 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / March 2005American Hot Rod
I saw a few minutes of American Hot Rod last night. They were working on a fastback. The year, I'm guessing was a '67, right? I didn't notice at the time, but afterwards I seem to remember it had no shock towers and the engine compartment was straight and roomy. Am I imagining this? If not, what'd they do to the front suspension to do this?  SignatureJohn ThunderSnake #59 > I saw a few minutes of American Hot Rod last night. They were working > on a fastback. The year, I'm guessing was a '67, right? I didn't > notice at the time, but afterwards I seem to remember it had no shock > towers and the engine compartment was straight and roomy. Am I > imagining this? If not, what'd they do to the front suspension to do > this? They went to a Mustang II {probably replica} front suspension...a favorite for street rodders of all stripes do a google search. Signature- Yes, I'm a crusty old geezer curmudgeon.. deal with it! - >> I saw a few minutes of American Hot Rod last night. They were working >> on a fastback. The year, I'm guessing was a '67, right? I didn't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > They went to a Mustang II {probably replica} front suspension...a favorite > for street rodders of all stripes do a google search. Thanks. Found several sources using Google. I also looked through a few of my magazines and catalogs, this time with my eyes open to this. There's even one that criticizes the Mustang II design and they have their own design (Fat Man). Sure opens up the engine compartment, and the ads say the ride and handling are much improved. We all know ads don't lie, so has anyone here done this? What say you? SignatureJohn ThunderSnake #59 >>> I saw a few minutes of American Hot Rod last night. They were working >>> on a fastback. The year, I'm guessing was a '67, right? I didn't [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > handling are much improved. We all know ads don't lie, so has anyone > here done this? What say you? Logic and word of mouth backs that up. Thousands have spent thousands doing it, for years. I havent done it, but it would be first on my list if I were doing a "plain jane" restomod. But you'd need to stiffen the rest of the car as well to get the full effect. Do more reseearch... on google.. even on this group. Been discussed before. Signature- Yes, I'm a crusty old geezer curmudgeon.. deal with it! - >>>> I saw a few minutes of American Hot Rod last night. They were working >>>> on a fastback. The year, I'm guessing was a '67, right? I didn't [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Do more reseearch... on google.. even on this group. Been discussed > before. I'll do that. I'm thinking of changing my future project from a '69 mach 1 to a '68 coupe W code (clone, of course). I figure that would save me about $10K in the long run, if I buy a rust free recent restoration. SignatureJohn ThunderSnake #59 > I'll do that. I'm thinking of changing my future project from a '69 mach 1 > to a '68 coupe W code (clone, of course). I figure that would save me about > $10K in the long run, if I buy a rust free recent restoration. Sorry for jumping in late, but where would you be saving 10 grand? SignatureCobraJet >From NADA classic car prices: a '69 Mach 1 w/ 390 and 4 speed is reported as $27,540 average retail. a '68 2 door hardtop w/ 390 and 4 speed is reported as $11,875 average retail. The difference is > $15,000. (OK, I was low, but it'll probably take some of that 5 grand to make them equal) The demand for the Mach 1 is probably the cause. > >From NADA classic car prices: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > The demand for the Mach 1 is probably the cause. OK, so you were talking about initial cost. If you were going to make a W clone, you'd have to consider that it would eventually cost you more than a Mach I, and that there is still no conclusive evidence that any of those cars were ever produced. I know, Bill S. has claimed to have seen one, but not a single legit accessible car is evident in the hobby. You would basically have to use a W Cougar as an example. SignatureCobraJet >> >From NADA classic car prices: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > to have seen one, but not a single legit accessible car is evident in > the hobby. You would basically have to use a W Cougar as an example. I was actually thinking total cost since no matter which one I eventually do, it is going to have a W code in it, so that's going to be about about a wash between the two options. I understand it'll be a ULC (urban legend clone). Sorry Bill, I know you know what you saw, but that's the best description I can think of. Yes, the W Cougar will be my go-by. Looks like I need to shop for more manuals! It might be the same manual set for the '68 Mustang and a W Cougar in '68. I'll look later. SignatureJohn ThunderSnake #59 > >> >From NADA classic car prices: > >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > I need to shop for more manuals! It might be the same manual set for the > '68 Mustang and a W Cougar in '68. I'll look later. I'm interested to know why you want to build a hydraulic 427. They are not as fast as CJ's and very hard to piece together. Royce Petersen knows a lot about those cars; he's a member of the CCA and is a regular on the FE Forum. I have a correct carburetor core for one that I won't be selling cheap. SignatureCobraJet >> >> >From NADA classic car prices: >> >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > on the FE Forum. I have a correct carburetor core for one that I won't > be selling cheap. Nostalgia? Old memories? The only car I ever took down the drag strip was a '63.5 galaxie fastback with a 427. Damn, that engine could scream! It was a revver. Big cam. Solid lifters, I think. 2 x 4V's. 4 speed. Open Hooker headers. I think I was 14 or 15 at the time. The car owner had to ride with me since I was underage. It left quite a memory! Something unique? A real live W code mustang!. Hell, I can't say exactly why. I want one, and if I can swing it, I'll have one. Though a CJ would be nice if I can't swing it. I know, I know, the 428 has a longer stroke than the 427, and that means more torque or the same torque at lower RPM, and that's what wheel thrust and acceleration are all about! And there's a sh.t load more of them laying around. But who says I not going to bore and stroke it up to 480+ c.i. ;-) And, I only need one and I'll be happy the rest of my life (I think). SignatureJohn ThunderSnake #59 > >> >> >From NADA classic car prices: > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > want one, and if I can swing it, I'll have one. Though a CJ would be nice > if I can't swing it. An R-code is a lot different than a W-code. Think of the W as basically a bigger version of the 390 GT. Same heads, exhaust manifolds, hydraulic cam, 600 cfm carb. The block was a one-year deal that commands big bucks now, if you can find one. It was a stop-gap measure while the Cobra Jet program geared up. Better suited for the cushier Mercurys at the time. > I know, I know, the 428 has a longer stroke than the 427, and that means > more torque or the same torque at lower RPM, and that's what wheel thrust > and acceleration are all about! And there's a sh.t load more of them laying > around. But who says I not going to bore and stroke it up to 480+ c.i. ;-) > And, I only need one and I'll be happy the rest of my life (I think). A "clone" means an exact duplicate (at least externally). You can't get it to breathe well enough at 7 liters, much less with a stroker. Once you've upgraded the heads and manifolds, you are no longer building a clone. You're best off buying a Genesis block as a base and going from there. SignatureCobraJet >> >> >> >From NADA classic car prices: >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > building a clone. You're best off buying a Genesis block as a base and > going from there. You know I've been looking into Genesis anyway. They do crate motors now. With a 2 year/24k mile limited warrantee too. The upgrades you mentioned are on my list. I guess when you take the base W code, bore it, stroke it, upgrade the heck out of it with aftermarket products, and then shoehorn that into a non-numbers matching Mustang, because it was never in production, it's definitely not a clone. Is it a restomod or a street rod? SignatureJohn ThunderSnake #59 > I guess when you take the base W code, bore it, stroke it, > upgrade the heck out of it with aftermarket products, and then shoehorn that > into a non-numbers matching Mustang, because it was never in production, > it's definitely not a clone. Is it a restomod or a street rod? It's an American Hot Rod. SignatureCobraJet >> I guess when you take the base W code, bore it, stroke it, >> upgrade the heck out of it with aftermarket products, and then shoehorn [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It's an American Hot Rod. Duh!, and it was right there in front of me the whole time. SignatureJohn ThunderSnake #59 > >> >> >> >From NADA classic car prices: > >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >> >> >> take > >> >> >> some of that 5 grand to make them equal) According to the April 2005 Hemmings Muscle Machines: '68 390 4-spd GT fb: $11,000--23,000--35,500 (low, average, high) '69 390 4-spd Mach 1: $11,700--25,300--45,500 No appreciable difference in the drivers; BIG difference in the trailer queens. Though a CJ would be > >> nice > >> if I can't swing it. Again quoting Hemmings: '68.5 CJ 4-spd non-GT fb:$12,000--25,500--41,000 '68.5 CJ 4-spd GT fb: $13,500--28,000--43,500 '69 CJ 4-spd Mach 1: $14,800--31,800--57,500 '70 CJ 4-spd Mach 1: $14,000--31,000--50,500. > > A "clone" means an exact duplicate (at least externally). The term has expanded to include cars that are not nuts and bolts replicas. Many a Shelby GT350 clone has tubular control arms, 17" rims, 13" brakes, a stroker engine, etc. > it's definitely not a clone. Is it a restomod or a street rod? Hot rodders refer to production-appearing combos that never existed as "phantoms." 180 Out > > >> >> >> >From NADA classic car prices: > > >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > replicas. Many a Shelby GT350 clone has tubular control arms, 17" > rims, 13" brakes, a stroker engine, etc. No, those are restomods, or "restored with modifications". That's why that term exists. A clone is a clone. Do not propagate misuse of the word. > > it's definitely not a clone. Is it a restomod or a street rod? > > Hot rodders refer to production-appearing combos that never existed as > "phantoms." That applies to body styles only. A '67 Cougar convertible would be a phantom because they never made one. It has nothing to do with engine or drivetrain substitutions. Again, do not propagate misuse of the term "phantom". You're being counterproductive to the hobby. > 180 Out SignatureCobraJet > No, those are restomods, or "restored with modifications". That's > why that term exists. A clone is a clone. Do not propagate misuse of > the word. I would have to agree. The term clone describes an exact duplicate of the original. This is why I'm very careful about describing my '69 as a "quasi-clone" of a Boss 302. Externally it looks pretty damn close, but look for more than a couple secs and you know it's not real. It's definitely a restomod, but with a strong flavor of everything "BOSS". SignatureScott W. '66 Mustang HCS 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 > I know, I know, the 428 has a longer stroke than the 427, and that means > more torque or the same torque at lower RPM, and that's what wheel thrust > and acceleration are all about! So just put the 428 crank in the 427 block! nobody will know but you. ;) SignatureScott W. '66 Mustang HCS 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 >> I know, I know, the 428 has a longer stroke than the 427, and that means >> more torque or the same torque at lower RPM, and that's what wheel thrust >> and acceleration are all about! > > So just put the 428 crank in the 427 block! nobody will know but you. ;) Will that work? What other mods are needed to make this work? SignatureJohn ThunderSnake #59 > >> I know, I know, the 428 has a longer stroke than the 427, and that means > >> more torque or the same torque at lower RPM, and that's what wheel thrust [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Will that work? What other mods are needed to make this work? Common move since the 60's. Gives you a 447 at standard bore (4.23"). Lots more midrange torque without sacrificing revs all that much. Bolts right in; uses stock length rods and the correct piston. Of course, now we have the Scat lineup of cranks. Whole 'nother bunch of combos using BBC rods. The piston aftermarket has stepped up to fill this bigger-inch market. If you haven't already, check out dscmotorsport.com. You will be suitably impresstificated. SignatureCobraJet >> >> I know, I know, the 428 has a longer stroke than the 427, and that >> >> means [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > If you haven't already, check out dscmotorsport.com. You will be > suitably impresstificated. Oh yeah, I favorititized them. SignatureJohn ThunderSnake #59 >> "66 6F HCS" <92bottledance_spammit_@comcast.net> wrote >> So just put the 428 crank in the 427 block! nobody will know but you. ;) > > Will that work? What other mods are needed to make this work? Yep. Gives you a 447 with all factory parts. Bolts right in without any mods. A buddy o'mine has one in his '67 Shelby GT500. He yanked the original 428 to build a 600hp beast out of a 427 sideoiler. Low 12's with a C6 in the quarter. Ouch! And he's NO PRO driver, by far!! SignatureScott W. '66 Mustang HCS 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 >>>> I saw a few minutes of American Hot Rod last night. They were working >>>> on a fastback. The year, I'm guessing was a '67, right? I didn't [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Do more reseearch... on google.. even on this group. Been discussed > before Before I go searching, let me test my memory. You are referring to subframe connectors, right? If I remove the shock towers, I can't use those that connect there. Did I miss one? Yep. I just google'd. The shock tower connectors are called export braces, and did I miss the Monte Carlo bar? SignatureJohn ThunderSnake #59 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.