shop-talk
[Top] [All Lists]

[Shop-talk] 1965 Mustang Brakes

Subject: [Shop-talk] 1965 Mustang Brakes
From: bjshov8 at tx.rr.com (bjshov8 at tx.rr.com)
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 18:17:00 -0400
The original GT350 was the 271hp version of the 289, modified to produce 306hp.

Of course back in those days Chevrolet was making their 327 in versions up to 
370hp.  Nobody had computers back then but Chevy did have mechanical FI.  IIRC 
the carbureted version of the 327 was available up to 350hp.  I think when the 
original Chevy Z28 came out it was a 302 rated at 290hp.

But you also have to realize that these numbers are in "old horsepower", and 
the ratings for the new mustang are "new horsepower".  "Old horsepower" and 
"new horsepower" are not equal.  "Old horsepower" is just the motor mounted to 
a dynamometer, nothing else attached to it.  "New horsepower" is with the 
engine plus all of its accessories- alternator, water pump, power steering pump 
attached to it, which reduces the horsepower considerably.  So to put it in 
perspective, for the new mustang 5.0L to produce 400hp is very much more than 
the old GT350.  Also realize that the old GT350 was built for racing and not 
for comfort or ease of driving on the street.  The new mustang could probably 
be driven by your grandmother and she wouldn't realize it was anything out of 
the ordinary.


> On 6/26/2011 1:35 PM, bjshov8 at tx.rr.com wrote:
> > The latest Ford Mustang V8 seems to be a great performing engine.  IIRC it 
> > is about 400hp out of 5 liters, which makes 80 hp/litre.  It was probably a 
> > challenge to fit that large engine into the Mustang engine compartment.
> 
> Umm, just to keep things in perspective, five liters displacement is 305 
> c.i.    That's a marginally larger displacement (about 5.5% larger) than 
> the original 289 c.i. engine plunked into the original 1965 Mustang, 
> which was slightly smaller, overall, than the current Mustangs.  All 
> things being equal, I also suspect that the basic 305 c.i. block is 
> probably lighter and a bit more compact than the earlier engines. As to 
> horsepower, Carroll Shelby was getting ~ 350 hp out of the 289 block in 
> the `60s, the reason why his GT-350s were named as such--and without 
> fuel injection and computerized engine management.
> 
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Michael Porter
> Roswell, NM
> 
> 
> Never let anyone drive you crazy when you know it's within walking 
> distance....

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>