1964 "Pony Car Shoot-Out" ~ Barracuda vs. Mustang

[69 Cuda 440]

Rod is Right On,

The 1964 1/2 Mustang 'Hardtop Coupe' did suffer from sub-frame problems.

But, the 'Convertible' was more 'rigid', due to >
* Additional Bulk-Head strength
* Additional welds
* Torque-Boxes
* Heavier gauge steel 'rocker-panels'

1964 1/2 Convertible
A 289/210 HP ~ 4-Speed {2.78 1st-Gear ~ Wide-Ratio}, and with an 8" Rear, and 3.80 Gears with an Equa-Lock Differential
with 'TRI-Y' Headers was capable of 16.00's @ 84 MPH.

 

[69 Cuda 440]

1964 World's Fair

 

[Jarlaxle]

Yet again: Unless and until I see actual hard data that the convertibles were STIFFER than the coupes (or even hatches), I simply don't believe it.

Under-chassis photos are not hard data.

 

[69 Cuda 440]

Yet again: Unless and until I see actual hard data that the convertibles were STIFFER than the coupes (or even hatches), I simply don't believe it.

Under-chassis photos are not hard data.

I suggest you check out the Shipping Weight if you want 'Hard Printed Data'.

Or,

For one, on convertibles there is a 'large steel plate' between the Sub-Frame Rails to stiffen the Uni-Body
of the Roofless Mustang.

 

[69 Cuda 440]

rod is right on,

the 1964 1/2 mustang 'hardtop coupe' did suffer from sub-frame problems.

but, the 'convertible' was more 'rigid', due to >
* additional bulk-head strength
* additional welds
* steel sub-frame tie-in plate
* torque-boxes
* heavier gauge steel 'rocker-panels'

1964 1/2 convertible
a 289/210 hp ~ 4-speed {2.78 1st-gear ~ wide-ratio}, and with an 8" rear, and 3.80 gears with an equa-lock differential
with 'tri-y' headers was capable of 16.00's @ 84 mph.

ok

 

[69 Cuda 440]

I suggest you check out the Shipping Weight if you want 'Hard Printed Data'.

Or,

For one, on convertibles there is a 'large steel plate' between the Sub-Frame Rails to stiffen the Uni-Body
of the Roofless Mustang.

Here You Go...............:cheers:

 

[Jarlaxle]

Are you playing dumb or are you incapable of basic comprehension?

Third time now: Unless and until I see actual hard data that the convertibles were STIFFER than the coupes (or even hatches), I simply don't believe it. Under chassis photos are (still) not hard data.

Read very carefully this time, paying close attention to the highlighted words.

 

[273]

Are you playing dumb or are you incapable of basic comprehension?

Third time now: Unless and until I see actual hard data that the convertibles were STIFFER than the coupes (or even hatches), I simply don't believe it. Under chassis photos are (still) not hard data.

Read very carefully this time, paying close attention to the highlighted words.

I don't see why your getting hostile, you have not shown any hard evidence for your position either.

 

[rbdart]

Are you playing dumb or are you incapable of basic comprehension?

Third time now: Unless and until I see actual hard data that the convertibles were STIFFER than the coupes (or even hatches), I simply don't believe it. Under chassis photos are (still) not hard data.

Read very carefully this time, paying close attention to the highlighted words.

Listen carefully...pay close attention..believe whatever you want,if pics and posted data aint enuff then go find your own info and post otherwise,and you can stop with the nasty attitude or just dont post,these posts are pretty informative and makes for some good reading and he is just trying to show blasts from the past,and his threads are pretty popular and interesting...calling him dumb and not capable of basic comprehension for no reason is pretty lame and rude among other things,..back off...

 

[barbee6043]

lets play nice guys. i'll add real life story then if needed ya can get back to the argument. LO
1966 south ga, small college named ABAC, guy named r. grinner has hi po 65 stang, 4 spped, shifts with ear no tack, runs for $100 per race, beat rarely, (he's running everything. hemi's on down) we all knew it had Shelby motor or inards!!!! LOL really....

 

[rbdart]

lets play nice guys. i'll add real life story then if needed ya can get back to the argument. LO
1966 south ga, small college named ABAC, guy named r. grinner has hi po 65 stang, 4 spped, shifts with ear no tack, runs for $100 per race, beat rarely, (he's running everything. hemi's on down) we all knew it had Shelby motor or inards!!!! LOL really....

I am being nice..lol..it prob had a hemi..lmao

 

[69 Cuda 440]

Jarlaxle,

You're being very obtuse.

More 'hard facts'. 1964 thru 1966 Ford Mustangs 'convertibles' came thru with Torque Boxes
and 'heavier' Floor Pans.

Enter and Read.........

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CG8QFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.onlymustangfords.com%2F1965-ford-mustang-convertible.html&ei=eTMvU_6xHuuL0QHb1IDQCA&usg=AFQjCNFfgKmOGfwhAfpWemPUjkmBUoXq_w

And more Reading..........

If this was a fight, I would have won by a TKO in the 3rd-Round.........

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...vIGADw&usg=AFQjCNG_9_yKRkyGVNW9362-xHyRyLov9Q

 

[MTmopars]

I think you guys are debating two different things. I'm by no means a Mustang aficionado, but the original comment was about FOX BODY mustangs being a great platform to which it was replied about structural deficiencies and 4 lugs. Maybe I'm off base or just confused....

 

[Oldschoolcuda]

First off thanks for your informative post's 69 Cuda 440. Always good reads & keep em coming.

Jarlaxle you are just a bitter prick. Period. Have you seen to many fox body tail lights in your vehicle performance history. You bitched & moaned on my thread about trading for a fox body convertible that is non Mopar of course but is a great cheap, fast, soon to be collectible car. All vehicles have limitations for gods sake. Get over it dude .Let's get back to classic Mopar vs. Ford dialog as intended.

My hard data. 1/8th mile test & tune results with my 235lb butt driving.

1965 Plymouth Valiant Signet(273 commando, 3.23 rear) 10.06

1991 5.0 Mustang Vert (AOD with 3.27 rear) 9.68

My foxbody says this to you Jarlaxle :thebirdm:

 

[69 Cuda 440]

Thanks Old-School-Cuda,

Some, just don't want to believe.

Those 64' and 65' Mustang 'convertibles' could run with the 64' and 65' Hardtops, which were about 150 lbs. lighter.

Back-in-the-Day, at the Drag Strip, the 'convertibles' launched better.

In 1965,

The 'convertibles' classed in 'G/Stock' were running just as quick as the Hardtops classed in 'F/Stock'.

That is a Fact.

 

[Jarlaxle]

First off thanks for your informative post's 69 Cuda 440. Always good reads & keep em coming.

Jarlaxle you are just a bitter prick. Period. Have you seen to many fox body tail lights in your vehicle performance history. You bitched & moaned on my thread about trading for a fox body convertible that is non Mopar of course but is a great cheap, fast, soon to be collectible car. All vehicles have limitations for gods sake. Get over it dude .Let's get back to classic Mopar vs. Ford dialog as intended.

My hard data. 1/8th mile test & tune results with my 235lb butt driving.

1965 Plymouth Valiant Signet(273 commando, 3.23 rear) 10.06

1991 5.0 Mustang Vert (AOD with 3.27 rear) 9.68

My foxbody says this to you Jarlaxle :thebirdm:

Friend had a Fox...a 1992 Special Service Mustang, former police car. Fast, fun...but pretty crude. (It didn't even have A/C.) His was a notchback, and at high speeds, it wanted to go airborne! The brakes were weak bordering on scary in a car capable of 140MPH! I swore off Fox ragtops when I saw one (a 2.3, no idea if GT's had more reinforcement) parked on a curb...and it flexed enough the passenger door wouldn't open! Unit-body ragtops flex. When you remove a structural panel that large, you just cannot compensate short of caging the car.

I like Fox cars...but anyone who denies they have some serious shortcomings does not live in the real world!

 

[Abodybomber]

Friend had a Fox...a 1992 Special Service Mustang, former police car. Fast, fun...but pretty crude. (It didn't even have A/C.) His was a notchback, and at high speeds, it wanted to go airborne! The brakes were weak bordering on scary in a car capable of 140MPH! I swore off Fox ragtops when I saw one (a 2.3, no idea if GT's had more reinforcement) parked on a curb...and it flexed enough the passenger door wouldn't open! Unit-body ragtops flex. When you remove a structural panel that large, you just cannot compensate short of caging the car.

I like Fox cars...but anyone who denies they have some serious shortcomings does not live in the real world!

Relax,man... Had three of these beasts(Foxes).... 2 convertibles. Frame connectors, absolutely mandatory. I did the ford ranger disc swap(slightly larger rotor,five lug pattern ). Buy the best brake pad ,you can buy. Break the pads in correctly ( yes that does exist,ask an old brake & chassis guy). Toss the garbage stock rear four link stuff(or box the stockies..), and add some good shocks/struts. FWIW,my 83 lx rag top (302/t5 /8.8 out back) ,weight: 3100 with a 300 pound guy in it.