Hello

[Fazerick8]

Hello from another newbie. What a great forum for these overlooked Mustangs. while I currently own a 2013 GT, I'm looking at possibly buying 1973 with a 351 C 4-bbl "Q" engine and auto trans ("U"). For '73, I noticed the AMA specifications (in the technical section) indicated 259 horsepower, while all the published sources say 266. Does any one know why the discrepancy exists?

 

[OLE PONY]

Welcome to the site from Virginia. Good luck with the purchase of the 73. Post up some pictures of your potential purchase.

 

[caspianwendell]

Welcome from Arkansas

 

[jbojo]

Welcome from TriCities WA.

-jbojo

 

[Aussie67]

Welcome from Perth, Australia. Sorry I can't answer your question, but I suspect someone here will.

 

[Luke]

::welcome:: from another Aussie from Bundaberg

 

[goodnigh]

Welcome from northern California.

mike

 

[73MustangCoupe]

Welcome from western Tennessee! ::welcome::

 

[luxstang]

Hi and ::welcome:: from Luxembourg, Europe.

 

[will e]

Hi from Phoenix. I can't answer your question but I can tell you that neither are probably correct. LOL.

 

[whitesoc]

Hi,and welcome to the forum from Ontario Canada!

 

[Don65Stang]

Welcome from coastal Alabama! Be sure to drop a pin on our member map under the fun stuff tab at the top of the page.

 

[73vertproject]

Welcome to the club from northern Nevada. You may get a better response to your question if you post it in the technical section of the forum.

 

[MechEng]

Welcome from Southern California! I don't know about this exact case, but it's been documented that Ford would undercut the horsepower ratings of their engines to help owners out with the insurance costs, could be what's going on here.

 

[mach71351c]

::welcome:: From San Diego.

 

[cobra3073]

Hello from another newbie. What a great forum for these overlooked Mustangs. while I currently own a 2013 GT, I'm looking at possibly buying 1973 with a 351 C 4-bbl "Q" engine and auto trans ("U"). For '73, I noticed the AMA specifications (in the technical section) indicated 259 horsepower, while all the published sources say 266. Does any one know why the discrepancy exists?

I remember when I ordered my '73 Mustang all the publications indicated I came across indicated a 266 HP rating.

Some of the "Engine" books being published at the time indicated two different HP ratings for the 351CJ versions of the 351C engines with 266 for the Mustangs and Cougars and 246 for the Torinos and Montegos. As I recall the situation, the compression ratios were different between the two types with the Mustang/Cougars having a 7.9 ratio and the other offering having an 8.0 compression ratio.

I have never looked into the discrepancy but can't see why the compression ratios were different as the Mustangs. Torinos, Cougars and Montegos shared the same pistons, heads and camshaft as finally produced.

It may have something to do with what was intended to be produced and what was ultimately produced. Ford (as other Manufacturers) often released specifics for different vehicles which were not ever produced or maybe only produced in limited quantities.

Perhaps someone else can provide additional insight.

BT

 

[73vertproject]

Thanks for resurrecting this year-old post, BT. The information provided is interesting, and I'd like to see more discussion related to these muscle car engines. From Mustangs to Mopars, they all are interesting to me.

 

[1972MustangSVH]

Welcome from Indiana

 

[jpaz]

Hello from Michigan!