Carroll Shelby On Mustangs

Ron61 · #1 (**permalink**) 03-17-2010, 06:29 AM

This video was on the NASCAR site this morning.

http://www.nascar.com/video/cup/2010...aumann.nascar/

Ron

Joe Wicked · #2 (**permalink**) 03-17-2010, 09:45 AM

He played it down there. I saw an interview a while back where he claimed he told Lee that the Mustang was a secretaries car. You can't make a sports car out of it. Lee responded by saying that if Shelby wasn't confident in his ability, he knows a couple other guys who are chomping at the bit to be employed by Ford.

This version was a lot more tame.

Gunner · #3 (**permalink**) 03-17-2010, 10:03 AM

Shelby was, in the main, correct. The Mustang was, like most US-made "sports" cars of the era, under-engineered, underpowered and outclassed by the European cars they purported to equal. The only thing US makers ever did was pour in the horsepower and twiddle antique suspension and brake systems to be barely capable of holding the car up under power.

My '68 is a beloved family treasure, but I never considered keeping its original suspension and brakes when I rebuilt it. Neither were safe in modern traffic, and that was with only ~200 HP.

Ron61 · #4 (**permalink**) 03-17-2010, 11:13 AM

Gunner,

I remember the first Mustang that I tried out, I think it was a 1964 1/2. It had a 3 speed stick and 6 cylinder engine. Then later on a guy here bought a 1965 with the 289 HiPo and it ran well but the suspension looked pretty weak when you put it up on the rack. I think he finally broke something in the rear end. Ford seems to have a history of taking what can be a great car and making it into just something normal at best.

Ron

Gunner · #5 (**permalink**) 03-17-2010, 12:40 PM

I don't know that any American maker did any better between 1960-72 or so. I can't think of a car that wasn't early-50s engineering all the way through, with bigger and bigger engines stuffed in as the years rolled by. I think the vaunted differences between Camaros and Mustangs and Cudas and GTOs are microscopic when you step back from the partisan BS of the era. Something quite accessible like an XKE would run rings around any production US car of the era except in straight-line performance.

The exception is the Vette, but it's always stood alone and even those have iffy handling and braking by modern standards, especially with the monster rat motors.

Wayne Maybury · #6 (**permalink**) 03-17-2010, 12:40 PM

Ron

I bought a slightly used (4,000 miles) 1965 HiPo Mustang in December 1965. The biggest weakness in the drivetrain was the U-joints. I have no idea how many of them that I broke over the years. The HiPo had a toploader and a 9" rear end so the rest was quite strong. The engine could take a beating like nothing I have ever seen and it always came back looking for more. Mine had 4 piston disk brakes in the front so it actually stopped quite well for a mid 60s car. The big problem was that the pistons would stick. I sold that car for $1,500 2 or 3 years after I got married. A numbers matching "K" code is worth a bit more than that today.

Of course the early Mustangs were little more than a Falcon with sporty sheet metal and bucket seats, when you come right down to it. I liked those early Mustangs so much that I bought a '66 289 coupe, 6 years ago. I completely restored it and I drive it as much as I can. It has electroic ignition, poly urethane bushings everywhere, and SSBC disc brakes so it has been modernized just a little bit.

Wayne

Anthony · #7 (**permalink**) 03-17-2010, 03:49 PM

The mustang was really a rebodied falcon, a mass produced, low cost, sporty appearing everyday car. I don't know if I would call it a sports car.

Ron61 · #8 (**permalink**) 03-17-2010, 05:33 PM

Anthony,

If I recall correctly that is what Shelby said when Ford wanted him to make what turned out to be the GT-350 for Trans Am racing. First we have to lose the rear seat. A sports car has two seats. But the GT-350s were really good cars for their time I think.

Ron

Mark IV · #9 (**permalink**) 03-17-2010, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron61

Anthony,

If I recall correctly that is what Shelby said when Ford wanted him to make what turned out to be the GT-350 for Trans Am racing. First we have to lose the rear seat. A sports car has two seats. But the GT-350s were really good cars for their time I think.

Ron

GT350s were not elegible for Trans-Am, they were "B" Production SCCA. A Trans-Am car required seating for four and the 65 GT350 was two only (but yet, the Porsche 911 was a "four passenger" car and eligible for the under 2 liter class in Trans-Am!?!??!)

Jamo · #10 (**permalink**) 03-17-2010, 07:57 PM

Yup...assinine, but Porsche was only allowed in the first couple of "2.0" years...someone pulled their heads out of their arses with the revamped 2.5 series, which then became a battle between GTVs, 2002s and...510s.

/s/ Former BRE510 owner.

Ron61 · #11 (**permalink**) 03-18-2010, 03:50 AM

Ok, I think I got my Mustangs confused. Wasn't the Boss 302 the TransAm car? I do remember seeing them and Pensky's Cameros run along with the Javlins and other cars. I really enjoyed that series.

Ron

Mark IV · #12 (**permalink**) 03-18-2010, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamo

Yup...assinine, but Porsche was only allowed in the first couple of "2.0" years...someone pulled their heads out of their arses with the revamped 2.5 series, which then became a battle between GTVs, 2002s and...510s.

/s/ Former BRE510 owner.

Yep,

The "2.5" series. I crewed for a semi-factory Alfa team (Bobcor) the biggest assortmemnt of has-beens, never weres and wannabees! And I was a wannabee crew cheif! But I did meet Pete Brock, John Timanus and many of the other cast of the Trans Am circa 1971-1973. Lotsa fun............