Jump to content

MeanMachine

VIP Members
  • Posts

    115
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About MeanMachine

Vehicle Info

  • My Car
    1971 Coupe
    Built 306ci, Nitrous,
    Modded C4, 9" rear w/4.57s

Location

  • Location
    Alabama
  • Region
    Southeast

Personal Information

  • Sex
    Undisclosed

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

MeanMachine's Achievements

Enthusiast

Enthusiast (6/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

15

Reputation

  1. I dare to be different sometimes, as long as my changes compliment the car. By the way, I really admire the 385 series engines, in the early 90s I was building a 460 with 429 SCJ-spec heads for my M-Code Mach 1, unfortunately I sold the car before completion, but building that big block left a lasting memory.
  2. Thanks, and if you're referring to the '302 Windsor' graphic on a ram air hood, I was the one that designed that too. :) (search: 'A Spin on Graphics')
  3. I've seen only a few restomod builds of our year cars and hope to see more builders look toward our Mustangs in the future. I'm still waiting for that one build that knocks it out of the park! Even though I'm a Chip Foose fan, and thought if anyone could pull off a great '71-'73 build, it would be him.....MachFoose just didn't impress me. I was hoping that he'd take some of the already muscular features and design of the fastback and really punch it into the 21st century. One car I was impressed with, from the SEMA show a few years back, was the '72 Javelin that the Ring Brothers built. Being that the Javelin shares some similar styling with our '71-'73 Mustangs, it would have been interesting to see their vision of a Mach 1 build. I like how they tied in the 70's design with modern flare. If I had to critique, I would have preferred a built AMC engine rather than the Hellcat powerplant. Nevertheless, I'd be very interested to see (even sketches) how they'd build a '71-'73 stang. So far, all their builds look top notch. I made this in Powerpoint to illustrate some of the ideas I thought might accentuate the design of the incredible '71-'73 Mustang. Things like more prominent hood scoops, large honeycomb grill, bigger wheels, graphics, front spoiler redesign, side marker light deletes, etc.
  4. My '71 started out as a 2-BBL 302 with 3.00:1 gearing and it would roast the (single) tire when I first got it. I don't fear the gear, being that I don't have to commute long distances or cruise the highway. The '71 is far from stock anymore and runs a 4.57 gear with a 28" tall tire. My Mach 1 has the option of a 4.11 or a 3.70 gear, as I have multiple 'pumpkins' for 8 and 9 inch rears. Guess you can tell, I enjoy acceleration :)
  5. Anyone interested in the dimensions I found for the 2020 GT? 54.3" H 75.4" W 188.5 L Weight: 3705 lbs (Manual) / 3733 lbs (Auto) Considering these stats, should they still call the '71-'73 Mustangs the "Big-Bodies"
  6. So right, I was a big fan of 460s back in the early '90s (still am) and remember the bias toward Chevy 454s. But what may be more odd is the division among Ford fans over pushrod vs overhead cam engines, and the bias towards the modular 5.0L. Is it me, or does it seem that Mustangs with Coyote engine transplants get all the attention? It is a great engine, no doubt (I have one), but seems like the trend is to fit a modular 5.0 into every restomod out there, as if it's the only real engine of choice. And when comparing 302s, (5.0 Coyote vs 5.0 Windsor), I've read comments implying Windsor inferiority and the blocks splitting at 500 horse. Ironically enough, Richard Holdener did a video recently about that 'theory' and tested 9 different combinations of 500+ horsepower Windsors on a dyno, some engines having had hundreds of tests done.....without splitting the block. (things that make ya go "hmmm")
  7. Actually, I have a 2014 Track Pack GT as well and the dimensions I have on it show it's actually only 1" shorter than my '71.
  8. True, my reference was more from a "musclecar comparison", but if we're talking pony cars than I could replace Chevelle and Charger with Challenger and (Mercury's pony car) the Cougar Eliminator. :)
  9. So I just read another short write-up about the 1971 Mustang, and was disappointed to see how, yet again, the remarks focused on size and weight. No telling how many articles I've read where words like bloated, portly, or Clydesdale described the model, or coupled with remarks like declining sales (Mustang actually outsold rival Camaro in '71, '72, and '73...but I digress). Rarely do I sense real research done into the history of the car, when reading an article, describing how it came about or why it grew in size, or even focus more on attributes than critiques (can we talk Super Cobra Jet, fastest production Boss, handling, musclecar war big block?) Oh the double standards; back when I had subscriptions to muscle car magazines, I don't remember reading articles knocking the size of the '71 model Chevelle SS, Roadrunner, or Charger (all of which were longer, wider and taller than the Mustang by my research). In fact, during my search, I found the '71 Mustang is fairly close in size to the famed '73 Trans Am SD 455...but shorter in length. Lastly, if the '71 Mustang is a "land yacht" based on its dimensions and weight, why don't I read comments knocking the new GT500, which is taller, wider and just as long.…oh, and weighs a whopping 4,100+lbs?! (that, of course, is a rhetorical question....I certainly know why). If the '71-'73 Mustangs are forever compared to the original '64 1/2 - '65 model year, why isn't the same done with the latest generation?? Did I mention a 'double standard' ??
  10. Personally, while the 'shaker' scoop is popular (and many were let down when the new Mach didn't have it) I think a lot of people forget about 71-73 Mach 1s with ram air hoods. In my opinion, a NACA/NASA styled hood like ours would have looked great on the latest Mach and worked well with the lines of the car. It would have also provided uniqueness from the GT, GT350 and even GT500. There are already 'heat extractor' vents in the hood, you'd think tooling to change and widen their shape to reflect 71-73 scoops wouldn't require a herculean effort. Just an idea....
  11. I like them too, they actually look a lot like the wheels the Hot Rod magazine Crusher Camaro received on a recent episode. What are your backspacing specs?
  12. I've rebuilt, tuned and modified Holley and Holley-design carbs in various applications over the years, but have recently decided to try another tuning tool in one of my Mustangs. I recently had a full exhaust done on my Mach 1, complete with X-pipe, mated to my Patriot headers and, at the time, added a header collector with provisions for an O2 sensor, with the intent that I would add an A/F gauge later on. Well, I've finally got around to it. I'm going to install a basic narrowband setup using a one-wire Denso oxygen sensor and a mounted AFR gauge. The gauge consists of ten LEDs that represents 0.1V each (since the sensor wire sends a 0-1V reading) and displays red, yellow and green lights. While the gauge itself does not display an actual number, the instructions do indicate what lights represent a stoichiometric air/fuel ratio. I've also found what I believe to be a fairly accurate graphing of A/F ratio-to-sensor voltage for narrowband that hopefully will allow me to not only adjust the carb for idle and cruising, but WOT as well. If the narrowband approach doesn't work well for me I can always upgrade to a wideband and change the sensor and gauge. Has anybody else had experience with using a narrowband O2 for tuning their carburetor, and if so what were your thoughts?
  13. I've actually considered Toyota's Spruce Green Mica...pops in the sun and the hue looks like it could fit in as a color option of the '70s. -I'm a fan of green
  14. Looks like the topic of port size difference is addressed at Summit Racing, posted under the Q&A section of this manifold.
×
×
  • Create New...