What did you do to your 10th gen today?
10-31-2013, 10:14 PM
#8921
You cant compare a stock 64 to a stock 15. Thats comparing Apples to Oranges. Technology has changed so much. Cars are lighter now they are mostly plastic and fiberglass. 64's Mustang all metal. plus in 1964 a Ford Mustang's biggest motor was a 289 ci v8 w/ something like 290 hp. Now you got the new 5.0 which is only 302 ci with 400 hp or more.
10-31-2013, 10:15 PM
#8922
Resident light whore
You cant compare a stock 64 to a stock 15. Thats comparing Apples to Oranges. Technology has changed so much. Cars are lighter now they are mostly plastic and fiberglass. 64's Mustang all metal. plus in 1964 a Ford Mustang's biggest motor was a 289 ci v8 w/ something like 290 hp. Now you got the new 5.0 which is only 302 ci with 400 hp or more.
10-31-2013, 10:26 PM
#8923
mekAnick
Theres no real such thing as a 1964 Mustang. The Mustang wasnt released until late 1964 therefor it was actually a 1964 1/2 and they were packaged with a 289 v8. Just not as many as the 260. Even some in 1965 were packaged with the 260 but most with the 289.
My dad has a 64.5 with a 289 matching numbers
My dad has a 64.5 with a 289 matching numbers
10-31-2013, 10:28 PM
#8924
Resident light whore
Theres no real such thing as a 1964 Mustang. The Mustang wasnt released until late 1964 therefor it was actually a 1964 1/2 and they were packaged with a 289 v8. Just not as many as the 260. Even some in 1965 were packaged with the 260 but most with the 289.
My dad has a 64.5 with a 289 matching numbers
My dad has a 64.5 with a 289 matching numbers
10-31-2013, 10:34 PM
#8925
mekAnick
Im not disagreeing with you Browning. I wouldnt buy a 08- newer Mustang. I think they are hideous. And if I were to buy a mustang of the similar body style it would be the gt 500. But Ill stick with the 64.5-70's models or the 87-93's.
10-31-2013, 10:40 PM
#8926
10-31-2013, 11:00 PM
#8929