Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





65/66 mustang the only stang worth a damn

12357

Comments

  • Well the name of this message board is total BS! stangs were great from 64.5-73 and then again from 87-93 so i don't wanna hear this 65/66 only crap!
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Posts: 1,352
    What's wrong with the '94 and up????
  • the modular engine doesn't have as much torque as the 5.0 pushrod design did, yeah more hp but torque is what matters and gets you out of the "hole". Also the 5.0 aftermarket is much larger than the 4.6 at this point, of course the 4.6 market will grow in time but the 5.0 is still better...94&95's are still good because they still (for the most part) had the 5.0.
  • kinleykinley Posts: 854
    67 on = derivatives. Other example:55-57 Thunderbird = original classics. 58 on = derivatives also. Were this not a fact, the newest T Bird wouldn't harken back to the 55-57's.All other factors being equal, the 65-66 Mustangs bring more money due to their unique style and chrisma. And so it goes.
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Posts: 1,352
    Yes, the modulars were down on torque in '96-'98 but the '99-'01 have more torque and horsepower than any factory 302/5.0 (even the BOSS 302 since it was rated 290 GROSS HP)

    Wrong on hemis
    Wrong on 428 heads
    Wrong on RWD Toronados
    Wrong on modular engine sizes
    Now wrong on power output of the 4.6.

    Please quit while you're behind.
  • Because you can fit a 460 big block in it!.
  • when i said 280/281/282...they were all engines used in the 96-up mustang...dubbed as 4.6L, one or two cubic inches isn't enough to change the liter rating. i may have been wrong on other things but this, I AM NOT.
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Posts: 1,352
    The 4.6 has NEVER changed in its bore or stroke since inception. It's ALWAYS been 4601 CC. This is 4.6 Crown Vics to DOHC Cobras and EVERYTHING in between. Please stop, the hole you've dug is nearly over your head.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,008
    why would Ford bother to take a 4.6, and make whatever slight modifications it would take (bore and/or stroke) to make a 280, 281, and 282. It just wouldn't make sense!

    Just for those fractional differences, you'd have to change stuff like pistons, the crankshaft, bore/debore the cylinder heads, etc. No company in their right mind would waste money doing something like that!

    Wait, I take that back. For a few years, Chrysler actually offered two different 383's. One went into Chrysler Windsors and Saratogas, and one went into Dodges, DeSotos, and Plymouths. Different bore & stroke, and the Chrysler engine actually had a smaller displacement! (by about .5 CID or so)
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Posts: 1,352
    That's the whole idea about the MODULAR engine design. Many interchangeable parts. The 5.4 and 6.8 V10 share rods and pistons. They all have the same bore. Yea, in the old days Ford had 2 351's. Identical bore and stroke but NOTHING would interchange. Them days is over with every cent being accounted for.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,008
    I don't really know my Ford history that well, all I know is one engine was called the 351 Cleveland and one was called the 351 Windsor. What exactly was the deal with that? Was one a big block and one a smallblock?
  • ...it can can change, not just with bore and stroke but cylinder heads...yes, it can, you may not know it but cyl. heads can have a slight affect because the combustion chamber is also included in the displacement of an engine. henceforth, different heads or head designs can slightly effect sizes and perhaps these sizes were rounded, not exactly 280/281/282. think about it....
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Posts: 1,352
    There was actually 3 different 351's!!! I almost forgot about the "M". They were all small blocks by the definition of they shared the same bore spacing and head bolt pattern. The "M"(while related to the "c") had a 429/460 bell housing pattern/taller deck and it was also the basis for the 400 Ford.

    The 351 W shares it's design with the 302. It has a taller deck and bigger crank journals and longer stroke. The Cleveland was a different block with more performance potential in that it had smaller crank journals and incredible (for their time) canted valve heads. The C has a goofy oiling system and needs restrictors to live at high RPMS. (Pretty ironic when that's what those heads and crank were designed for.)

    Like the SBC, the Windsor/302 has been around so long that the aftermarket supports it better than any motor ever(along with the chev).
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Posts: 1,352
    Will you please give it up!!!! The Combustion chamber is NEVER included in the displacement of an engine. It ,obviously, can change compression ratios but not the mechanical throw or bore of a motor.
  • modvptnlmodvptnl Posts: 1,352
    Maybe the Tom Green show?? I know now he's just pullin' our legs!! LMAO!! Good one smokin!!!
  • carnut4carnut4 Posts: 574
    Holy smokin' shovelful! I've heard everything now. Just imagine a wheelbarrow with a variable displacement load, and no wheel...
  • how'd you know?...lol, the only thing I really was serious about was the rwd toronado, i could have sworn they were rwd. what can i say, i don't know much about fords, but i swear the boss 429 was a hemi...oh well who cares, it's my opinion and beliefs and i refuse to change...what can i say, i'm a stuborn German...lol.
  • I thought the cubic inch displacement was based on stroke and bore. I thought it's basically a measure of air moved. So if I take two engines with the exact same bore and stroke, but with different compression ratios due to milling the head's or different pistons, wouldn't that change the amount of air being moved? That would easily account for the 1-2 cubic inch difference.

    Another reason while I'm thinking about it is that the displacement figure is a calculation. Maybe it's just rounding to different degrees, or over simplification. If 302 = 5.0l, that's 60.4 liters per cubic ". If 5.8l = 351, that's 60.5172413793 liters per cubic inch. Taking an average, 60.458620, multipling by 4.6 = 278.109655etc. A little less than 280/281/282(I thought it was 281??). Anybody lost now? I am... :)
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 22,008
    A lot of figures are rounded off when it comes to measurements. For example, a Chevy 302, a Ford 302, and a Pontiac 301 all share the same 4.00 x 3.00 bore x stroke. When I do the math, I get 301.5936 CID. However, I do not know if they're all exactly 4.00 x 3.00 inches. For example, if one had a bore of 3.995, it could still be rounded to 4.00, but the actual displacement would then be 300.8400872. Or if it had a bore of 4.004, the actual displacement would be 302.1970888.

    Displacement is just the bore and stroke though, and doesn't take into account the shape or volume of the heads. I think it's the volume of the heads that determines compression ratio, though. for example, when you mill the heads, it increases it. Put on a head gasket that's too thick, and it reduces it.
  • Tell me if this sounds like a good deal. 65, red, 289, convertible, power steering, brakes, top, pony interior, excellent condition, $15,000. Looking for a fun car. I suck as a mechanic though. Are parts still readily available? Is this car relatively reliable? It's just going to be driven in nice weather stored winters. Does it seat 2 or 4? How does the power top work? Thanks I'm new in this section just getting some ideas.
    Lee
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,050
    If you can turn a doorknob and put on your own shirt, you can fix most things on a '65 Mustang. They are lovely cars with 1935 Buick technology and very good reliability for a car of that age.
    And just about every part is available either NOS or repro or used.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • ndancendance Posts: 323
    I wonder how close you really could get to building a car from a catalog. Old mustangs strike me as good fodder for the concept. It seems to me that you could go as far as starting with just the 'tub' (by that I mean a doorless, glassless, 'egg' of sheetmetal running from the firewall, the roof and floor, and the floor of the trunk). You'd probably end up with $30k into a $15k car, but it might be fun.

    One variant on the car project I've thought about (this assumes that you're fairly well off) is how to provide a car for a teenager. Since modern ones are a tad on the shiftless side (well, aside from pitbull breeding, spitting, and wearing bare midriff clothing), my thought for a parent, is to buy a hulk of a cool car (a really early beetle or the aformentioned early mustang) and provide the money to properly restore it (in terms of parts, not other people's labor). This is the only car ever provided to the kid.
  • oh well back to the looking board. Looking at a 91 alfa now.
  • Just read through about 8 months of missed postings..

    Sorry you didn't catch that 65 michml320, but shifty is right easy cars to work on and a blast to drive. My two most important items to check for are rust and rust repairs, along with suspension issues.

    Ndance, a buddy and I though about this project as well a few years ago. I've seen a couple of photo alubums that show some convertable reconstructions that almost are new builds....

    bummer about the guy who puched the wrong button. I have a feeling there's more to that story though. I've ended up down the the wrong alley at work a few times by accident, if it's a random event it's always no harm no foul. But then , that's how it is here.
  • Hello,
    I have a '65 c-code Mustang convertible. The exterior is black with a white top w/ black interior. Put on slotted mags, b/c I got them for $40 for the set, but the offset is pretty horrible. Had 225/60/14s on, but downsized to 205s after putting on the mags. Anyways, I've done a few modifications to it. It has an ATK 302 with the original 289 heads, an edelbrock 4 barrel 600cfm electric choke carb, Edelbrock Performer RPM air gap manifold, true dual 3-chamber flows w/ an h-pipe and aluminized 2.25" piping front to back, stock exhaust manifolds (NO headers), stainless steel manual disc brake conversion in the front, gabriel striders in all four corners, Total Control Products upper control arms (NOT relocated), polyurethane spring perches, 700lb.in coil springs (~1 inch drop in front), 4 leaf standard eye leafs (stock rear ride height), export brace, front sway bar, K&N air filter, engine dress up (Mustang - Powered by Ford valve covers, chrome air filter housing, chrome dip stick), Pertonix ignition and coil, a Sony Active Black Panel cd player w/ 4.5" sony speakers in the doors. I have all the maintenance records dating back ten years. THe top is 3 years new, the engine 2 years and manual tranny (four speed T-10) is 1 year since rebuild. The car is an everyday driver. The interior is not bad by any means, but also not great. The decoding plate that tells everything about the car in stock form is gone. Found out it was a c-code built in Milpitas, CA from the vin number registered w/ DMV. California car still.

    No, I'm not interested in selling the car. However, I am interested to find out the market value for this beautiful car. Anyone care to venture either 1) how much they'd be willing to shell out for something like this or 2) how much the "market" would price it at? The body is straight, no rust, and no cutting, flaring, bending, or "permanent" modifications.

    Thanks for your speculations. Not running a test market or trying to "test the waters". I'm just curious.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright CaliforniaPosts: 45,050
    Very hard to value without looking at it, as it is now a customized car and won't work with standard price guides.

    Best you could do is figure the value for a daily driver Mustang convertible and presume yours would be worth less because it is modified.

    it's not so much that modifying the car is bad, as you've no doubt improved it in many ways, but that modifications are like jewelry, so personal that it is hard to find a buyer who wants exactly what you've done to your car.

    Just as a ballpark, I'd guess in the $8K-10K range would be where the action is for this car.

    MODERATOR --Need help with anything? Click on my name!

  • The year was 1980 and it was a quiet summer evening....

    My bride was out somewhere but her '66 V8 Mustang Hardtop (w Pony interior ) was sitting in our driveway 100 feet from the road practically hidden behind some trees on our rural property. We weren't using it and had taken it off the road about 6 months before.

    Suddenly a Pinto came hurtling up the driveway(if thats possible) with a smoke coming from the exhaust and a sweeter smelling smoke coming from the windows.

    Young man jumped out-

    " you gotta hold this car for me until tommorrow when I get back with the money "

    Me-

    " youll have to call my wife - she's attached to the car and isn't sure what she is going to do, besides it's been sitting ther for 6months I'm sure it will still be there tommorrow - so call her"

    Essentially this exchange was repeated 5 times with this guy getting more concerned about losing out on the car and me repeating myself.

    Then he progressed to insisting on giving me a deposit to "hold" the car until the next day. Despite my repeating my statement(see above).

    Finally, I realized I wasn't going to get thru to this guy and took a $20 bill just so I could get back to whatever I was doing when he showed up.

    Never saw or heard from him again.
  • That's about where I placed it, too.
    Though, I thought more $10k-$12k, but I'm probably optimistic or taking into account the inherent Silicon Valley mark-up. :)

    Guess the modifications really do hurt the resale value. Oh, well. Like I said, I'm not interested in selling, but was just curious. Upgraded the car for my own enjoyment, not to make a profit from. Thanks again for your speculation.
  • parmparm Posts: 723
    I'd appreciate hearing any feedback and comments from 65-66 Mustang owners (particularly convertibles) who've installed suspension and subframe reinforcement kits from Total Control. How well do they improve handling? Do they help reduce body squeaks and rattles? Are they worth the money? Thanks.
  • I have TCP uppers installed on my 65 convertible. I absolutely love them and think they were worth the extra money. I went to Mustangs Unlimited, got them with no tax and no shipping charges. Unfortunately, due to the tire and rim combination I was unable to relocate them a la Shelby. I also have added polyurethane spring perches, 700lb/in coil springs and Gabriel Striders set at the stiffest level. The tires are Firestone Firehawk SH30 205/55/R14.

    A guy at Mustang Fever is tricking out his 65 fastback with the best the aftermarket has to offer. He put the whole TCP coil over front suspension kit, lower controls, tie rods, and TCP manual rack and pinion. I do not know whether he has TCP frame connectors or another brand. He claims it handles better than most new cars. He does clovers off the freeway in Silicon Valley at 60+mph w/out any problems. I do clovers at about 40 - 45 mph and break a little traction. My girl's 1990 celica GT does the same clovers at 35-40 mph. She needs new tires though.
This discussion has been closed.