the difference between 68 and 68 gt

PsyCHoXXX · Nov 28, 2005

also is it possible to put 600+ hp into a 68gt fastback
:SNSign:

65ShelbyClone · Nov 29, 2005

There's this little button in the bar in the upper part of your screen that says User CP.......FAQ......Members List.......etc. Third from the right it says "Search". You'll find at least one answer there.

Edbert · Nov 29, 2005

I thought the difference was about $500.

CochinoFilipino · Nov 30, 2005

65ShelbyClone said:
There's this little button in the bar in the upper part of your screen that says User CP.......FAQ......Members List.......etc. Third from the right it says "Search". You'll find at least one answer there.

I hit the search button and a window popped up. But i didn't see any answers to the question.

But really, what search criteria would you suggest? I need to hone my search skills. 68 GT = no results, 68GT = no results, 68 Clone and 68 replica come back with Shelby info.

LMan · Nov 30, 2005

Philosopher say...if you cannot find an answer, perhaps you are asking the wrong question

Edbert · Dec 1, 2005

I tried over a dozen searches just now and found nothing. Perhaps it is broken? Biggest problem with the search function is that the term "GT" is too short and not allowed as a querey.

Anyhow, the GT equipment package consisted of a few doo-dads (fog lights special wheels), and some graphics (badges/stripes), that's about it. Usually they were ordered with upgraded drivetrain/brake/suspension packages but these were not required.

I don't think 600rwhp is a good idea in a stock bodied classic hardtop, IMO not even SFCs and a rollbar are enough to take that for long. I'm a little worried about my 67 vert having 410fwhp and I have SFCs and a 4-point welded in. If you want that kind of power you should be looking into a 10-point or better. I say if you are thinking along those lines go get a full race tube-chassis and put a fiberglass body on it.

chepsk8 · Dec 1, 2005

In terms of the "GT" difference, no basic structural differences, as the 67-68 GT package was mostly cosmetic, such things as fog lights, stripes, etc. It was when combined with the better suspension, brakes, and engine options did the cars run better.

That's alot of HP for these cars, but do-able. As the posts above all say, that much HP will require a serious chassis, suspension, and tires, and your car will twist. My old 428 SCJ DP Mach had some permanent twist, and that was only with 428's and years of pounding.

I would recommend a re-think, less HP, and a chassis that works.

MadonnaRioRedGT · Dec 1, 2005

So...

The GT package was only cosmetic and did not necessarily mean that the car was running a 390?

- Brian

CochinoFilipino · Dec 1, 2005

No. A 68 GT could've had a four-barrel 302, 390 or 427 .

chepsk8 · Dec 1, 2005

Only the Cougars got the 427's.

You could also order the Competition suspension, disc brakes, and other options to make it quite a tourer. That's why the 390 GT's with all the options are big $$ cars, no one spent the money when ordering!

CochinoFilipino · Dec 1, 2005

Chepsk8, Three books in my office mention a 390hp 427 (W-code).

A yahoo search on '1968 mustang 427' yields many results.
ex. http://bradbarnett.net/mustangs/timeline/67-68/68/

chepsk8 · Dec 1, 2005

Could well be!

I may be mistaken, but do remember seeing the "W" option, but have never seen one in reality.

thanks for keeping an eye on me!

krash kendall · Dec 1, 2005

From Fordmuscle

Urban Legend: I saw a ’68 427 Mustang!

Sightings of W-Code Mustangs are quite common. We regularly receive letters (one in particular from Australia) of ’68 Mustangs powered by a factory original 427. So far, we’ve yet to document a car or even receive a picture of a VIN and trim tag with a W code.

In the early years of the hobby, enthusiasts assumed that Ford produced a W-Code 427 Mustang. Ford announced that the hydraulic lifter 427 would be optioned in the ’68 Mustang. The 427 did make production in the Cougar, though. Ford dropped the engine from the lineup, but there is still a faint hope that a few made production. Listed above are a couple of late stories about W-Code ’68s. You can make up your own variations of them, but we like the first story because it exudes the most confidence, since it tells of not just one, but two ’68 W-Codes.

Urban legend: 427 Mystery Solved?!

If Kevin Marti has all the facts from Ford, then no W-Code 427 Mustangs were built. According to his new book, Mustang by the Numbers 1967-1973 [copyright 1999 Kevin Marti, El Mirage, AZ (623) 935-2558], which takes information from Ford’s computer archives, the W-Code did not exist—at least where the Mustang is concerned. There is, however, a caveat—the ’72 options list does not show the rear deck spoiler as an option, even though it was shown in 1971 and 1973. Marti even backs up the what-if theory: “Ford might have built them in such small numbers that they never showed up as a Code, kind of like the ’67 Shelbys that had an S engine code (390) and were, in fact, packing the 428.” So, either they are or they aren’t, but so far we still have no graphic proof one way or the other

5.0StangRacer · Dec 1, 2005

were the 68 1/2 Cobra Jets GT's?

CochinoFilipino · Dec 1, 2005

KK, Very cool info on the W-code.
Chepsk8, notice that I did not say you were wrong. Only that i had reference to it. I feel like writing the authors of those books,,,

chepsk8 · Dec 2, 2005

Cochino,,
No problem at all. I was complimenting you for your accuracy. Good to know my old, feeble brain still works on occasion!

Edbert · Dec 2, 2005

Lord knows I've written down a few debatable tid-bits over the years, we gotta try to keep each other in line and corrected. Primary example that is not a direct hijack of this thread is that for ~20 years the "official" word was that the 65-67 C-code was not eleigible for the GT/GTA packages, but since about the year 2000 I keep hearing they were. Not very common since the upgrade from a C to an A was less than $100, but a C-code GT is not necessarily incorrect.

I want to back off from one statement, the GT package was not ENTIRELY cosmetic, for axample you had to have a V8 and you had to have a 4-speed manual or the C4/C6. It may well be that the latter is similar to the C/A discussion, nobody ordered the GT package and put a 3-speed manual in them but I've never seen a "real" GT with the 3-speed manual in it.

Since the GT package was a separate option package I'd say there were 428s in SOME 68 GTs. Although when the CJs came out mid model year and swept the Winternationals they were selling the CobraJet package fairly easily.

I love those FE's, a buddy of mine has one and just yesterday was complaining about the lack of an active aftermarket industry for them...sigh...all good things eventually end I guess.

LMan · Dec 2, 2005

deleted

MadonnaRioRedGT · Dec 2, 2005

So...

Could a '68 GT have a 289 in it?

- Brian

P.S.
I don't know classics...but I'm intersted.

CochinoFilipino · Dec 2, 2005

The same crap book that references a w-code says a GT had to have a 4-barrel V8. And in 68 the 289 was only available as a 2-barrel. So the answer is, no (if that crap book is correct).

That book would be Illustrated's Mustang Buyers Guide, Second Edition, BTW.

the difference between 68 and 68 gt

PsyCHoXXX

New Member

65ShelbyClone

Edbert

CochinoFilipino

LMan

Edbert

chepsk8

MadonnaRioRedGT

New Member

CochinoFilipino

chepsk8

CochinoFilipino

chepsk8

krash kendall

Active Member

5.0StangRacer

New Member

CochinoFilipino

chepsk8

Edbert

LMan

MadonnaRioRedGT

New Member

CochinoFilipino

Similar threads

the difference between 68 and 68 gt

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency