1972 Ford Mustang Mach I {R-Code} ~ "Feared by Mopar or Falafelled'

-
6

69 Cuda 440

Legandary Member
Legendary Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
4,244
Reaction score
434
Location
Wilton, Connecticut
It was not feared. It was a good car but way to heavy to be feared. The 340 Demons and Dusters were better. I owned onof the fastbacks with a 351C. It was a heavy car. The factory lists them at somewhere around 3250 but reality was around 3500.

Jack
 
I don't want to high jack the thread 69 440 Cuda but I would say that the mustang cubic inch vs cubic inch that would really give the mopars some competition was built in 71 only. I'm a diehard mopar fan but still can appreciate all muscle cars. I'm talking about the 71 boss 351 mustang. A heavy car but that motor was really underrated at 335 horse. Your thoughts on this?
 
Nice rides. I really like the 71 Machs. My buddy had one in HS. My 71 Comet (302) would outrun it...and my other friends 340 Demon would outrun us both.
 
I have a '70 351c in my 66 fairlane, not feared. However, with it's huge ports and valves, lots of potential...
 
LovetheA's said:
I don't want to high jack the thread 69 440 Cuda but I would say that the mustang cubic inch vs cubic inch that would really give the mopars some competition was built in 71 only. I'm a diehard mopar fan but still can appreciate all muscle cars. I'm talking about the 71 boss 351 mustang. A heavy car but that motor was really underrated at 335 horse. Your thoughts on this?
Click to expand...


The 1971 'Boss 351',

That's a 'Horse of a Different Color'. A very formidable foe, that if prepped
could give any Street/Stock Musclecar Car trouble.
 
The R code had a 4 speed and 3.91 gears. In 1972.
 
Always liked the looks of them. How their made and what their made of not so much.
Gotta try harder than that to beat a good Mopar.
Had a factory 427 68 cougar in the shop for some repairs last week. Pretty rare car similar to the 69 440 barracuda if I had to give a Mopar comparison. Little over 100 made according to the owner.
I never got to drive it or ride in it but it didn't have that bad Mopar sound to it. I was a little let down as I know that was one of fords best engines. Had never seen one of these up close before. It was a nice car though and a real muscle car from the day.
 
Those are rare cars.....but not quite that rare. It's a Cougar GTE if it's original. They made 357 of them in 1968.
 
Coyote Jack said:
It was not feared. It was a good car but way to heavy to be feared. The 340 Demons and Dusters were better. I owned onof the fastbacks with a 351C. It was a heavy car. The factory lists them at somewhere around 3250 but reality was around 3500.

Jack
Click to expand...

Coyote Jack,

Correct on the 'bulk'.

They list the 1972 Mustang 'Mach 1' Fastback with the '351 HO'.

* Shipping Weight....... #3330 lbs.
* Front....................... 57.9% {#1925 lbs.}
* Rear........................ 42.1% {#1405 lbs.}

* Curb Weight............ #3481 lbs.
 
RustyRatRod said:
Those are rare cars.....but not quite that rare. It's a Cougar GTE if it's original. They made 357 of them in 1968.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info on the cougar Rob. I wish I took a picture of it for you.
Perhaps the owner meant their is a few over a hundred left? Not sure.
I had it in to install a new headliner (mice got it) and rubbers on the front and rear glass.
It is a factory red with black interior. Had a fiberglass scoop on the hood.
The only thing I could see that wasn't original was wheels, headers, a deep oil pan and
a pair of nearly rusted off header mufflers no pipes. Sun tach on the column. Slapper bars on the springs. You could tell all this was done when the car was new.
The car belongs to a local farmer and he has had this car since it was 1 year old.
Has never registered it and has only taken it out on the rural road he lives on every once in awhile. I could tell he had race gas in it. I asked him about the gte emblems as I had only heard of the GTA. He said that was the fairlaine.
My shop is in town so I never asked for a ride. He brought it on a trailer. I had him open the hood for me. Looked like a real chore to change the plugs. Made the a body 440s look like they have lots of room.
 
74 Plymouth duster 360 4-speed will run all over that Mach 1. 3100 lbs. I had a 2003 Mach 1 and it was really quick 13.2 in the quarter
 
Ford seemed to have good all out race stuff, but never seemed to have any killer street cars.

Lets face it, how about a 351W-2V in a Mach 1 Mustang?

Not saying they didn't have good potential, they just didn't seem to translate to the street very well.
 
TF360 said:
74 Plymouth duster 360 4-speed will run all over that Mach 1. 3100 lbs. I had a 2003 Mach 1 and it was really quick 13.2 in the quarter
Click to expand...

Yeah those mod motors are pretty cool. I had a pacific green 97 Cobra Vert for awile and it was not fast by any means but it was cool for what it was. (4.30s, full exhaust, short throw shifter, cold air intake)
 
1972 Mustang Mach 1 '351 HO' {R-Code}

* 351/275 HP {Cleveland}
* 1972 NHRA HP refactored to 325 HP

Production Numbers
* Fastback 'Sportsroof'...... 366
* Hardtop Coupe................. 19
* Convertible...................... 13

* 4-Speed 'only'

1st Mustang Mach 1 '351 HO' delivered........ January 20, 1972

 
I've always looked at the Cleveland engine much the same as the Thermoquad carburetor. Both had massive high performance potential, but both came out too late. Had the Cleveland come out in say, 65 I think that could have changed things considerably. They can eclipse the 600 HP mark pretty easily using stock block and heads and with stock bore and stroke with the 4V stuff. That's impressive no matter what for a small block.
 
Everyone knows that a /6 Polara would work that 351C mustang
 
351C motors rocked. My buddy had one after high school, he had a 4bbl intake on 2bbl heads, an Erson Hi-flo 2 cam in it and headers to truck glasspack mufflers, that was it. Sounded bad and was a rockin ride after about 3000 rpm. pretty soft under that. His 72 notchback mustang had some crazy gears in it, like 3.00? and a FMX. I liked it so much I put the same spec motor in my 57 Fairlane but used a C4 which grenaded then moved up to a C5. Today I saw a 66 Fairlane 390GT, What did Mopar have in 66 like that?
 
pishta said:
351C motors rocked. My buddy had one after high school, he had a 4bbl intake on 2bbl heads, an Erson Hi-flo 2 cam in it and headers to truck glasspack mufflers, that was it. Sounded bad and was a rockin ride after about 3000 rpm. pretty soft under that. His 72 notchback mustang had some crazy gears in it, like 3.00? and a FMX. I liked it so much I put the same spec motor in my 57 Fairlane but used a C4 which grenaded then moved up to a C5. Today I saw a 66 Fairlane 390GT, What did Mopar have in 66 like that?
Click to expand...

Have to agree with you on that one.

Mopar's 1966 383/325 HP was a 'certified lug'. The only thing positive to say, was
that it was 'durable'.
 
1972 Mustang Mach 1 '351 HO {R-Code}

Let's get some accurate 'stock' performance numbers.


1971-1972-1973-ford-mustang-33.jpg
 
1972 Plymouth Road Runner/GTX

* 440/290 HP 'U-Code' ~ 'Air Grabber' Fresh-Air Package {Code N-96}
* G60 x 15" Goodyear Tires

* Shipping Weight..... #3675 lbs.
* Curb Weight............ #3780 lbs.


Best 'recorded' Performance in Stock Trim by the 1972 Magazines

4-Speed with Dana Rear
3.54 Gears...... 14.33 @ 97.20 MPH
4.10 Gears...... 13.85 @ 102.50 MPH

Note: 4.10 Gears {Special Order; Code A-34 Super Track-Pak Option}

Automatic with 8 3/4" Rear
3.55 Gears..... 14.48 @ 96.80 MPH


Did it the turn the 1972 Mustang '351 HO' into Falafel ?

[URL="http://carphotos.cardomain.com/images/0003/84/62/3224826.jpg"][URL="http://carphotos.cardomain.com/images/0003/84/62/3224826.jpg"][URL="http://carphotos.cardomain.com/images/0003/84/62/3224826.jpg"][URL="http://carphotos.cardomain.com/images/0003/84/62/3224826.jpg"][URL="http://carphotos.cardomain.com/images/0003/84/62/3224826.jpg"][URL="http://carphotos.cardomain.com/images/0003/84/62/3224826.jpg"][URL="http://carphotos.cardomain.com/images/0003/84/62/3224826.jpg"][URL="http://carphotos.cardomain.com/images/0003/84/62/3224826.jpg"][URL="http://carphotos.cardomain.com/images/0003/84/62/3224826.jpg"][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]

[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top