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



  • 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: 21,847
    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: 21,847
    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?
  • 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?, 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
  • 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: 21,847
    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.
This discussion has been closed.