Chances are, you didn’t even see a real Shelby Cobra. The aftermarket produces scads of “turnkey replicas.” In fact, there was some controversy because at one point in time; people were seeking out wrecked Cobras in order to steal the VIN and Engine numbers, which they would then place on a counterfeit Cobra and sell off as the real thing for a crapload of money. (Don’t try this today. As a result of these schemes, the history of virtually every one ever made is registered and recorded, along with the names of the current owners.) You can still buy new Cobras today that are knock-offs of the real thing, or better still, you can snag 'em with ABS and more modern appurtenances. Some are quite affordable, in a Supercar sort of way.
(Just to clarify, Joe, the bodies and frames were AC, but the AC only ran what, the Ford 289? I say that as if it were meek and shabby, but even the AC was neither. Shelby bought the AC frames and bodies, but badged them under his own factory name, kept the Cobra moniker, and used the different engines and suspensions (I’m pretty sure they were different suspensions)).
THERE NEVER WAS AN AC COBRA! It was made exclusively by Shelby American. Notice that the only people you ever see saying “AC Cobra” are Brits, envious of what they missed out on…
You can still buy a real, live, Shelby Cobra rolling chassis (engine can be bought at/installed by your friendly local Ford dealer). Shelby later sold the trademark to Ford for a dollar. Lately they’ve been cracking down on the kit-car makers that were calling their knockoffs Cobras and forcing them to stop and/or pay royalties.
Not bloody likely. Probably a kit car.
IIRC, AC didn’t race them at all. The whole Ford-V8-in-a tiny-British-sportscar concept was Shelby’s. He started with the 289 (specifically to win at Le Mans), then moved up to the 427 when the musclecar craze hit.
FWIW, while he did buy AC bodies and frames for the original 289 version, the frame and body were extensively modified by Shelby to make the 427 fit. The 289 Cobra was a modified AC Ace; The 427 Cobra was a 427 Cobra
Shelby’s initial Cobra’s were AC frames and bodies with Ford 260 cu in V8s. After a few were built, the engine was swapped for the more powerful 289. These were produced for two or three years with new tweaks added constantly. However, it quickly became apparent that the 289 could not be pushed much beyond 350 hp and retain any kind of reliablilty. Not one to do things halfway, Shelby decided to move up to Ford’s monstrous 427. Problem was, this engine was physically much larger and heavier, and besides, it was quite capable of twisting the AC frame into a pretzl. They were routinely rated by Ford at 425-435 hp and over 500 ft-lbs of torque, but by the time you got a few options from Shelby American, many of the 427 Cobras ended up pushing 550+ hp. So the AC components were abandoned, and a completely new frame and body were designed to handle the bigger engine, and the 427 Cobra debuted in 1967. The new bodies retained as much as possible the orignial look of the AC bodies, and seen from the side they are quite similar. From the front, though, the 427 is clearly much wider. Not too many of these things were built (less than 2000 I believe) and now the ones that are left are much too valuable to actually be driven on the road, where some idiot could crash into them.
“By the way, am I imagining it, or do the “muscle cars” of today actually accelerate faster than those of the 60s? The auto makers seem to have really gotten good at maximizing the torque in small, turbocharged engines.”
IIRC, Hot Rod Magazine did a Shelby Cobra v. Dodge Viper shootout a few years back and the Viper won by a very fine hair. Beatle, as occ said, the R1 is a bike. I used it because it had far better acceleration than any car. Sorry for the late response.
I was just looking at some acceleration stats not too long ago for my 85 Thunderbird turbo coupe.
Some of us do like our turbos.
Anyways, if the Thunderchicken was stock I could expect to pull .85 G with a 0-60 of 8 seconds while the Corvette from the same year would accelerate at .97 G getting to 60 in just over five seconds. The torque specs on the 2.3 litre turbo matched the specs on the 5 litre Ford V8 at 256 ft pounds. Pretty good bang for my buck I’d say.
The musclecars from the 60’s were pretty great, going for a spin in a hemi Roadrunner is somethig we should all get to do once in our lifetime. Despite having all this massive power the cars from the 60’s were also heavy compared to what we drive today. A 69 Hemi Roadrunner weighed in at 4700 pounds, generated 450 hp and a whopping 500 ft pounds of torque. In the 13 seconds it takes you to get to 100 mph the acceleration would be pretty constant.
Not more torque–more power. “Muscle cars” of today, if you can call them that, typically rev much higher, producing more power, less torque. Of all the fast cars today, perhaps only the Vette and the Viper with the 350 ci and 488 ci respectively, truly have the low RPM torque of the older models. For me, that is what makes driving pleasurable, fast acceleration without winding up the motor. Even more, you have a higher perceived responsiveness with high torque/low RMP motors. Those motors are what made muscle cars “muscle cars” in the late sixties, and those motors were exclusivly high-displacement V-8’s.
Sure, some riceboy types can generate 400hp out of their blown 4 cylinder 151 ci motor. But how fun is it to drive around town at 6,500 RPM? I’d rather have my 500 lb-ft of torque out of my cadillac 472 that pulls around nearly three tons of metal. And I’ll never go over 3000 RPM.
I recently traded in my '95 Impala SS on a minivan <sigh>. It had a 350 V-8. It was very fast, not only because of high cubes, but advanced computer controlled fuel injection and transmission shifting. The many advances in PCM design and coding have not only helped makes cars much more powerful, but more fuel effecient, more reliable, and less polluting. The '95 Impala SS easily doubled it’s 60’s namesake in MPG, and did a quarter in just under 15 seconds (much faster than most 60’s SS’s, and polluted a whole lot less to boot. Plus it actually handled well.
But I love my minivan. I just have to keep telling myself that.
But I am becoming to believe it. Easy to get in and out of, holds baby + 7 adults or baby + 4 adults + 2 dogs. Easy to get baby in and out of. Easy to get stroller in and out of (Are you sensing a theme here?) It is relatively peppy, easy to park. Smooth, comfortable ride. I don’t care how many times my wife backs into the truck in the driveway. You are never tempted to do exhibition driving. Saves money on tires! View is nice. Easy to drive in inclement weather. Never tempted to embarass the fella with the phony VTEC badge and shiny exhaust tips. It even will make about a two foot patch.
I realize I’m a bit late here, J_C, but it seems you may have missed something.
This part you already know…Top fuel cars launch on concrete. 3Gs and above are likely to occur in the early part of the race, with the numbers falling off all the way to the end. If they kept pulling 3+Gs all the way through, ¼-mile tracks would be all concrete.
1a.) Put it on a modern suspension and tires, and see if it’ll really do 280 mph (as one of the crew chiefs who worked on them estimated)
2.) Paint it like a period NASCAR racer (“426 c.i.” in 6-inch letters on the hood, “Plymouth” really big on the sides, etc.–like the one in the above-linked pic).
3.) Embarass all the rice-boys with the fake-winged Hondas
And back to the OP, some of the first-year “Street” 426 Hemis (which were different from the race engines in name only; later models were slightly detuned) were attached to TF727 automatic transmissions controlled by dash-mounted pushbuttons. Under full acceleration, you couldn’t shift the thing manually, because of the small buttons and the fine-motion problems mentioned earlier.
My plan is to get a '71 Challenger OR Barracuda (I don’t know which…I like both models, but the Cuda is smaller and lighter) with a 440 Six Pack, paint it Plum Purple, and go looking for Gunslinger for a shootout.
“This town ain’t big enough for both of us!”
Point #3 is good though. I’ll just borrow that one.
Yes, but the joke is lost with a simple ponycar. A stock SuperBird is even goofier-looking than the rice-boy cars (18-inch pointed nosecone, 2-foot-tall wing…but on the 'bird, they actually do make it faster!), then add all the racing decals… I’d be beating them at their own game, in a way. Sickening irony and all that.
BTW, the 440 +6 would get the jump off the line in a drag race, but when the secondaries on the Hemi open up, nothing can stay ahead of it for long…and if it gets over 90mph, the superior aerodynamics of the 'Bird come into play…
[sub]I looked it up. According to the spec sheets in Kings of the Street, A '70 Road Runner Hemi (no specs on SuperBird, but the aero benefits of the wing & nose should offset the little bit of extra weight) would beat a '70 Challenger 440 +6 (no info for '71 Challenger, or '70 or '71 Cuda 440) by two tenths of a second and one mph (13.49 @ 106 to 13.7 @ 105) in a 1/4 mile drag race.[/sub]
Joe_Cool, ordinarily I wouldn’t bother with the “I told you so”, but since you challenged me on it, I have to point out that my earlier post was 100% true and accurate. What I said was that
This is, of course, true: At the time I wrote that, I didn’t know of any such rubber.
Still, I wouldn’t go trying to make that bet unless it was Stephen Hawking riding shotgun.
Before I recently became poor I was going to put the SVO blower kit on my Mustang GT, set to 12 psi. Then I would stomp both of you guys, and have leather seats, power everything, and air conditioning to boot.
In it’s unadalterated state the 2.3 liter turbo in my car put out 155hp @ 4500rpm and 190 ft pounds of torque at 2800 rpm. With some minor tweaking one can easily get 200hp and better than 240 ft pounds of torque out of this rather petite engine. The car really launches when the tach crosses 2200 rpm.
What about supercharging?
The factory specs on the 3.8 V6 Thunderbird SC are 210 hp / 330 lb ft torque, modified versions are able to run high 12’s in the quarter. 300hp is an attainable goal.
I think one of the main reasons we don’t see many turbo or supercharged production cars is because of the expense. My T-Bird cost $25,000 (Cdn) when new and a Mustang GT with a 5 litre V8 could be picked up for around $17,000. The transmission and rear end are identical to that of the mustang, the T-Bird handles better due to better weight distribution and this is due in part to having a four cylinder up front rather then a V8.
Anthracite - without something like nitrous we Ford lovers would be Hemi food. Sad but true.
