I wasn't that impressed either. Looks ok but ford was still dragging their feet in the power dept back then compared to the competition.
I wasn't that impressed either. Looks ok but ford was still dragging their feet in the power dept back then compared to the competition.The mach 1 new edge was a nice car, but imho, it didn't do the origional justice. For a 44 year old man like me, the origional mach is THE Mustang. IF they decide to release another, it better live up to
All I got to say is.. I drove a 70 Mustang (mach 1 clone) in high school and it was a bad b!tch. Would I have rather had a boss? Yes, but they were rare and expensive. The mach, even in the 80s was the car to have. The mach 1 new edge was a nice car, but imho, it didn't do the origional justice. For a 44 year old man like me, the origional mach is THE Mustang. IF they decide to release another, it better live up to the title. Talk crap about the mach all you want, if you weren't there you won't understand, and that's your loss.
All I got to say is.. I drove a 70 Mustang (mach 1 clone) in high school and it was a bad b!tch. Would I have rather had a boss? Yes, but they were rare and expensive. The mach, even in the 80s was the car to have. The mach 1 new edge was a nice car, but imho, it didn't do the origional justice. For a 44 year old man like me, the origional mach is THE Mustang. IF they decide to release another, it better live up to the title. Talk crap about the mach all you want, if you weren't there you won't understand, and that's your loss.
AreReally??
Here ya go 1/4 mile times for All 1970 performance cars: Please note the Boss is faster than the Mach 1in both 302 and 428/9 versions
Boss 302 14.85
Mach 1 351 15.23 / 16.00
Boss 429 13.64
Mach 1 428 14.03
https://www.facebook.com/View: https://www.facebook.com/HotRodHarrysGarage/posts/10151254903213160
We all have our favorites but data is data and motor trend is a car ad magazine
This^^.
Even at 44, you were late to the party.
I was thinking about the whole age thing as it applies to perception.
I know that I don't have to tell you this, but for the benefit of those that weren't yet born:
A Boss 302 has the image that it was a bad ass car. In fact 4 bbl Cleveland heads on a 302 made it a pig on the street.
Great T/A engine, famous race track heritage, gutless pig on the street. A 2.23" intake valve, a 1.71" exhaust valve, and an intake port that you could get your fist into does it everytime. Despite the 290 HP rating, that power didn't even show up until after 5000 RPM, and on the street, that meant you got your ass whipped.
This is one of many stories I've read over the years. M/T compares all three "Bosses" 302/351/429.
Real quicky education for the "fox generation".
1969 Ford Mustang Boss 302, 1969 Ford Mustang Boss 429, and 1971 Ford Mustang Boss 351 - The Boss Squad - Motor Trend Classic
I quoted boosted92lx when I made that reply.Who is 44, and how do you know that???
Are those times really for a new Camry and import SUV's? Those were dismal years.
For a bit, I thought you had a crystal shifter ball in the shop you were using.I quoted boosted92lx when I made that reply.
For a bit, I thought you had a crystal shifter ball in the shop you were using.
I take some of it back about the 69-73's being ugly. I like the earlier blue one in that pic a lot. I wish my old elementary teacher well, but his beard and UGLY white Mustang did not offset the double knit polyester.
Pre radial tires did make life more interesting.
Whatever the GT woulda had. It would be after all the badge on the car instead of GTIs it 'cause she can read eco boost and GT, or is it the hot babe you are drooling at in one and the hairy chested, gold chain wearing dude driving the other?
5.0 GT was a good marketing call. But what would the Mach 1 have for a drivetrain? A 351 modular with a blower?
Or just 631 at sea levelThis time, it needs to go 770 mph to get the title. That would justify any wing the import crowd can supply, or even going with Superbird style fascias.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?