Any Alice Cooper fans out there? If you worship Mr. Cooper plus love classic ‘Stangs, the best of both worlds is about to cross the auction block at Barrett-Jackson this month. A red 1965 classic Ford Mustang with a 4-speed automatic 289 V-8 and only 35,915 miles. Supposedly fit his golf clubs in the trunk perfectly!
Here is an opportunity to own Alice Cooper’s 1965 Ford Mustang fastback with 35,915 original miles. Alice used this car for the Golf courses, going to the mall and dinner from time to time. We will include a set of Calloway golf clubs for the new owner of the car.
When the Ford Mustang Boss 302 debuted as a 2012 model, Ford threw out many of the standard options in favor of performance-specific parts. This also included a number of color options, leaving buyers with fewer palette choices than a comparable Mustang GT. One of the most popular colors, Grabber Blue, was unavailable on the 2012 Boss 302 Mustang.
But it will be available on the 2013 Boss 302, as the recently-released 2013 Mustang guide revealed. Now we have the first pictures of a Grabber Blue Boss 302, thanks to eagle-eyed forum members over at The Mustang Source.
Grabber Blue first appeared on Boss 302 Mustangs in 1970, and it remains popular with Mustang buyers today who flock towards the traditional pony car color. So it raised more than a few eyebrows when Ford did not offer Grabber Blue on the 2012 Boss 302 Mustangs. Rather, Ford offered five other colors; Competition Orange, Race Red, Yellow Blaze Tri-Coat, Kona Blue Metallic, and Performance White.
Yet Ford did sell a one-of-one Grabber Blue Boss 302 Laguna Seca Edition Mustang at the Barrett-Jackson auctions earlier this year. And judging from these pictures, the standard Boss 302 Mustang looks just as great in Grabber Blue as we thought it would. Grabber Blue will be joined by School Bus Yellow as well. Gotta Have It Green will also be offered on 2013 Mustangs, though no word on if the Boss 302 will also have the option. However, if Ford is keeping with the tradition of offering Grabber colors in the second year of Boss Mustang production, well why wouldn’t they offer a Gotta Have It Green option?
Ok…I sorry (not really) but I have to consider what my readers like. And to date one of the most read articles on my blog is the piece I did on the Mustang II King Cobra http://wp.me/pKHNM-uY . (Go ahead you know are going to go read it!!)
So I’m going to do a series on the Mustang II (after all I’m project managing the restoration of a 1975 VW, I could spend sometime on that era Mustang). We’ll touch on the 4 and 6 cylinders and yes there was a 302.
So we’ll start with a history lesson.
1973 was the last year for the more powerful and larger bodies Mustangs. Ford may have thought they were going back to the original size Mustang and the 1974 version was in fact close to that size. The 1966 Mustang had a wheelbase of about 108 inches ( 181.6 inches in total) and the 1974 was 96.2 (175.0 inches over all). Compare to the 1973 which (depend on which version) was 187.5-190.0 inches over all.
The generation ran from 1974 to 1978 and sported some collectible cars, the King Cobra and Mach I…yes Mach I’s in a Mustang II.
Well, I’m officially depressed. No it’s not because of the holidays, or the rapidly approaching June when I’ll move too far into the 50’s to be able to fool myself that I’m just barely 50, nope none of those things.
I’m looking at GM’s (bastards!!) Performance Catalog and all the shiny things in it. Like the ported LS3 heads, and the LS376 – 525…yes 525 hp in a crate engine, drop in and drive. I realize two things, I need an older Chevy to play with (or upgrade the C6 Vette) and that I’ll need a second job if I even want to touch any of this stuff and where will I live when the better half finds this stuff laying around the garage? (Tell me you aren’t depressed now?!?!!…It’s ok…admin it!!!)
Note: It’s gonna get worse… I have the Ford performance parts catalog as well…all I can say is thank GOD!!! I don’t have a Morpar to drive around….oh….the therapy…bills….!!! Why, OH Why didn’t I drink the family KoolAide when I was a kid..I would have been able to shun the Fords and Mopars and just be a normal one brand car guy??
There is some awesome stuff the Chevrolet Performance Team is put out, everything from small block crates to LSX monsters, to circle track crate engines.
Over the next few post I’m going to cover a few highlights and a couple unexpected – like engines for the Chevy Cobalt and some V6 engines. (Have just read some specs for the upcoming 2013 Mustang V6 – I want to see what Chevy’s got.)
In fact let’s start with something off the wall. Like the 900 V6 Intake for a 4 barrel carb!! What???!!!! It’s an aluminum high-performance for the 3.8 or 4.3 liter V6. So go ahead bolt on that 390 cfm carb..oh heck….grab that 600 cfm 4150 and drop it on top.
That is not a bad price. Of course it’s not for all heads, like it won’t fit the 3800 V6 or the 18 degree heads and you might have add a bump to your hood for clearance!!!
Dec 16, 2011 the last produced Ford Ranger. This isn’t just the end of the Ford Ranger, its the end of the Cologne V6 and the closing of a plant that has been producing car since 1925 – over 25 million. The last Ranger was a fleet car going to Orkin Pest Control – yawn – couldn’t have been a Raptor or and F150 Harley Davison version.
2012 V6 Ford Ranger - The last one.
The plant produced armored cars during WW II and 50’s Fords, early Crown Vics and Galazies. It also produced one of my favorite cars the Ford Sunliner.
The engines for the 1973 Mustangs pretty well with the rest of the matched up the other models engines, but with some minor “tweaks”.
You couldn’t get a Mustang with a 4 cylinder (yet) but you could get with the standard 6. This was the 250 version, (250 cubic inches of displacement) the bore and stroke was 3.68 x 3.91 also used in the Torino. Topping it with a single barrel Motocraft carb and coupled with a compression ratio of 8.0:1 gave it a ground pounding horse power rating of 88 (Oh don’t worry, it gets worse in 1974).
302 remained the same for the Mustang and was the standard for the Mach 1. The 351’s (Cleveland and Windsor were available and they really remained the same as those for the other models.
Now you might be saying, ‘Well Tim, seems like you typed yourself in to a corner here. Those engines are the same.” But here is what made the differences – options!!!
With special intakes, valve springs, dampers, large 4300 D carbs, 2.5 inch diameter dual exhaust outlets and modified cam, you now talking increased breathing and exhaling capacity. Which we all know means…say it with me…..”MORE HORSE POWER!!!!!” But how much? I’m glad you asked.
The 351 with these types of option produced between 246 and 266 horse power. The 302 doesn’t show being configured with anything other than the stock options.
Here is the second part of this ’73 line up for the V8.
There were 7 V8 in 1973 (not including the Mustang engines) and the ranged in numbers from 302 to 460 (big number to be sure). Just reading those you think..OH…THE …POWER…NOTHING BUT 100’s RUBBER BURNING, FISH-TAILING HPs!!!…right….uh…NO….these ain’t 60’s engine and they aren’t 2010 engines..nope..they the 70’s engines. Here’s how they ponied up.
The 302 – Overhead valves, cast iron block with a bore and stroke of 4.00 x 3.00. Compression ratio of 8.0:1 with 302 cubic inches displaced. Top that with an awesome 2 barrelMotorcraft carb and you are knocking out 135 hp’s!!!! Those are number only a grandma could love. Compare that with the 302 sold under the hoods of Fords in 1970 which yielded 220 hp with a two barrel carb. (Take that 302 bore it .030, toss on a typhoon intake and a 4 barrel Holly you’ll have exactly what currently have in my ’70 Stang.)
My Mustang's Enhanced 302
Next up is the family of 351s, the Windsor, the Cleveland and the CJ Windsor.
All three had overhead valves, cast iron blocks and all displaced 351 cubic inches. They shared the same bore and stroke which was 4.00 x 3.5 and the compression ratios ranged from 8.0:1 to 8.6:1 and the horse power varied by rpm 3800 to 4000 between 156 up to 177, the Cleveland and baby Windsor were choked with a 2 barrel carb while the CJ managed to steal a 4 barrel of the assembly line shelf and had a compression ratio of 9.0:1. The 351 CJ was able to come in a little more respectable with 266 hp at 5400 rpm.
I will tell you this there were very few 351 CJ Windsor made in 1973 and 1974. I owned a 1974 351 CJ and my researched showed that less than 100 of these engined were produced that year.
All of these were used in the Torino, Montego, Mustang, Cougar and other Ford and Mercury models. The 351 CJ was used in the Mustang and Cougar.
1973 Cleveland 351 2 barrel under the hood of a Mustang.
1973 was a good year, I was a still in high school and big engines weren’t extinct yet. Ford had a big assortment. We are talking 10 to choose from if you didn’t count the Mustang engines.
Ford Pinto (this will be a parking log spot light coming up)
On small size 6 cylinder were still king but 4 cylinder was available for the Pinto. For the larger engines displacement was large and the horse power small.
There was only one 4 cylinder available, reserved for the ill fated Pinto. It sported an overhead cam and iron block. It displaced a whopping 122 cubic inches and as one would expect had the smallest bore and stroke – 3.58 x 3.03. The compression ratio was 8.2:1 and it tore up the street with 86 hps. (No I didn’t for get the “1” in front of that.) It was topped with a Ford/Weber 2 barrel carb.
2.0 Pinto Engine
The six cylinders came in 2 varieties and were used in the Maverick and Torino. The first was dubbed the Maverick 6 cylinder. It was configured with overhead valves and a cast iron block. With the bore and stoke 3.68 x 3.13 it was able to displace 200 cubic inches. The compression ratio was slightly higher than the 4 cylinder at 8.3:1 but it was fitted with a 1 barrel Motocraft carb resulting in only 84 hp.
The second ‘big brother” six cylinder was called the Maverick/Torino. Again it had the overhead valves and cast iron blocks, same as its little brother, but it had a greater stroke 3.91 (3.68 X 3.91) compared to the its sibling 3.13. The compression ratio was lower (8.0:1) and topped with the same single barrel carb it managed 88 hps.
The Torino was not a small car so it really need those 4 extra hps!!!
Ford 6 cylinder - nicely restored!!!
V8s for 1973 coming up and then the Mustang engines.
OK…I not least bit interested in this kind of gimmickry, that’s right up there with a cigarette lighter with a ring of light round so you can find it in the dark, innovation? A waste in my opinion. What’s your take?
Posted by Amie Williams on December 8, 2011 – 2 Comments
It’s not like the Ford Mustang badges were not distinctive before, but Ford is now taking it a step further and actually projecting the running ponylogo from under the side mirror when unlocking the doors to your 2013 Pony. Apparently making this projecting Mustang logo needed six or seven takes just to get it more in the lines of nice and not cheesy. Supposedly the projecting logo was so captivating that the flip was switched on the lights of the assembly floor so everyone could get a glimpse of the projecting pony.
REALLY?
The future is just full of all kinds of surprises, huh? I can’t wait to see what other options they will throw at us. Possibly more of a projecting Running Pony similar to the bat signal? Although, that’s probably all kinds of illegal.
There has been a lot of parking garage incidents lately but I think this one takes the cake. This isn’t some guy losing control on the nearby road and landing IN the parking garage. Not this time. This time the driver apparently went through the concrete wall of the third story of the parking garage in Lugano, Switzerland, and fell all the way down upon some parked mopeds and a tree. The 24-year old driver was only injured slightly after flying off of the third floor. You can say that this brand new 5.0 suffered a tragic death, though.
If you look up into the parking garage, you see exactly where he fell from as there is a guy looking down and a nice chunk of wall missing. It gives you a good perspective of how far this car actually fell!
