>If it makes any difference, the 05 uses 87 octane fuel, I think on the
>Mach's they based horsepower on 92 octane.
The one referred to in the e-bay ad has been rebuilt to use unleaded
fuel. However, there is much more to it then that. Absolutely no way
is a semi-stock `69 Mach I going to compete with a modern stock Mach I
in any area other then appreciation vice depreciation.

Signature
"Either kill me or take me as I am,
because I'll be damned if I ever change..."
The Marquis de Sade
66 6F HCS - 18 May 2005 19:30 GMT
>Absolutely no way
> is a semi-stock `69 Mach I going to compete with a modern stock Mach I
> in any area other then appreciation vice depreciation.
That depends on which flavor of '69 Mach 1 you get. BB or SB.
My '69 would definitely give an '04 a serious run for it's money in a
straight line. 400hp, 450lb/ft tq at sea level. Yeah, I think it would. ;)
Just waiting to bolt on some GT-40X's and open it up to around 425hp and
480lb/ft tq.

Signature
Scott W.
'66 HCS Mustang 289
'68 Ranchero 500 302
'69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
ThunderSnake #57
http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/
Desert Lurker - 18 May 2005 20:09 GMT
>>If it makes any difference, the 05 uses 87 octane fuel, I think on the
>>Mach's they based horsepower on 92 octane.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> is a semi-stock `69 Mach I going to compete with a modern stock Mach I
> in any area other then appreciation vice depreciation.
Of course now I see an 03 cobra for 22,600 as well as an 04 Mach1 for
23,400 my x-plan price puts the 05 GT(deluxe) at 24,700. I guess the
only thing to do is drive em all and see what I like the best.
I need to take a day and just test drive cars and see what I like to
drive. I know I don't like the 03 v6 vert with Auto. Gutless wonder.
Joe - 19 May 2005 01:11 GMT
>>If it makes any difference, the 05 uses 87 octane fuel, I think on the
>>Mach's they based horsepower on 92 octane.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> is a semi-stock `69 Mach I going to compete with a modern stock Mach I
> in any area other then appreciation vice depreciation.
That '69 is way cooler than any '04, regardless.
ZombyWoof - 19 May 2005 04:46 GMT
>> On 18 May 2005 02:29:48 -0700, "croaker68" <croaker68@yahoo.com>
>wrote
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
>That '69 is way cooler than any '04, regardless.
Well if coolness is a factor, there are tons of things cooler. I got
over worrying about what was & was not cool right after I came to the
realization that cars don't get you laid. I know buy what I like and
screw cool. Hell an Edsel with a blower could be cool.

Signature
"Either kill me or take me as I am,
because I'll be damned if I ever change..."
The Marquis de Sade
SVTKate - 19 May 2005 12:58 GMT
| Well if coolness is a factor, there are tons of things cooler. I got
| over worrying about what was & was not cool right after I came to the
| realization that cars don't get you laid. I
They don't?
Well SON OF A BITCH!
That's it, I'm gonna go buy a truck
Joe - 20 May 2005 00:49 GMT
>>> On 18 May 2005 02:29:48 -0700, "croaker68" <croaker68@yahoo.com>
>>wrote
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>>
> Well if coolness is a factor, there are tons of things cooler.
Of course there are. I was just trying to be on topic and stay within
the thread topic. That '69 is around the same price and it's a real
Mach.
> I got
> over worrying about what was & was not cool right after I came to the
> realization that cars don't get you laid. I know buy what I like and
> screw cool. Hell an Edsel with a blower could be cool.
Absolutely! At any rate, I happen to like cool things. So shoot me.