Thanks to CC Contributor GN, I’m able to share with you a trio of C&D reviews of the 1965 sporty compacts: Mustang, Barracuda and Corvair. I was too young to read about just how the new 1965 Corvair compared to the competition, which was of course very different in format and many other aspects.
The 1960.5 Monza coupe started a revolution by creating a whole new class of American car: the sporty compact. Americans were tired of both big cars as well as poverty-box Falcons. They wanted compact, stylish, and sporty, and the Monza gave it to them. The surprise success of the Monza caught Ford off guard, and they had to respond. They never expected their Falcon-based Mustang to be nearly the hit it was, but then who could have predicted how big the Beatles would become?
In the first of the three tests, C&D takes on a very hot Mustang: a fastback with the 271 hp solid lifter 289 V8, four speed and special sport suspension. It was brutally fast in a straight line, with an astonishing 0-60 time of 5.2 seconds, a quarter mile time of 14.0 seconds flat and it tripped the traps at an even 100 mph. Only a Corvette was faster. But all was not well when it came to curves.
“Car and Driver” was well-known for their “creative” acceleration times in many cases, the most egregious being the Catalina 2 Plus 2 (I can’t use a plus sign for some reason) that did 0-60 in something like 3.9 seconds. Additionally, a lot of the magazine test cars were heavily breathed upon by the manufacturers and their representatives. My point? There’s no way that’s a stock 289/271 (or maybe a scientific acceleration test).
I recently read a book by Roger Huntington titled “American Supercar.” In the book, he extrapolates net horsepower ratings from period magazine tests, but he only used “Car Life” magazine road tests when possible. His explanation was that “Car Life” was the most transparent in testing cars as they might have been available to the public. Their test of a 271 Mustang resulted in a quarter mile time of 15.9 seconds. Even Patrick Bedard of “Car and Driver” called the 271 Mustang a stone in a muscle car retrospective I read when I was a kid (I took it personally back then as the owner of a 289 Mustang…I don’t care about what people think as much anymore, and he was right).
Anyway, sorry for the rambling reply, but something’s wrong with that Mustang test (I’ve read it before).
I’ve always been suspicious of the so-called ‘271hp’ 289, as well. All the manufacturers played fast and loose with horsepower ratings, but Ford seemed to be the worst. Another was the underrated 335hp 428CJ as found in the 1968 Mustang and 1969 Fairlane Cobra.
And Car & Driver didn’t help matters any, either. While it’s true that they got the best times by some rather creative means not used by the typical driver (no passenger and hard, drag-racing style techniques, including power-braking and power-shifting).
Combine that with the ringer cars supplied by the manufacturers, and you got some unbelievable times. Pontiac seemed to be the worst in that area. Besides the mentioned ‘swiss-cheese’ Catalina, there was that infamous GTO versus GTO article where Pontiac gave them a 1964 Goat which has been speculated not to have had a stock 389, but a heavily massaged 421.
Why should’t it make 271 hp? The Chevy 283 was making 270 hp back in ’57, without FI.
The 335 hp CJ 428 was very obviously rated lower, specifically because by that time insurance issues with high hp engine cars was becoming a serious problem. But that was very much not the case in 1964-1965, and through 1967.
This is not exactly analogous to the GTO. There was no bigger engine to swap in. And in 1964, there were no magical tricks to increase output of the K-Code 289 other than with more carbs and headers. It already had excellent heads and a very aggressive cam.
In his book, Glory Days: When Horsepower and Passion Ruled Detroit, Jim Wangers admitted that he had secretly swapped a 421 V-8 into his GTO for that Car and Driver test.
One thing to keep in mind: this car had 4.11:1 gears, which are of course optimized for acceleration. Did Car Life’s?
Also, the 1957 Corvette with a very similar hp/size engine (283/283) and 4.11 gears did the 0-60 in 5.7 and the 1/4 mile in 14.3. And the Corvette actually weighed a bit more than the Mustang.
Also, just what exactly could they do to make it a ringer? Blueprint the engine, to make sure it put out the maximum power it was capable of. But it was well known that the key to more power out of these was more carburation, which is exactly what Shelby did to get 306 hp out of it, along with headers.
I suspect that with the 4.11 gears and a well-tuned engine (maybe a bit more advance, but nothing any owner couldn’t or wouldn’t do in a “performance tune-up” this car was legitimately able to achieve these kinds of numbers or close to them. Or was there a hidden NOX bottle in the trunk?
It’s not really easy to magically make an engine make more power without it being fairly obvious.
Even the Shelby never ran faster than high-14s in magazine testing, and even 289 Cobras would only run high-13s with the same 271 hp 289 as the Mustang had, and they were a thousand pounds lighter. I don’t know if it was a ringer or not; I only know that the time it ran was significantly faster than what the other magazines came up with, and most of those cars had 3.89:1 gears. There’s not a big difference between the two.
Perhaps more pertinent is the trap speed – I never read another test of a 271 Mustang where the trap speed was faster than 90 mph. That’s a 10 mph difference. Even Shelbys would only trap between 92 and 95 mph.
I have a copy of Joe Oldham’s “Muscle Car Confidential,” and he came right out and said that he would sometimes make numbers up based on his experience with a wide range of testing when he couldn’t make it to the track. Road testing wasn’t necessarily an exact science back then for some of the magazines.
It’s clearly somewhat faster than I would have guessed. And we’ll have to guess as to how that happened.
Seems fishy to me too. For comparison’s sake motortrend ran the 260 horsepower 1999 Mustang GT to 14.0@100.2, but had a 200lb weight disadvantage, 3.27 gears, and unlike the 271 horsepower 289, that 260 horsepower 4.6 was SAE net, not gross. The newer one would have had much grippier tires out of the box than anything available in 1964 as well.
FWIW, those stats tend to support the ’65’s stats, at least to some extent. The difference in the gearing alone is huge. Steep gears make all the difference in the 1/4 mile; they actually used all four gears. Plus 200lbs more weight. Those two factors would seem to easily offset the difference in net vs. gross hp.
The ’57 270hp 283 made 230 hp net, so we can assume that the K-Code 289 made about the same. That’s only down 30hp from the 260 net of the ’99s. With the 4.11 gears and weight advantage, I would pick it to be as fast or faster.
Steep gears make a big difference in the E/T but the trap speed is still quite high for 271 gross hp and that is typically unaffected by more than a mph or two from final drive. The GT350 is where I question these too, and it 3.89 gears, and most tests of those were in the high 14s or 15s in the low 90s.
I agree with you Aaron, this test doesn’t add up. I don’t doubt the K-code engine made 271 gross hp and it was a great performing engine but 14.0 sec flat with a 100 mph trap speed seems too optimistic to me. I don’t have the road tests of the Shelby GT350s in front of me at the moment, but I am confident none ran that quick (approx high 14 seconds at low to mid 90s). And that was after the K-code was warmed over and making 306 hp (gross). Furthermore, I don’t think any other magazines else had a K-Code Mustang run any where near those times.
While the low gearing will make for a quick ET, it shouldn’t make a huge difference in the trap speed. The trap speed is fairly typically consistent regardless or gearing all else being equal. A 100 mph trap speed seems suspiciously high to me. Even compared to the 283 Fuelie Vette that Paul cites, that’s quite a bit faster through the traps.
I think its worth noting that Car and Driver, admitted fairly recent in it’s 60th Anniversary issue that they used to time cars with a stop watch during this era with very little accuracy. That alone makes me question the validity of many of C/D’s tests during this time, in particular since they consistently seemed to get the quickest times. Once C/D started using proper equipment, like a 5th wheel, when Patrick Bedard joined the staff their times seemed to fall more inline with other magazines.
When was this issue of C&D…October ’64, perhaps? I thought the Mustang fastback was available from 4/17/64 introduction…I was only seven at the time.
Fascinating how they didn’t like the front-end styling, going so far as to suggest it should “immediately report to the nearest plastic surgeon.” Wow.
No fastback initially. An addition in ’65.
Nice post. I had the opportunity to drive a K-code Mustang several times back in the mid-70s. Interestingly, even with that engine, it was just considered an old Mustang then.
Unlike most Ford engines of that era, it had a hair-trigger throttle – very much like a high-performance Chevy small block. And it was fast.
I can still remember the sound of those solid lifters…
I’m not sure either of the pictured cars have the 271hp engine. It’s harder to tell with the lead picture red car (it doesn’t have any GT emblems), but the white one on the specs page is lacking the dual exhaust trumpets through the lower valance panel that I believe were included with the hp engine.
The pictures are obviously press pictures, or shot in a different session by a photographer of a different car.
Dual exhaust trumpets through the valence panel were only on cars with the GT option The K code engine was not included in the GT package (though you did have to have an A or K engine to order the GT package), so a non-GT K car would not have the trumpet exhaust.
IIRC, a K-code 289 (or S-code 390) had a lower valance panel with dual-exhaust cut-outs and chrome extensions, whether it was a GT or not.
No A- or C-code 289 came from the factory with a dual-exhaust, even if it had the GT package.
This isn’t true. A-Code GTs came with the same dual exhausts with chrome extensions as the K-Code cars.
Also, non-GT K-Code cars didn’t have chrome extensions through the valence panel.
I don’t think so, doing a quick search for original K code non-GTs none I’m seeing any that have the cutout valance panel. One additional bit of evidence is the GT350 itself, as they were all manufactured as K-code non-GT fastbacks before being shipped out to LAX for Shelby to convert, and obviously with side exhaust that panel wasn’t used. 66s went with conventional routing but still used the non-GT valance
When I first saw the Mustang Fastback as a child, relatively soon after seeing the ’63 Corvette coupe, I was convinced I was living in the Golden Age. I think these are the two purest and best performance car designs, of an era full of great ones.
The low rear end gear ratios used to get the most acceleration really limited the car’s use on the highway. All cars back in the 60’s used rear end ratios in the low to mid 3.00s. Combined with the three speed transmissions cruising rpm was quite high. Those 4.11s must have made for a very “busy sounding” engine note.
Dave Freiburger of Car Craft magzine shared that he had a RoadRunner with super low gears, hot cam, and loose torque converter. It was so noisy and revved so high that he wouldn’t even drive it ten miles on the freeway to attend a cruise might or show. It was set up for the drag strip only. Even he lost interest and quit driving it in that configuration.
I wouldn’t say all 1960’s cars had rear end ratios in the low to mid 3.00s unless you’re referring specifically to muscle cars. My 1968 Plymouth Fury equpped with a 318 V8 and a 2 barrel carburetor has an axle ratio of 2.76 which is a lot more highway friendly.
I don’t know if it could have been the case with this test car, but I remember reading that some other magazines fitted so-called cheater slicks for the acceleration runs on ‘60’s muscle cars. These cars may have had low gearing, and exaggerated gross HP ratings (in some case) to maximize performance compared to modern cars that don’t need those tricks, but on the other hand, they also had hard, skinny bias ply tires and often poor rear axle location, so traction limited 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. If I recall correctly, this was especially used by Hot Rod magazine when testing the big block pony cars that came along a few years later. But I could see how it could help a 289/271 with 4.11 gears put that power down a lot better than those 5.50-5.90-15’s shown in the data panel.
They specifically note that it had the optional 550/590×14 high performance tires, which were not at all common. These were essentially semi-racing tires. But they would undoubtedly have disclosed if they put on slicks, which Hot Rod always did (disclose).
Thanks, I hadn’t noticed the mention of special tires in the text, though the text and data panel both say 15’s, not 14’s. Since 15” wheels/tires weren’t normally used on that size car in the sixties, I think the size confirms that they were some kind of soft, sticky tire. Then I found the Motor Trend test of a 271hp notchback online, albeit with 3.89 gears and much slower acceleration times. Anyway, they specifically state that their test car was supplied by Ford with “Firestone Super Sport 170-TW racing tires mounted on 15-inch steel disc wheels with 5½-inch rims”.
Oops; I botched that. I meant 15″. These were an unusual option. I even did a post on them a few years back:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/1964-5-mustang-brochure-anomoly-optional-15-wheels-and-tires-really/
I don’t think many were ever sold. The option was not shown in the revised 1965 brochure. These were special semi-racing Firestone (IIRC) semi-racing tires.
I agree with the people here that say that there’s something odd about both the 5.2 0-60 times, as well as the trap speed of 100 mph. Even if it had the 4.11 gears, traction would be a major issue, at least with the stock tires. You’d probably have to powerbrake it, but the torque plus the torque multiplication with the gearing would likely be impossible to transmit to the ground for any really low times.
“the independent rear suspension that was promised as optional equipment has not materialized.”
Little did they know that we’d have to wait until 1999 (in the Cobra) and 2015 (across the board) for IRS in the Mustang.
While it’s super cool that Mustang did eventually get IRS, the downside is that it added both weight and cost to it. Car snobs looked down on Mustang for being not as refined as a sports/ muscle car should be, but some of that lack of refinement also helped to make the car lighter and cheaper in the process.
Half the cost to get the suspension aligned too. I have IRS but I’m envious of the simplicity and ruggedness of a solid axle, with good engineering they can be plenty competent, which they were in the S197s
After reading the title of this entry; I was disappointed not to find a “Car & Driver” road test of the same generation Corvair Corsa (4 carb 140 hp or turbo 180 hp engine) and a Plymouth Barracuda “S” model with the potent 273 4-BBL V8 engine.
Might these be added to this posting sometime in the future?
#IIRC: In their print ads Plymouth referred to this still under-rated even today Small Block Mopar engine as the Barracuda’s “Super Commando” engine.
I think this was printed on the air cleaner decal?
Yes, coming very soon.
Thanks!
You know how much I value this website and your articles/comments.
It always amused/shocked/befuddled me how the major car magazines of this time period could get such …varying…zero to sixty and quarter miles times from the same car.
My observant Father dryly said, more than once: “I would NEVER purchase a car that “Car & Driver” had used for a road test.
I personally find it humorous that some of the test cars that we here at CC get actually WERE the same exact actual cars that Car&Driver tested previously, most notably the Fiat 500X and the more recent BMW 228xi Gran Coupe. They generally get them before we do, i.e. as lower mileage ones but have a few writers in my geographic area, so not everything goes to their head office. If it matters, both of those cars at least drove exactly as if brand new, i.e. nothing to show (yet) that they may have seen occasional hard use. I usually snap a picture of the VIN, perhaps in a few years I’ll track them and others to see where they ended up.
“It was brutally fast in a straight line”, indeed. A friend of mine had a K-code coupe, which I did not appreciate at the time: an engine that was a different design from the stock 289…not just solids and higher compression, but crank, pulley diameters, and balancing to allow for high RPMs. The sound alone will get your attention, along with that off-the-line kick. Shelby showed how a “secretaries car” (his words) could become a SCCA champion. Great story.
I converted a regular 289 to the 271 horse unit except for specially sixes crank pulleys and rods. I ran it in my 68 coup for 60,000 miles. It was happy to rev to 7,000 rpm real quick if you weren’t paying enough attention to your tach for shift times. I did drop a valve at 60,000 miles which ended that dynasty. I did a few more of these and they were quick little engines and reliable, though valve adjustment intervals were important. They were quick till about 85 miles per hour.