Not to mention screwing over all of those $50k+ Cobra R buyers with this new Cobra.

 

I think you know me well enough to know I'm not giving any Mustang crap.

I'll agree that the interior design of the current Mustang is good and the quality is also on par with pretty much anything else out there for $25,000 that's made in the US..... and that's the rub.

While we have caught up with the rest of the world in overall quality, the rest of the world, especially Australia, has passed us by in interior quality (when I 1st went there in '91, their quality IMHO was only slightly behind the US, now it's Audi quality).

I don't think anyones slamming Mustang's quality per se, I think most here realize that the interior dates to the early 90s, and was made for a car costing roughly 20 grand today. It should probally be said that as much as the 10 year old 4th gen body was outdated, the now 10 year old Mustang interior is outdated.

Ford did do a commendable job keeping it fresh. It's just pass time to bring it up to date.

 

You mean the company that is now advertising 390hp... but they're just not telling anyone that it's off the rear wheels!!

 

WOW - I make a last check of the board, post out, and go to bed, and you guys open this can of worms(no pun intended WERM!)...
Please allow me to explain...
The first Shelby AC Cobra was powered by the venerable 260ci SBF. This was the predecessor to the 289 (same 260 block, add bore), the 302 (same 289 block, add stroke), and the 351W (same 302 block, added deck height, and more stroke). As the 289 became available in 64, Shelby switched over, creating the AC Cobra 289's.

As a part of making the Shelby AC cars look good and perform, there was a Cobra "dress-up" kit for the cars. It incorporated the Cobra name onto the intake, valve covers, and oil pan. These units were all finned aluminum, which helps dissipate engine heat like fin-coolers on an amp or big electric motor, while looking pretty sharp too. These became VERY sought after, so Shelby began marketing them into the aftermarket. (Original Shelby Cobra 260 valve covers are $$$$$ now! Like $500-up...)

A few years later, the Mustang came along. Shelby struck a deal with Ford to race the Mustang in stock and B-Production class to help give the car some exposure and build a name. Since the Mustangs were coming from the factory with the same K-code 289 HiPo's as his Cobras, he was able to use the same engine components he had already designed and tooled for the AC cars. So we started seeing the 65 Shelby Mustang GT350 with a "Cobra's" engine... in full dress. This was the beginning of the Cobra/Mustang marriage.

In Ford circles, the SBF is synonimous with "cobra" - the engine really got the name, not the car, so any car with the engine was called "Cobra powered", and you see this on all sorts of valve covers for the SBF.

VERY accurate. Nice work!
The "Cobra" thing was a smash hit with the public. You gotta understand that the SC Cobra 260, 289,427, and Daytona cars were mopping up on the race circuits from 62 thru the Mustangs entry. Cobra was synonimous with victory - so it sold well. Shelby then decided to further differentiate his modified Mustang cars from the production Mustang - as you said Derek. From '67 on, you would find snakes on the cars, not horses. '67 dash and grille emblem on the '67 Shelby.

Here's the coup d'etat... in Shelby's shop , @1965, there are a Cobra Daytona Coupe, a 427 Cobra, a Ford GT(later to be GT-40), and the Mustangs in the back. These cars were all associated in a "Shelby group" by the general public. Great for the image!

As for the '75 Mustang II Cobra II - it was introduced in late '75 (along with bringing back the 302) as a painted-on (stickers came in '77) striped, Mach 1 performance package. You could get the 2.8V6 (ouch) or the 302-2V. The car was obviously a throwback to yesteryear, when they actually HAD performance, but we can only talk about what times were like in the '70's now - it was WAY different. Looks were everything, disco ruled, and flashy cars were "in", whether they were fast or not. These stripe kit/suspension cars died with the '81 Cobra, largely due to the re-intro of the GT in '82. So the Cobra car was dead until the '93 model. But remeber, the actual name Cobra was more indicative of the powerplant than the car until the Cobra II's came along. I admit, there is confusion there.

Good Points. But note these exceptions - Mach 1 was a specific body style and component package notable in the VIN code as serial prefix number "05" and bodystyle "63R". Getting this package meant you had to get a V8 and competition suspension in a fastback AT MINIMUM. You could then option the car with any V8, trans, decor, exterior, or any factory options you wanted to pay for. There are numerous 351 CJ, 428 CJ, and 429 CJ Mach 1's around, as well as 302, 351W, and 390 Mach 1's.

Oh yeah, I would like to add that there was the J-code 429 SCJ (in this '71 Mach 1) and it was rated at 375hp/450tq (very WRONGLY too). The 428 and 429 are completely different engines - nothing shares. More eye candy...

Also, the Cobra, Cobra Jet, or Super Cobra Jet engines came in 260, 289, 302, 351W, 351C, 428, and 429 ci during the entire Mustang run. The 351 Windsor used the Cobra name the least. The "Cobra" was always the dressed-up performer, the Cobra Jet was always the highest-level performer in the ci family, and the Super Cobra Jet denoted the Cobra Jet engine with either Ram Air/Shaker induction and/or the factory "Drag-Pack" that carried close-ratio 4-speeds, 3.91 or 4.11 Detroit Locker 9" rears, and engine add-ons like oil coolers, forged rods/pistons, and different cam profiles. The Super Cobra Jets were always 428 or 429 cars.

Actually, the BOSS 429 claims the high HP trophy...
even though the HP and torque specs are the same as the '71 429 SCJ, the BOSS was grotesquely underrated - it actually produced over 420 BHP with smog equipment on...
There are several mag articles of that period claiming 375 was a joke - it was a friggin' NASCAR engine for Pete's sake.

Regarding the Mach 1 - it was never the intended to be the "top-of-the-line" Mustang. It was intended to be a platform off of which the do-it-yourselfer could make whatever level of performance he/she wanted. You could go 429SCJ w/drag pack, and do your own mods to run the 1/4, or you could go R-code 351-CJ with competition suspension and go road-course racing. Or you could get the 302-2V with C4 auto or 3-spd in your Mach 1 (the base engine/trans) and cruise economically while looking and sounding good. The car had infinite configurations between '69 and '73, and even carried on until '77 with the 2.3 I4, 2.8V6, and 302-2V engines in the Mustang II. (Sacrelidge to put an I-4 in a Mach 1 IMO.)

So in the sense that the new Mach 1 is really intended for drag-use (more so than road-course), I must admit you have a point Z28Wilson, it is not a dead-accurate copy of what the originals were, but that's due to it's lack of optional equipment that was available on the first ones. But don't hold back the new Mach based on a little less performance... remember it's N/A and built for punishment!
IMO - here's the way it lays out...
Best handling then - Boss 302('69-'70), Boss 351('71)
Best handling now - Cobra
Best car for 1/4 then - Mach 1 SCJ (drag pack)
Best car for 1/4 now - Mach 1 (pulleys+exhaust - it'll = a Cobra... add blower and )
Best car to mod then - Mach 1 (due to options available)
Best car to mod now - Mach 1 (due to bullet-proof bottom end and parts avail.)
Overall, I think they are staying fairly true to the Mach name - much better than they did in the '74-'77 models anyhow.

Just some background and thoughts.
Sorry for the long-winded Mustang lecture, but facts is facts and I want folks to know the real story. It's part of why I like to come here. I also like to hear things like this about the F-cars when you guys post. History can teach us all many things... if we let it.

Now, somebody reciprocate and clarify for me the links between a 400c.i. '68 GTO and the new LS1-powered Monaro?

Proud

 

Agreed - no quabble from me on that point. I think I even stated that I expect the Oz car (Monaro or Falcon) to be better in interior quality.
I just want others to be aware of the fact that the new [b]COBRA[/i] (much more than the common Mustang) has come a looong way from the early Fox car's interior. It is not "embarrassing" anymore.

slamming... per se...?
QUOTE - "The current Mustang Cobra is a boy modified to do mans work"
QUOTE - "the current Cobra is nothing but a Lightning motor on an old Fairmont Chassis"
And from other threads too numerous to list.

Anyhow, I too admit that I would like to see better materials used in most all domestic interiors. I doubt seriously if myself or many others would be willing to shell out the big money that those interiors are likely to require.

guionM - you pose the least of my worries when it comes to "general car appreciation"...
I feel like I am talking "to others" through my conversation with you. I just want some folks to open their eyes and minds to what's going on around them, not just in their little bubble of a world. Can't blame a guy for tryin'!
It's all good.

 

Probaly the same song links as a supercharged 32v DOHC 4.6 and an old Cobra Jet motor. The GTO is a modern interpetation of what the GTO name means unlike the 05 Mustang which is an attempt to recreate a 66 Mustang.

 

40-year continuously evolving production versus
30-year nap with a sudden and unsolicited rebirth...

Oh yeah, I see it now.
They're virtually the same thing.

 

least they retired it rather than base it on a vega...or in Ford's case Pinto

 

Boy this thread has really degenerated. Not where I wanted to see it go. Very professional, Mr. GM Insider.

Thanks for the lesson Proud. I was basing my information on things I've seen and read about the original Mach 1's in Car and Driver. I'll stand by my statement however that the nameplate "Mach 1" is certainly not as desireable now than it was back in the late 60's with the Cobra now lurking out there. I have not seen a single one either on the road or in dealer lots, what is the scoop on that? They've been in production for a while now haven't they?

Back to the topic, I can't wait till GTOs start showing up at dealerships and people can actually see the car, drive it, experience it for themselves and form opinions based on the car itself, not where it's from or what it looks like without scoops, etc.

 

Also on topic and as an FYI, the current High Performance Pontiac has remained loyal and features the '04 GTO concept on the cover. No new info inside, though they do seem to be holding off final opinion until they get seat time...not dismissing it solely on appearance.

 

The 1973 is the MONSTER (size wise) compared to any previous GTO. Almost 209" overall length. The 1968-72 GTOs , though heavier and wider than the 64 are actually shorter in overall length (203" for a 64, 201-202" for 68-72). The 1964-1967 also ride on a longer 115" wheelbase compared to the 112" 1968-1973. The 1974 was by far the smallest GTO - 111-inch wheelbase 199.4 inch overall length. I think the 1974 is a little unfairly maligned. It pales compared to what came before, but for the time wasn't really a bad car. It was pretty close in performance to the original 1964 with the 325 horse automatic combo - mid 15 second quarters.

 

Plus I think the legend of amazing GTO acceleration is more myth than fact....especially in todays context.

 

I reciprocate - thanks for reading it.
I study Mustang facts relentlessly to fund my habit!
I actually make some decent $ turning over collectible parts that I find in barns and old shops, so it really pays to know what your're looking for/at when you see it. I recently paid $30 for two original Mach 1 front bumpers - worth over $500 at the collector flea market. The guy felt guilty about asking $25 for them, so I gave him $30 and told him "dinner was on me".

Again, most of them are scarfed up by collectors and weekend warriors. You won't likely see oodles of them on the road. Nice weather, car shows, and pony trails will bring them by the hoards.

Remember this friend, a new, loaded big-block Mach 1 would set you back @ $4000 in '69/'70. Now they are commonly in the $20k's and rare exceptional peices are breaking the mid $30k's at Barrett-Jackson and Kruse auctions - almost a 10-fold increase over purchase price in 33 years. (Similar with the Z/28 of the day.) MUSTANG PEOPLE KNOW THIS. They are hoping their $27k investment will increase 10-fold and be worth $270,000 in 30 years like the '69's did... I have my doubts about that happening to that degree, but that is what the hobby has done to collectible iron, like it or not.

I've seen a few on the streets (maybe 5 in the last month or so). And personally, I'd rather have a Mach 1 right now than the '03 Cobra. It's just mystical... that car possesses that "something" that makes a Mustang a Mustang. Raw, N/A power, donut-special live axle, heel-to-toe capability, engine parts coming through the hood, and attitude. It's not the baddest boy on the block, but it sure thinks it is!

Me too. Despite my issues with it's name, I am VERY eager to get behind the wheel of one and get a feel for what Aussies have had for the last few years... a better product.
I seriously doubt I'll be disappointed with any aspect of the car itself, based on testimonials in here especially!

 

Actually Company yes, fellow no.

in the year the Cobra didn't make it's horse power the building of them were taken out of their hands and put into "Team Mustangs" hands. From what i've heard there was a problem with how they installed the exaust systems that caused most of the trouble, after that they wernt sent back to SVT under Collettie's control again.

 

proudpony,
was the first cobra II not a model year '76?how many of those mustang II and early fox cobras did they make?there can't be many of those cars left around,especially the '79-'81.it's off-topic but the thread died anyway.