Jump to content

MeanMachine

VIP Members
  • Posts

    119
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MeanMachine

  1. I really like the design and ram air vents, yet the front end is shorter than our year Mustangs.
  2. Actually the wheel flares and center hood scoop look like they were sculpted in well. Love huge rear wheels on our year Mustangs. Cool find for sure! Looks like Camaro fender vents. Not a fan of the square headlights, but maybe not too hard to change if someone wanted to go back.
  3. I remember seeing a 71-73 fastback, in person, for the first time in 1989, and I was hooked. It was a maroon and black striped, '73 Mach 1, and I decided right there that I had to save my pennies to get one. I worked on base at the time and saw another '73 fastback running around with big tires and aftermarket wheels, this one white with black stripes. I spoke with the owner at the commissary one day where I got a close up of the 460 engine swap, increasing my desire to have one. I think the design from the rear is menacing (especially the fastbacks), the ram-air hoods look like they mean business and fit the car so well. I really like how well these year Mustangs drive and the interior is big enough for someone my size. I also like that I can fit just about any powerplant I want in to the engine bay. I'm not a big fan of the totally all-stock appearance so both my classics are lightly resto-modded. These year cars are truly unique and I enjoy all the thumbs-up and honks I get whenever driving mine. -I once had a guy tell me my '71 was the meanest car he'd ever seen! My only critiques are the slightly longer than need be front end and the bad press our cars usually get: 'Too big and too heavy' (sigh)
  4. Nice and clean! I did an X-pipe as well after I added ceramic coated Patriots to my '71. I run 3" pipe to Jones single-chamber mufflers and turndowns at the axle. Far from quiet, but then again I only drive it once a month and love hearing that Lunati cam working.
  5. 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.
  6. 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')
  7. 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.
  8. 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 :)
  9. 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"
  10. 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")
  11. 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.
  12. 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. :)
  13. 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' ??
  14. 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....
  15. 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?
  16. 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?
  17. 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
  18. Looks like the topic of port size difference is addressed at Summit Racing, posted under the Q&A section of this manifold.
  19. Thanks Don, being that I wasn't under a time constraint meant I could work one port at a time and pay attention to detail and symmetry.
  20. While this isn't a topic specifically about 71-73 Mustangs, it does share some DNA as it revolves around porting my 302 heads 🙂 My father and I are resto-modding a '73 Maverick and decided to build a stout 302 to set between the shock towers. I have two early model 302s in my workshop/garage, and since this Maverick was originally a factory 302 car, and we prefer the early seasoned blocks and beefier cranks, we selected one of those engines. Both engines I have came with C9TE ('69) model heads, which I thought would be a good head to work because they have the smaller combustion chambers and were in good shape. Besides, I liked the idea of porting the factory iron heads to find "free" hidden horsepower. Being that we want a street engine with limited drag strip use, my goals were not to just hog everything out as big as possible, but rather increase flow and keep port velocity. I felt confident that there were areas to improve on, so while we were waiting on other aspects of the build, I took my Dremel, accessories, carbide bits and safety gear and went to work. Once the porting was complete and I had the springs for the new cam, I sent the heads to the machine shop where they were milled, fitted with bronze guides and screw-in studs, hardened seats, viton seals, and a 3-angle valve job. Overall I'm pleased with the end results, and while I don't have flowbench numbers, I do feel confident I made improvements. The pics show the difference between one of my untouched heads and a ported one. If a conservative estimate is an increase of head flow somewhere between 10-15 cfm, then according to the formula (HP = .25714 x cfm gain x No. of cylinders), I could see a 20-30 horsepower gain. I spent considerable time on the exhaust ports since, in my opinion, Ford 289/302 cast iron heads leave a lot to be desired and we will use Hooker long tubes and a free flowing exhaust. I worked the port, eliminating the thermactor bump, shaping the guide boss and addressing ridges, flash, etc., then polished to a smooth finish, with the intent to give carbon less to latch on to. The intake port didn't require as much time, but I addressed it as well, paying attention to the roof and pushrod wall, hoping for better flow to the valve. I also gasket matched and spent a lot of time aligning the intake manifold runners to the head intake ports, by using a bore scope and making small changes at a time. The intake port is not polished, since I didn't want to hurt atomization of the fuel from the carb. All in all, I went slow and easy; and while it wasn't my first time porting, I still enjoyed seeing the results take shape and gaining more experience.
  21. I agree. The artwork and detail is great but every Mustang appears "stock", like so many other shirts and posters I see of our years. Don't get me wrong, our Mustangs do look good in factory appearance but IMO they look great when resto-modded too, accentuating their 'muscularity'. I always see late model Mustangs modified/customized on posters and such, why can't classics do the same? I wouldn't mind a "stock" shirt and a 'restomod' shirt option.
  22. Good luck with the channel. Nice car (who doesn't like a 4-speed 351 Cleveland car?) -I'd like to have seen more with the new wheels. Any pics? Was the offset custom or off the shelf?
  23. I had a 460 in a '71 Mustang that I was building in the 90s, this 400 reminded me much of that engine when it came to space....or the lack thereof I should say
  24. Wanted to pass this along in case it may be helpful, though I know a 400 engine is not a popular swap for 71-73 Mustangs. So last spring we purchased a '72 Mach 1 that was in need of TLC but had good bones. It was originally a 302/3-speed manual vehicle that, at some point, someone had converted to a 400/C6. I had almost passed on the car because of the drivetrain change....but didn't. The car was not drivable but started right up and would go into gear. The owner couldn't tell me anything about the engine except for it's size, as the swap was done by a previous owner before them. But it was more than just a stock engine, as the 400 sported an Edlebrock carb, aluminum intake, a Miloden oil pan, Accel billet distributor and dual exhaust. Upon startup, the sound of an aftermarket cam was apparent. After some further examination of the overall car, we made a deal. Once home, we dove right in and examined the engine further to reveal what looked like Harland roller rockerarms and double roller timing chain. The car showed other "upgrades" with suspension and drivetrain too, but what was odd to me was that, given all the engine mods, it still breathed through factory exhaust manifolds. Seemed apparent someone was trying to extract additional power from this 400. For those that don't know, the 400 (some call it 400M) engine looks remarkably like its 351C brethren and shares many components. Research found this engine is both taller and wider than a 351C and this probably explained why the engine still sported cast manifolds. The exhaust was a tight fit to say the least! As we worked further on the engine and the engine bay, updating, going through it and replacing what needed and tuning what didn't, I felt the desire to try finding headers that would help the engine breathe a bit better and take advantage of the other "additions". I read 351C & 400 heads are interchangeable, so I decided to try a set of what looked like Hedman 351C long tubes that I found for sale in the classifieds. Unfortunately, after many tries, even removal of the steering gear box, we weren't able to sandwich the headers to fit between the shock towers, steering box and transmission bellhousing. Just as we were about to revert back to manifolds, I discovered that Patriot made a set of 1 3/4" shorty headers for 351Cs that looked (at least from the pictures) like they would work. We took a chance and ordered the new headers (in raw finish), hoping our guess was right. As it turns out, we were! While still a tight fit, we were able to maneuver these headers into place (PN H8435) with success. Finally, the missing piece to help our engine was found. After mockup, I took the headers back off, sprayed them with a quality hi-temp coating, baked them and re-installed. They have now been on the car for several months without issue and the 400 is breathing better than it ever did with manifolds. We had new exhaust run from the headers back, including an x-pipe crossover, and 4" tips. I'm very satisfied with the build quality, fit and design of these Patriot headers. They were the answer we needed, are a great accent to our engine bay and I'm sure added horsepower to our 400 as well. Here are pictures from the day of final install and our progress with the car.
×
×
  • Create New...