C code quarter mile time

[robbz28]

I have looked on the web for this and I cannot find the answer im looking for. I can find info for the 289 GT but not for the 2bbl 289. Id like to know what a factory 289 c code automatic with the 2.79 gears would/should run in the 1/4. From what I read the GT ran around a 15.5 give or take a tenth. But that was with 70 more horses than a C code....my math puts a C code around an 17 second or so. The reason I am looking is because I have a 67 c code, I did not rebuild the engine, the PO did....but it runs great, it don't smoke, it don't use oil, it sits and purrs quietly at 500 rpm when idling. If it wasnt for the turbo muffler dual exhaust you wouldnt even know its running. The car just has no get up and go about it. I can make the right rear tire squeal and thats about it. Not that I am wanting a hot rod or anything, i just want to hear from others out there with bone stock 2bbl 289's to get some feedback on how "peppy" their cars are.
I built this car to drive long distances reliably. One of these days Im sure I will upgrade the engine and make it a little hotter (300 horses would be great). I know when I finally put the T-5 thats been sitting under my garage in it and put some 3.73 gears under it that will definately make it feel a lot stronger. Im just happy I can drive it now after the past 2 years of working on it!

 

[horseballz]

Rob,
If I remember correctly, a well tuned C-code with a dual exhaust upgrade should be able to turn a 16.5 or so. Maybe even a little better.
HTH,
Gene

 

[robbz28]

I put long tube headers, 2.5 inch mandrel dual exhaust, 4 bbl intake and a holley 600 vac secondary and points conversion kit. I know the 4bbl is overkill with the factory heads and compression, but the way i see it is the front barrels are around 300 cfm and if it ever needs the rear then they are there. I was making purchases for the future (331 or 347). I drive a 385 hp 4x4 tundra every day as my commuter and its just wrong for that thing to be faster than my "muscle" car.....knowwhatimean?

 

[zookeeper]

When my C-code fastback was stone stock, it ran a 17.76 @ 77 mph at sea level according to my G-Tech accelerometer. I need to run it again to see how it runs, but that's about what they'll do stock.

 

[robbz28]

17.7 sounds (and feels) about right although I don't trust a G-tech to be within a second of accurate from my experiences with them. They may be better now than when my buddy had one over 10 years ago when they first come out. Although my goal for now is to have a car i can just enjoy and cruise around in, in the future i would like some grunt to back up the looks.

 

[Realmongo]

See below link.

http://www.stangnet.com/mustang-forums/840382-stock-times-ponies.html

 

[robbz28]

See below link.

http://www.stangnet.com/mustang-forums/840382-stock-times-ponies.html

Thanks, so the 17 second area is about right seems. Feels like 17 seconds, lol. Feels like 17 minutes seeing how my last toy ran the quarter in 11.9.

BTW realmongo...Blazing Saddles always comes to my mind when i see your screename..."Hey you can't park that horse here, its illegal!........SMACK"

 

[Realmongo]

Back then, 17 seconds was not such a bad time for a low priced stock car.

 

[zookeeper]

Agreed, I mean look at it this way my wife's '69 427 'vette was timed at 15.1 by C&D magazine back in the day and it's a MONSTER compared to my Mustang when it was stock. We also raced on the freeway last year (from 55 to about 85) and the 'vette is still faster. Guess I'll need to keep going with my car...

 

[robbz28]

Back in the day traction was a big issue. If you could get your car to hook up you could get some good times. Today traction is not an issue thus we have seen massively improved ET's. I can turn my 17 second car into a 15 second car with gears and a stall converter and a little tuning, but it's not worth losing the cruisability. I'll gain my speed through good ol airflow and displacement.