# 2005 Mustang v. 1970 Mustang: Which wins? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [October 26, 2005, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2005-mustang-v-1970-mustang-which-wins/327942 "2005-10-26T02:47:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Winston\_Smith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e95f7d/32.png) [@Winston\_Smith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Winston_Smith)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2005-mustang-v-1970-mustang-which-wins/327942/21 "2005-10-26T18:44:04Z")
> [@LiveOnAPlane](#): > > OK, I’m gonna try this one again. The last post got somehow lost. Let me try again… > > * * * > > I have avoided mention of Google ads, but this is too much: > > Supercharge Any Mustang > Up to 35 HP for any Mustang. Only $69.95. Lifetime Warranty. > > First, folks, this is bullshit. No other word for it. Just pure BS. I won’t waste my time taking this especially stupid Google ad apart. Shame on the SD board. What’s next? Ngerian multi-million dollar scams? > > I can tolerate the general ads no problem, but you really don’t need to assume those of us who post here are absolute morons, fer cryin’ out loud. > > Actually, I take it back. I’m gonna call these buttheads, and see if I can get a supercharger for for $69.95. I’ll report back to you on the results… Try burning they dog. That might help. ---
**Author:** ![buttonjockey308](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@buttonjockey308](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buttonjockey308)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2005-mustang-v-1970-mustang-which-wins/327942/22 "2005-10-26T18:46:53Z")
> [@LiveOnAPlane](#): > > OK, here’s the story. > > First it isn’t supercharger. And it isn’t a turbocharger. > > It’s some piece of shit you put in your air filter (As best as I can undertand). > > Ad starts RRd by DOCTOR Brian Coyle! It must be right, right? Dude’s a DOCTOR…RRRRRRRRRRRaaaaaaaaaaaaaaWWWWWWWWWWWWrrrrrrrrr > > Then more ad-crap… “Guaranteed, Yes SIR!!!” But we have an a DOCTOR BRIAN COYLE who not only got one, but ordered more for his brothers. > > Damn I cannot wait. Gotta talk to this dude for establishing their bona fides. > > OK, now I’m on hold. I’ll get thru to them in just a minute, and get his number and then we’ll get a good cite. > OOps, they cut me off. Guess they don’t want any questions. That’s right sports fans, they terminated the call. You CAN NOT speak to them. > > Going to Google to report this scam from these dumb asses. I thin Cecil shoud do a column on their claims…if he can get them to talk. The thing is called a “Turbinator” fer Christ’s sake, if you actually buy something called a “Turbinator” and it’s not something that automatically affixes a turban to your melon, you deserve what you get. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2005-mustang-v-1970-mustang-which-wins/327942/23 "2005-10-26T19:23:55Z")
Ok, here we go. [The fastest Mustang on the list is a '69 Boss 429.](http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/general/musclecars-50fast.shtml) At 13.6 @ 106 mph. That would just edge out the '05 by a couple of tenths and one or two mph. I’ve read that guys that know how to drive the '05’s can get them into the low 13’s. Now, the closest _comparable_ mustang from the era that has roughly the same size enigne is the '70 Boss 351 which ran a 13.8 @ 104. **Carnac** , I also drove an '05 and got rubber in 3rd gear. Impressive because the traction control was still on at the time. Very nice car, very nice. ---
**Author:** ![Carnac\_the\_Magnificent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Carnac\_the\_Magnificent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carnac_the_Magnificent)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2005-mustang-v-1970-mustang-which-wins/327942/24 "2005-10-26T21:32:15Z")
> [@Uncommon Sense](#): > > Ok, here we go. [The fastest Mustang on the list is a '69 Boss 429.](http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/general/musclecars-50fast.shtml) > At 13.6 @ 106 mph. > That would just edge out the '05 by a couple of tenths and one or two mph. Interesting how the Mustang placed “just” 18th on the list. At 13.6, it gives me appreciation for tricked-out cars that can hit in the low 10s. ---
**Author:** ![Carnac\_the\_Magnificent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Carnac\_the\_Magnificent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carnac_the_Magnificent)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2005-mustang-v-1970-mustang-which-wins/327942/25 "2005-10-26T21:33:35Z")
> [@Uncommon Sense](#): > > Ok, here we go. [The fastest Mustang on the list is a '69 Boss 429.](http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/general/musclecars-50fast.shtml) > At 13.6 @ 106 mph. By the way, where is “The Judge”? Wasn’t that a 60s/70s muscle car? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Blue\_Sky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d26b3c/32.png) [@Mr.Blue\_Sky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Blue_Sky)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2005, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2005-mustang-v-1970-mustang-which-wins/327942/26 "2005-10-26T21:43:14Z")
> [@Carnac the Magnificent!](#): > > By the way, where is “The Judge”? Wasn’t that a 60s/70s muscle car? [Pontiac Judge](http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/frame.php?file=car.php&carnum=908) ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2005-mustang-v-1970-mustang-which-wins/327942/27 "2005-10-27T01:22:42Z")
One thing that no one’s mentioned yet, is that many of the computerized controls on modern cars are simply there to _limit_ your car’s performance (for safety as well as environmental reasons). So while a stock '05 'Stang might lag slightly behind (as it appears) the '70 in 1/4 mile performance, the engine in the '05 might be capable of greater performance than the '70 engine. And as much as I love the classics, I’d say that this is more likely to be the case. Still, if we’re going on looks alone, the '70 'Stang wins hands down, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Unintentionally\_Blank](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/unintentionally_blank/32/5418_2.png) [@Unintentionally\_Blank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unintentionally_Blank)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2005-mustang-v-1970-mustang-which-wins/327942/28 "2005-10-27T02:16:59Z")
Here’s a little known secret. When talking ultimate straight line, Wide Open Throttle speed. There’s NO improvement in computer controls over a Carburetor. The other issue in this particular brand of bench racing is: Nobody ever keeps anything stock. Find a 1970 stock stock stock muscle car, and you’ll have an owner that is afraid to damage that car due to it’s stratospheric value. Over the last (counts) 15 years or so, the Mustang has NOT been much of a killer race car from the factory. I’ll mention specifically the last year of the last body style Cobra. It was a car that was underrated at 380-ish hp, but could easily make low to mid-400 hp with just a pulley change. All this said, modding mustangs is CHEAP and EASY. Just because the car came stock with less, doesn’t mean it’s been kept that way. 12 second runs are a cheap $500 blue bottle away. I’m predominantly a Chevy guy, but I cna read the writing on the wall. The Camaro made more power, cheaper…but the Mustang still sells every one made and, hmmm, where’s the Camaro again? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2005-mustang-v-1970-mustang-which-wins/327942/29 "2005-10-27T04:13:24Z")
Most of the fastest 60’s and early 70’s muscle cars’ performance was traction and suspension limited, NOT engine limited. Some of those old muscle cars were putting out close to 500 HP, and huge gobs of torque. The problem is that the tires just couldn’t put the power to the pavement, so all that power was good for was making lots of noise and white smoke. I had a '67 Camaro with a highly modded 327, and with the stock suspension it would just wheel hop all over the road in 1st or 2nd gear, due to the crappy leaf spring suspension. Traction bars cured most of that, but then all I’d do is smoke the tires. It took a lot of finesse to get a fast launch out of that car. In comparison, my wife’s Saab 92x with 227 HP will do 0-60 in under six seconds, and the quarter mile in the low 14’s. Why? Because it has all-wheel drive and big fat sticky tires. A WRX Sti with 300HP does 0-60 in under 5 seconds and the 1/4 mile in 13.1 seconds, which is faster than all but maybe a half dozen of the biggest, baddest muscle cars like the Hemi 'Cuda and the LS7 Chevelle. And none of them could touch the Sti 0-60. But if you take one of those old muscle cars and put some modern suspension pieces and tires on it, look out. BTW, the new Mustang Shelby Cobra is going to smoke 'em all. It will have ‘at least’ 450 HP (most analysts are guessing 475-500). That should be good for 0-60 times around 4 seconds and a quarter mile in the low to mid 12’s, depending on how heavy it turns out to be. That’ll spank any stock muscle car ever built (other than the AC427 Cobra, which isn’t really a muscle car) but won’t beat the new Z06 Corvette or the Viper. ---
**Author:** ![Unintentionally\_Blank](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/unintentionally_blank/32/5418_2.png) [@Unintentionally\_Blank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unintentionally_Blank)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2005-mustang-v-1970-mustang-which-wins/327942/30 "2005-10-27T11:23:40Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > BTW, the new Mustang Shelby Cobra is going to smoke 'em all. It will have ‘at least’ 450 HP (most analysts are guessing 475-500). That should be good for 0-60 times around 4 seconds and a quarter mile in the low to mid 12’s, depending on how heavy it turns out to be. That’ll spank any stock muscle car ever built (other than the AC427 Cobra, which isn’t really a muscle car) but won’t beat the new Z06 Corvette or the Viper. THESE are the horsepower wars. My neighbor just brought home a C6 Z06. I’ve been in motorsports a LONG time and am just flat flabbergasted at that car. I’ve been modding our cars for several years and if you add up the money spent, it’s not a whole lot more money to buy the Z06 and have a faster, better performing car with a factory warrantee that doesn’t leak and didn’t bust your knucles. I never thought I’d see the day when 500 hp was the rule, rather than the exception… ---
**Author:** ![Enola\_Straight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dec6dc/32.png) [@Enola\_Straight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enola_Straight)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2005, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2005-mustang-v-1970-mustang-which-wins/327942/31 "2005-10-27T23:44:37Z")
> [@Unintentionally Blank](#): > > Here’s a little known secret. When talking ultimate straight line, Wide Open Throttle speed. There’s NO improvement in computer controls over a Carburetor. I disagree. A tuned port EFI with one throttle plate is less restrictive than a throttle plate, choke, and venturi. EFI just inhales more air, and more air is more power. ---
**Author:** ![Unintentionally\_Blank](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/unintentionally_blank/32/5418_2.png) [@Unintentionally\_Blank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unintentionally_Blank)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2005, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2005-mustang-v-1970-mustang-which-wins/327942/32 "2005-10-28T02:32:51Z")
> [@Enola Straight](#): > > I disagree. > > A tuned port EFI with one throttle plate is less restrictive than a throttle plate, choke, and venturi. > > EFI just inhales more air, and more air is more power. But an EFI _doesn’t_ inhale more air. CFM is CFM and if you’re bringing in enough air to burn enough gas, you’ll make however much power you want. Your statement isn’t correct because you neglect the _geometry_ of the intake. Efficiency is irrelevant if the opening can just be made X percent bigger. The difference in ULTIMATE power production between an L88 corvette (1968: [http://www.sportscarmarket.com/profiles/2002/February/American/](http://www.sportscarmarket.com/profiles/2002/February/American/) ) and GM’s current godzilla Z06 is VERY similar. The improvements over the years come in longevity, part throttle control, emissions, and (this is the big one) Total area under the curve. While the L88 makes similar power, it needs frequent lifter adjustment, gets awful gas mileage, overheats, and is AWFUL to drive in any kind of traffic. At the same time, there are fantastic improvements in suspension, allowing for a good ride AND excellent handling, improved traction, better body dynamics, and systems that keep Joe Lawyer from killing himself when driving a car with WAY more power then he’s got talent to handle. Peak hp is the WORST metric for comparing cars because it measures a sliver of the motor’s performance envelope. If that power peak is at 9000 rpm, but the motor makes negligible power at 4500 rpm, and it spends 99 percent of it’s time under 4500 rpm, it’ll feel like a pig in all but the rarest occasions. (Think S2000) But if a car/vehicle/whatever has a _torque_ curve that is well matched to its duty cycle, it’ll _feel_ better. For an excellent discourse on engines and power, read this: [http://www.vettenet.org/torquehp.html](http://www.vettenet.org/torquehp.html) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2005-mustang-v-1970-mustang-which-wins/327942.md?page=1)