luc
Well-Known Member
, you are the one that claimed that Ford under rated, at 335, the horsepower of the 428 CJ engine.I appreciate your well thought out post as it is one of the best posts that I have come across in a very long time.
With respect to your comparison of a 2001 Jaguar XJR being much faster than your 1969 Mach 1 CJ not sure what prompted those comments?
Obviously your 2001 Jaguar XJR was much faster and so it should be as that car had 32 years of newer technology built into it which included a SC 4.0L engine, 5 speed transmission, fuel injection and has a great deal more horsepower than your '69 Mach I.
You that you do realize that your Mach 1's horsepower rating in 1969 was based on the SAE gross horsepower standard up to and including 1971 and then beginning in 1972 and beyond the horsepower rating standard was based on SAE HP net numbers which resulted in a significant reduction of horsepower (~20%) therefore your Jaguar had a great deal more power and was much faster than your Mach 1.
Having owned a Mustang from all 6 generations along with being allocated the very first Acura Integra GSR in Canada back in 1992, owned a 2018 Honda Civic Type R as well as still owning numerous GT350/R cars I certainly know the virtues of how fast and outstanding the cars of today are versus those cars from the Muscle Car era.
It was never my intent to suggest that the Muscle Car era vehicles could compete with today's cars in terms of performance on any level therefore not sure how you came to that conclusion regarding my earlier post?
Suggest that maybe go clean your own glasses and reread my post and maybe it will make a little more sense to you the second time around.
I say no way
Each horse carry 11lbs on the CJ and for the xjr, the exact same 11lbs
Obviously the American pony must be pretty small compared to their British brethren....
Sponsored