AdPock

With the debut of the new Ford GT, the 2017 Ford Raptor, and the Shelby GT350 R, it's clear that Ford is ushering in a new era. But is it safe to call this the “Golden Age of Ford Performance?”

Read the rest on the Mustang Source homepage. >>

Glenn

Coming off the heels of the 2015 North American International Auto Show and the debut of the new Ford GT, the 2017 Ford Raptor, and the Shelby GT350 R, it’s pretty clear that Ford is ushering in a new era. But is it safe to call it the “Golden Age of Ford performance?”

Well, you could easily argue that, given the show of power that Ford unveiled in Detroit coupled with the fact that the new Focus ST, Fiesta ST, and the Focus RS are all set to join the line-up as well.

2016-Ford-Mustang-Shelby-GT350R-2032-876x535

Altogether, Ford has plans to bring more than 12 new performance vehicles by the year 2020, according to an official Ford press release.

“Ford remains committed to innovation through performance,” said Raj Nair, Ford Group Vice President, Global Product Development. “Our new global Ford Performance team ties together racing, performance vehicles and parts. It will allow us to more quickly introduce products and accessories that meet the needs of customers around the world on-road and on the track.”

I guess that pretty much says it all. So welcome, one and all, to the Golden Age of Ford Performance.

TripleBlack14

The Golden Age of Ford Performance was in the 60's. Mustangs, Fairlanes and Galaxies with every conceivable engine, tranny, and rear end combo were tearing up drag strips and the NASCAR circuit, Shelby Mustangs dominated SCCA and Boss 302's ripped up Trans Am. Meanwhile, Cobras and GT40's were making Enzo Ferrari bend over and squeal like a pig in Europe.

But the Golden age of the 60's has led us to where we are now. I'd call it the Second Golden Age. A lot of that DNA carried over.

mustangfan410

I totally agree!

JCStang

But the current muscle cars would blow the doors off of anything from back then except for the rare pure drag cars they produced....adjust their HP ratings to current ways of calculating and they wouldn;t come close to the current cars, plus the current ones get twice the mpg's and handled 100% better.....

TripleBlack14

No argument there. But refering to today's Ford Performance as the Golden Age ignores what came before. It's quite possible that we wouldn't have the cars we love today had it not been for their ancestors.

bt4

They should, don't you think? Given the advantages of 50 years of technological advances in suspension, safety, and power trains. Today's cars are much safer, much more comfortable, and come equipped with much more creature comforts.

However, none of the products in the photo above rose to dominance the way Ford powered products dominated in the 60's and early 70's. The original GT40 drove its way to a 1-2-3 finish at Le Mans, Shelby-American and Holman-Moody simply destroyed the competition. Shelby-American with fellows named Dan Gurney and A.J. Foyt (you may have heard of them) sharing seat time took the checked in '67.

The '64 Fairlane Thunderbolt was street legal (barely) and could be bought through any Ford dealer. equipped with the 427 cammer. With drag slicks the car could break into the 10's and the record is in the 9's. In '64 the Ford 427 SOHC motor was the first factory motor ever banned by a racing sanctioning body. Don't be too sure that "modern" engines had much on the SOHC-monster in terms of horsepower.

When NASCAR banned the motor (too much HP, too much torque) it paved the way for Ford to offer it up to the NHRA crowd. Connie Kalitta used the motor to put a Ford in the NHRA and AHRA winners' circle for the first time in years. Gas Ronda, George Montgomery (The Malco Gasser), and Don Nicholson were hard to beat in the quarter. The blown 427 SOHC in George's '67 Mustang would produce 1200-hp on pump gas, and set 5 NHRA records.

Years after Ford dropped factory support for the motor, it continued to compete (and win) against factory-backed teams running other motors (Dyno Don Nicholson ran one in 71 to a championship in Pro Stock).

BTW, those legendary Dode Hemi's that NASCAR allowed, (while banning the SOHC)--the ones that were supposedly going to dominate all others; Ford won 30 of the races in '64 against 12 for Plymouth and 14 for Dodge.

The Ford powered Shelby AC-bodied Cobra was winning in '64 as well. The 289-powered AC Cobra took first in the SCCA-A production championship. The 427-powered Daytona coupe took first in the 12-Hour Sebring. The '65 Shelby Cobra Daytona Coupe is the only American car ever to win the FIA World’s Manufacturer’s Championship for GT cars, beating Europe’s best; Porsche, Ferrari, Jaguar, and Aston Martin.

In '67 a Shelby GT350 took the Trans-Am Championship. And Ford won again in 1970. (Followed by two years of dominance by American Motors!)

It is great to see Ford offering performance products. But I doubt Ford, or any other manufacturer (maybe Porsche) is in a position to dominate automotive performance like Ford did during the 60's.

I'm going to second TripleBlack's motion that the Golden Age of Ford Performance was in the 60's. Today's offerings just might be the beginning of GA II.

exchallenger

I agree completely. While you can make the argument that Ford dominated racing, modern street performance cars are much faster and quicker than their predecessors primarily because they are so much more powerful. And while there were a few quicker vehicles way back when, barely streetable, there weren't enough to talk about. We have clearly been in a golden age of performance cars since at least 2011. It takes years for cars to get their due but the entire current crop of retro-inspired cars will some day.

TripleBlack14

"Retro-inspired cars" supports my argument. They are called retro for a very good reason....they are tributes to what preceeded them.

Using your time frame of "since 2011", the only American cars that can be truly considered modern muscle/performance are the Mustang, Camaro, Challenger, Charger, and the highly anticipated Ford GT. That's just five offerings....very good ones for certain....but less than a half a dozen. You can break it down further into V-8 sub-models such as the different modern Shelbys, SRT8/Hellcats, and the Camaro variants. Throw in the Corvette for good measure.

Consider this....

From 1964 until 1970 we saw these:

GTO's with 389 single 4 bbls or tri-power, along with Judges and 455 Super Dutys

Ford Galaxies, Fairlanes, Torinos with 289's, 390's 429's and 427's

Mercury Cyclones and Comets...same deal as their Ford counterparts

Mustangs/Shelbys/Boss/Mach 1...289's, 302's, 351's, 390's, 427's, 428's, 428 CJ's, 429's

Cobras 260/289/427/428

Mercury Cougars...same engine choices as the Mustang

Chevrolet Impalas, Malibus, Novas, Monte Carlos...327's, 350's, 396's & 427's with 4bbls or tri-power, 409's, 454's

Camaros...327's, 302's, 350's, 396's, 454's with various induction options and sub models like the RS/SS/Z28

Olds...442's with various carb setups and 350's, 400's, and 425's

Buicks...Stage 1 & 2's

AMC AMX's and Javelins

Corvettes....engine choices and variants too numerous to list

Mopar...Challengers, Cuda's, Satellites, GTX's, Road Runners, Chargers, 440 Darts with every conceivable engine and induction system ranging from 273's to Hemi's

And this doesn't take into account Chevrolet COPO's like Yenko, Nickey, and Baldwin Motion, or Mopar and Ford vehicles designed for NASCAR that had to be made available in small numbers to satisfy homologation reguirements. You can even include the Paxton supercharged 289 Avanti.

In addition, many of these cars could be had as coupes, fastbacks, 2 door sedans, and convertibles. You had choices of different manual transmissions, rear axles, suspension set-ups, and factory-delete options like radios, heaters, and carpeting to save weight. The sky was the limit when it came to checking off the wish list at the dealer.

This is by no means a comprehensive list. I did it from memory and I'm sure I missed a few.

And the amazing thing about 60's muscle is that the vast number of them could be afforded by teenagers who had a job and a co-signer. Drag racing, both sanctioned and illegal, was the sport of the day. Almost everyone had a muscle car. It's all you saw on the street.

American car culture and craziness culminated in the 60's....movies, model cars, TV shows, music and other forms of media and visuals bombarded us everywhere we looked. Three things ruled the 60's...Rock and Roll, girls, and cars cars cars.

It's hard then to make an reasoned argument that we are in the "Golden Age" at this moment. No doubt we are experiencing a performance revival but it's on a much more limited, and much more expensive level than it was almost 6 decades ago. Different times, similar DNA and all traceable to Detroit.

"Golden Age" implies an specific era. We are certainly in a new era of performance, but even 20 years from now when we look back, those that are still around to remember will always look to the 60's as how it all started.

JCStang

Factor in inflation and the current cars are as cheap or cheaper than mst of those cars you listed, and again, are far superior in every aspect. The Cobra's and one off's don't count, but if you count them, they are probably no cheaper than the top of the line cars of today such as the Hellcat, Shelby, etc. They might have been cheaper then, but people made a hell of a lot less back then than they do now.

JCStang

And they are retro in looks only...everything else is light years ahead of what they made back then.

bt4

I had forgotten that Camaros once sported a 302--a short stroke Chevy small block to compete in Trans-AM (305 was the max limit). Pontiac did almost the same, but the displacement was 303. Ironic that the Firebird TA for the street had a 455 big block, disqualifying it from ever being a Trans-Am racer.

The AAR Cuda was wicked on the street. The 340 with the three-duce intake was a better street performer than the Hemi. (Lighter, especially over the front wheels!) the Trans-Am version used a Kieth Black-prepped 303 (re-worked 340) to get the car within TA specs.

TripleBlack14

The cost of a typical muscle car in 1968 was around $3000, which in today's dollars equates to approximately $20,400.

A 1968 Shelby GT500 for example, cost $4300 new, or approximately $29,000 in 2014 dollars. That would be $30,000 less than the actual cost of a GT500 last year.

A 1969 COPO ZL1, the Holy Grail of Camaros, cost around $8000 new, or $52,000 in today's dollars.

Yes, salaries were less in the 60's, but cars were still proprortionately cheaper than today. But that's not the point of this thread. And neither is whether today's performance cars are better and more powerful. There is no dispute in that regard. But there are far fewer choices and marketing is no longer directing towards car guys like it once did.

Given the sheer number of muscle cars produced between 1964-1970, the options and engine/trans/body style variations which made selection availability increase almost exponentially, and the relative ease and cost of owning one, the last 5 years doesn't come close to comparing with the 60's.

Ford flirted and teased us a bit with performance after the Pinto-stang and just prior to the S197 years, but overall it was fairly lackluster compared with the S197, S550 offerings, and hopefully beyond. So in that regard I accept the premise that we are indeed in a second Golden era given the length of time that has passed since the first era when cars really mattered.

In order to know where you're going, you have to know where you've been.

exchallenger

I agree there are far fewer choices these last few years as compared to the 1960's and early '70's, only because there are fewer manufacturers. Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Plymouth, AMC, etc are dead to name a few. So yeah, I think the old muscle cars probably were somewhat cheaper because of the reduced competition, 15 different possible cars to choose from in 1970 and only 3 or 4 today. Still, while there were many cars with infinite combinations of engines and such, they were still much slower. We have fewer but better choices today. Not in every way, but in most ways (brakes, handling, crashworthiness, and other ways already mentioned). The late 60's and very early 70's were an amazing time in history but cars did not peak in that era. They are peaking today.

bt4

You are making an assumption that cars are "peaking" today. But, by your reasoning, (cars are better and faster, than they were 30 years ago) then 30 years from now (cars will be better and maybe even faster) this Golden Age that you are proclaiming, will no longer exist and 2045 will be the beginning of "The Golden Age" of automobiles. Technology and will continue to advance and competition will improve the breed--where does that place your Golden Age?

You also have made an assumption that cars are "much faster" today. Are they? An AMC Hornet SC/360 was capable of a 14 second quarter. That vehicle is pretty much the equivalent of a modern Camry, Accord, or Fusion. How much faster in the quarter are they than a 1973 AMC Hornet? (Hint: A Camry SE gets there in about 14.1 seconds, the LE will take you a shade over 16.) A Fusion EB will get you there in about 14.9. Do you think a new Nissan Altima would be quicker than a '66 Fairlane with the 390?

Yes, yes, save your breath, (and your flames) Mustang and Camaro are much faster than that--but the majority of today's car's aren't Mustangs and Camaros (or Hellcats). The majority of the cars on the road today offer a V6, or I4, not a V8. Not even the majority of Mustangs on the road have a V8. In the 60's nearly every manufacturer offered V8's of varying in degrees of performance in most of their mid-sized and full-sized vehicles--how many mid-sized or full-sized offerings under $35K with an optional V8 can you name today? What Ford car today offers a V8 option, other than a Mustang? In 1965, the (Falcon, Fairlane, Galaxie, and the Mustang all offered a V8.)

A '64 Ford Thunderbolt has clocked 9.23 in the quarter at a trap speed of 151 mph--remind me how much faster the GT500 is than that (or the Hellcat)? A driver for Carroll Shelby took a '65 Cobra from 0-100-0 in 14.5 seconds. (On bias ply tires!) How many performance cars can you name for under $200,000 can do that today? A 69 COPO Camaro could rip off a 0-60 sprint in 5.3 seconds and a 13 quarter with stock tires. All it would take to make it competitive with a current Camaro or Mustang is a sticky set of tires--despite lacking 60 years of progress.

Yes, in general, cars are much better today--for the price that they command, they **** well better be. It is absolutely great time to be an enthusiast. But, the range of choices, the infinitely variable options available from the early 60's to the early 70's cannot be matched by today's offerings.

BTW; you would never catch me in a '64 Thunderbolt trying for a sub 10-second run. The very thought of attempting to stop at a trap of over 140 miles an hour with drag slicks and drum brakes terrifies the snot out of me--and I'm not ashamed to admit it!

JCStang

Those are one offs, you rarely saw those cars........95% of the muscle cars ran in the 13's and 14's or higher back then, and many of those that ran quicker in the mags had been specially tuned by the factory before given to the mag for testing...and yes many family cars are just as quick as many of the family cars with v8's back in the 60's, many with v6's or turbo 4's routinely run in the 14's (or quicker, and a lot of people back then got the base v8 or a 6 in their family cars)....and the HP ratings were anywhere from 5 to 25% lower than what they advertised taking into account the switch from SAE gross to net in 1972. Factor in again they got single digit mpg, and couldn't handle nearly as well, had to be tuned every 3 or 5 thousand miles, polluted like crazy, etc, well, sometimes our memory makes things better than they really were.

bt4

At the risk of flogging a dead pony, the AC Cobra, the 427 Corvette, the Shelbly GT350, Pontiac GTO's, Firebird TA and Z/28 Camaros, Roadrunners, Hemi Cuda's, and AMX offerings were not one of. You could buy a Cobra from any Ford dealership, an AMX from any AMC dealer, or a AAR Cuda from any Plymouth dealer.

To your point; they were not volume sellers. However, the very fast cars today, such as the Hellcat, the Z/28 Camaro, and the upcoming Mustang GT350 are not volume production cars either--unless you care to claim otherwise. (Something tells me that the Hellcat is not going to de-throne the Toyota Camry for volume sales anytime soon.)

In fairness, the '64 Thunderbolt was the result of a very limited run; the only vehicle (not previously mentioned) that might fall into the "one of" category, was the A/FX Mustang. The COPO Camaro was a very limited run.

Yes--point taken with a turbo 4, today's family cars are just as quick as the V8's of yesteryear. BTW, just as quick does NOT translate as much quicker. And single digit MPG? Where did you find that? A Boss 429, certainly liked gas. But a '63 Falcon would return a 30 MPG number.

Yes--as I have stated multiple times in this post cars are much better today (you can even post that again if you want--it's patently obvious.) But it isn't memory that makes the 60's the Golden Age--it's an understanding of automotive history.

I like the Ford Focus--my wife owned a 2012. Compare it to a '63 Falcon. The Focus is much better, all around. But, in 2012 the options were an 2.0L I4 or a 2.0L I4. I could have a 4-Door sedan or a 5-door hatchback (I like the hatch). In '63 I could order a Falcon in a 4-door sedan, a 2-door sedan, a 2-door convertible, a 2-door sport utility, a 3-door wagon, a 5-door wagon. (And there was even a Falcon van.) I could have ordered it with three different I6 engines, or made a choice between two different V8's. (The sprint model was essentially a Mustang except for the body.)
Would I pick a '63 Falcon over a 2012 Focus--no. Do I wish that Ford (or any other manufacturer) would offer me as many choices available to consumers in '63--you bet. (How come you can't get a PP on a 2015 V6? How come only certain dealers can order SE's?)

It isn't about memory, or better, or faster cars, or more fuel efficient cars, when you get down to it. The government had much less involvement in the auto sector. GM, Ford and Chrysler, (and AMC) were much more focused on product and consumer offerings, than quarterly dividends, and limited package offerings in the name of cost control. Cars were more distinctly style (Note that I did not say prettier, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.) And the choices that a consumer had at that time was considerably wider than at anytime in automotive history and the post war industrial boom had made automobiles more affordable to more people than previously dreamed.

BTW, if you can remember the 60's you weren't really there.

bt4

During the war years, cars were not really affordable for most U.S. households. That began to change in the 50's as the economy started to rebound. Factory output switched from war production to consumer products and by the early '60's most of the nation saw a fair increase in prosperity.

Cars benefited, greatly, in equal parts due to the increased mfg. capabilities and the economic growth. In 65 a new I6 Mustang could be purchased for $2,368 dollars (Iaccoca had made a promise to Ford to deliver a vehicle under $2500, and he made good on the promise.) In today's dollars that amounts to $17,821, averaging in inflation. (A 2015 V6 starts at $23,800.). Anyone that wanted the new pony, if they had a job, could afford one. Ford had forecast 100,000 units for the first year's sales--a figure that was eclipsed in the first three months of availability.

Times have changed (better, worse, or indifferent, is all a matter of viewpoint, isn't it?), and automobiles are better. However, in recent economic times, while buying a new car is relatively easy, affording a brand new car is becoming more of a reach for American consumers. New car prices have increased faster than the average inflation, and real income has not kept pace.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/driveo...rable/1949385/

JCStang

You are mixing cars, don;t throw the Falcon into the mix, we are not talking economy cars here.......the Thunderbolts, Cobra's and the very limited production cars were yes, as quick or quicker than todays Gt's and the like. But the GT and Camaro's from today are much quicker than their equivelants from the 60's and 70's. Just look up the times, hell the Boss 429 only ran 14's. And look up the times of the Cuda's, the goats, most of the everyday muscles cars...again they were at best low to mid 13 to upper 14's in the quarter miles...a few limited productions would have been quicker but the everyday muscle cars were in the 13's and 14's. At best their average mpg's barely broke single digits unless you drove it like an old lady, and probably got mid to upper teens on the highway....

Boss 429 info:

Acceleration
0-60 mph 7.1
0-100 mph 13.6
Standing 1/4 mi 14.09 @ 102.85 mph

JCStang

and to your point, only 100 Thunderbots were made...I bet many more Hellcats will be made.