. The automotive world changed, it took the US a while to catch up. Imagine where we'd be if we figured out how to make a car handle a couple decades sooner.

Be careful. If the US had fully "caught up" the Ecoboost would be the top Mustang, not the 700hp + GT500. Luckily, so far we don't have the massive taxes on fuel that make that a relatively reasonable car.

GM & Chrysler still selling pushrod V8's pretty successfully.

Sponsored