Is This the Golden Age of Ford Performance?
2/16/15, 01:17 PM
#21
Cobra Member
We have some great historians on this site. I have enjoyed reading all comments in this thread.
The sixties will remain as the Golden Age for performance cars because almost every town had a car dealership you could go to and order a performance car from. Today , you can only order a performance car from a dealer who has an allocation for the performance car you want. You had more freedom to delete or add options in the sixties to the car you wanted to purchase.
The sixties will remain as the Golden Age for performance cars because almost every town had a car dealership you could go to and order a performance car from. Today , you can only order a performance car from a dealer who has an allocation for the performance car you want. You had more freedom to delete or add options in the sixties to the car you wanted to purchase.
2/16/15, 03:46 PM
#22
Bullitt Member
Join Date: March 25, 2004
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Boss 429 info:
Acceleration
0-60 mph 7.1
0-100 mph 13.6
Standing 1/4 mi 14.09 @ 102.85 mph
In 64 you could have performance (or not) in just about any body style.
That isn't true today. (Hence the Falcon reference--you simply cannot find a single product from anyone today that offers that many body configurations.)
In 64 you could order any level of performance the factory offered (and some that they didn't) from any dealer. That is not true today. (Dealer allocations, anyone?)
In 64 any dealer could fix offer you any level of factory performance and beyond (Tasca Ford, Yenko Camaro), literally customizing just about any vehicle--that isn't simply isn't true today. (Unless you are a Saudi Prince--then anything goes.)
Re-read my comment about the V6 Mustang not being available with a PP. BTW, the only way to get a GT with PP and an auto is to order the 50th SE. (I have seen 4, listing for 61K to 63K.) Mfg's do not give consumers choices--they offer packages. If you like the package; all is good--if it doesn't offer what you want, too bad. That was not true for most of the 60's. (As the 70's appeared on the horizon, things did changed radically.)
Yes your Mustang is much faster than a 69 Boss (see if it will fetch as much at auction). But in 65 anyone with a job could buy a Mustang--that simply isn't true today. (Thankfully, there are plenty of used Mustangs and a terrific after market!) Personally, I'd love to have a Porsche 918--but it ain't happenin'--I checked my Powerball ticket.
The variety, the options from the dealer, and the distinct styles available to the buying public is what makes the 60's unique. We can agree to disagree on whether a new Golden Age is has started now.
But if you define "Golden Age" by faster cars, and fuel efficiency, and by a better product, you are still missing the point. Here's the thing, if your yardstick is that cars are better now than they were then, keep in mind that is going to be true 10 years from now, and 20 years from now, and 30 years from now, (and then I will be long gone, so it really won't matter to me. I plan to live to 93 to be shot to death by a jealous husband!) Technology doesn't stand still. It is not a yardstick of any value to determine a "Golden Age" of anything.
PS
Yes there will be more Hellcats made than Thunderbolts--however, both are limited production (are you claiming otherwise?) And since you want to re-hash it--yes a Thunderbolt was a drag-racing car you could buy right off the Ford showroom floor. And 60 years later a car with a blown 6.2L Hemi with 60 years of advanced technology would see nothing but the taillights of that 64 Fairlane from 0-60 and in the quarter, despite the fact the sixty year old SHOC was N/A fed by a single 4-bbl carb. (It weighed over a ton less than a Hellcat.)
2/16/15, 04:11 PM
#23
Post *****
Join Date: December 14, 2007
Location: State of Jefferson Mountains USA
Posts: 20,005
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Because at least then Ford demonstrated periods of domination. They demonstrated their performance prowess on the track and on the street as you have listed very well.
Whereas today Ford does not. They certainly don't dominate nascar, they've pulled out of NHRA, and are now only playing around with their EBV6 Prototype in IMSA touring/endurance and EB4 Focus with Rally Car. Even Boss didn't "dominate" their circuit.
Domination on the street with the factory (stock) GT against (stock) Camaro & Challenger? No domination there... Sadly, it's just eek out a win here or there.
Last edited by cdynaco; 2/16/15 at 04:14 PM.
2/16/15, 04:55 PM
#25
Bullitt Member
Join Date: March 25, 2004
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not a big NASCAR fan, but I do wish Ford was more competitive in that arena. The Woods Brothers had some potent Mercurys back in the day (1978 with Cale Yarborough at the wheel of the number 21). Bud Moore cranked out some fast Fords--Bobby Allison had a great run for the Moore team.
I still chuckle when I recall Cale Yarborough and Bobby Allison going at in back in '79. After the fight--I can't remember who quoted Allison as saying that perhaps he shouldn't have questioned Cale's ancestry. And the line about "Cale ran his nose into my fist several times..." is classic! Naturally, Cale remembered it differently (LOL).
I am sorry to see Ford cash out of the NHRA as well. I suspect John Force Racing will continue to do well with their new sponsors.
I still chuckle when I recall Cale Yarborough and Bobby Allison going at in back in '79. After the fight--I can't remember who quoted Allison as saying that perhaps he shouldn't have questioned Cale's ancestry. And the line about "Cale ran his nose into my fist several times..." is classic! Naturally, Cale remembered it differently (LOL).
I am sorry to see Ford cash out of the NHRA as well. I suspect John Force Racing will continue to do well with their new sponsors.
2/16/15, 05:07 PM
#26
GT Member
Join Date: November 26, 2011
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're still missing the point--only reiterating how fast and how good today's cars are--which you want to point out ad nauseum. Don't mistake our disagreement on what era to call a "Golden Age" as disagreeing on the fact that cars are much better now than they were then.
In 64 you could have performance (or not) in just about any body style.
That isn't true today. (Hence the Falcon reference--you simply cannot find a single product from anyone today that offers that many body configurations.)
In 64 you could order any level of performance the factory offered (and some that they didn't) from any dealer. That is not true today. (Dealer allocations, anyone?)
In 64 any dealer could fix offer you any level of factory performance and beyond (Tasca Ford, Yenko Camaro), literally customizing just about any vehicle--that isn't simply isn't true today. (Unless you are a Saudi Prince--then anything goes.)
Re-read my comment about the V6 Mustang not being available with a PP. BTW, the only way to get a GT with PP and an auto is to order the 50th SE. (I have seen 4, listing for 61K to 63K.) Mfg's do not give consumers choices--they offer packages. If you like the package; all is good--if it doesn't offer what you want, too bad. That was not true for most of the 60's. (As the 70's appeared on the horizon, things did changed radically.)
Yes your Mustang is much faster than a 69 Boss (see if it will fetch as much at auction). But in 65 anyone with a job could buy a Mustang--that simply isn't true today. (Thankfully, there are plenty of used Mustangs and a terrific after market!) Personally, I'd love to have a Porsche 918--but it ain't happenin'--I checked my Powerball ticket.
The variety, the options from the dealer, and the distinct styles available to the buying public is what makes the 60's unique. We can agree to disagree on whether a new Golden Age is has started now.
But if you define "Golden Age" by faster cars, and fuel efficiency, and by a better product, you are still missing the point. Here's the thing, if your yardstick is that cars are better now than they were then, keep in mind that is going to be true 10 years from now, and 20 years from now, and 30 years from now, (and then I will be long gone, so it really won't matter to me. I plan to live to 93 to be shot to death by a jealous husband!) Technology doesn't stand still. It is not a yardstick of any value to determine a "Golden Age" of anything.
PS
Yes there will be more Hellcats made than Thunderbolts--however, both are limited production (are you claiming otherwise?) And since you want to re-hash it--yes a Thunderbolt was a drag-racing car you could buy right off the Ford showroom floor. And 60 years later a car with a blown 6.2L Hemi with 60 years of advanced technology would see nothing but the taillights of that 64 Fairlane from 0-60 and in the quarter, despite the fact the sixty year old SHOC was N/A fed by a single 4-bbl carb. (It weighed over a ton less than a Hellcat.)
In 64 you could have performance (or not) in just about any body style.
That isn't true today. (Hence the Falcon reference--you simply cannot find a single product from anyone today that offers that many body configurations.)
In 64 you could order any level of performance the factory offered (and some that they didn't) from any dealer. That is not true today. (Dealer allocations, anyone?)
In 64 any dealer could fix offer you any level of factory performance and beyond (Tasca Ford, Yenko Camaro), literally customizing just about any vehicle--that isn't simply isn't true today. (Unless you are a Saudi Prince--then anything goes.)
Re-read my comment about the V6 Mustang not being available with a PP. BTW, the only way to get a GT with PP and an auto is to order the 50th SE. (I have seen 4, listing for 61K to 63K.) Mfg's do not give consumers choices--they offer packages. If you like the package; all is good--if it doesn't offer what you want, too bad. That was not true for most of the 60's. (As the 70's appeared on the horizon, things did changed radically.)
Yes your Mustang is much faster than a 69 Boss (see if it will fetch as much at auction). But in 65 anyone with a job could buy a Mustang--that simply isn't true today. (Thankfully, there are plenty of used Mustangs and a terrific after market!) Personally, I'd love to have a Porsche 918--but it ain't happenin'--I checked my Powerball ticket.
The variety, the options from the dealer, and the distinct styles available to the buying public is what makes the 60's unique. We can agree to disagree on whether a new Golden Age is has started now.
But if you define "Golden Age" by faster cars, and fuel efficiency, and by a better product, you are still missing the point. Here's the thing, if your yardstick is that cars are better now than they were then, keep in mind that is going to be true 10 years from now, and 20 years from now, and 30 years from now, (and then I will be long gone, so it really won't matter to me. I plan to live to 93 to be shot to death by a jealous husband!) Technology doesn't stand still. It is not a yardstick of any value to determine a "Golden Age" of anything.
PS
Yes there will be more Hellcats made than Thunderbolts--however, both are limited production (are you claiming otherwise?) And since you want to re-hash it--yes a Thunderbolt was a drag-racing car you could buy right off the Ford showroom floor. And 60 years later a car with a blown 6.2L Hemi with 60 years of advanced technology would see nothing but the taillights of that 64 Fairlane from 0-60 and in the quarter, despite the fact the sixty year old SHOC was N/A fed by a single 4-bbl carb. (It weighed over a ton less than a Hellcat.)
2/16/15, 05:46 PM
#27
FR500 Member
Implementing CAFE standards over 50something mpg, fleet wide, will likely mean the end of virtually all hi-po v-8 engines. Tough to meet those standards with 420, 425, or 480 hp engines being produced in large numbers. Regulators will legislate them out of existence just like they killed powerful v-8s in the early 1970's. It's not far away.
For argument's sake, let's assume we have perhaps just 3 more years of salad days. Since the Mustang's concerted revival efforts commenced in 2005, that'd be a hi-po V8 run of 13 years. The original muscle car era lasted only 6-7 years, so we have been indeed very fortunate in this Second Golden Era.
Get one now, used or new, while the getting's good. Fortunately cars are lasting longer, less like to be abused, and low mileage examples are much more plentiful then their 60's counterparts, so we should still have a decent supply at reasonable prices if you want an S197 or first year S550 five years from now.
Last edited by TripleBlack14; 2/16/15 at 06:09 PM.
2/16/15, 06:03 PM
#28
Bullitt Member
Join Date: March 25, 2004
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree that cars will be better (meaning acceleration, which we were talking about). Implementing CAFE standards over 50something mpg, fleet wide, will likely mean the end of virtually all hi-po v-8 engines. Tough to meet those standards with 420, 425, or 480 hp engines being produced in large numbers. Regulators will legislate them out of existence just like they killed powerful v-8s in the early 1970's. It's not far away. The most expensive classic cars are invariably the most powerful, in any automotive era. Modern muscle cars are far more powerful than their predecessors, just as 60's and early 70's cars eclipsed what came before in terms of acceleration. American manufacturers stepped it up dramatically in terms of power the last several years so when it comes to quick and fast cars, there is a clear winner. For the American consumer, this IS the high point.
Change is inevitable, but the death of V8's does not mean the death of performance. For example, take the Ford Fiesta GRC. It sports a modest 2.0L 4-banger, yet produces 600-HP while its AWD system allows it to blast from 0-60 in 1.9 seconds. To put that into perspective, it is faster than a Bugatti Veyron. Of course as my friend (JCstang) puts it--it is a "one-of", a purpose built vehicle. But that's not to say that some of its tech can't find its way to more mainstream vehicles. (Like a Focus RS maybe?)
I am not convinced that technology has reached a complete dead-end for ICE. Volvo has a new triple turbo system, where one of the turbos is electric, allowing boost regardless of RPM's. There new 2.0L puts out 450-HP. Do the math, what would your 2015 5.0L have to produce to match the efficiency (225-HP/L) horsepower-wise? (Think of the challenge, five years down the road, of keeping a 450-HP EB Mustang with AWD in your review mirror if you were driving a 2015 RWD 435-HP V8?)
New technology can be a real game changer--for example 3D printing. It can eliminate long supply chain issues, meaning greatly reduced cost. It could also lead to new manufacturing processes with new composite materials. When hybrid gas/electric drives were first introduced the intent was MPG, but now companies are realizing the performance potential of a hybrid drive system with a motor (electric) that has massive torque from just a few RPM's. In 20 years you might find that you no longer have a V8, but a hybrid drive (or completely electric) that is cheaper to build, easier to service, and offers more torque than an ICE possibly provide.
Out on the fringe, scientists these days are not questioning whether or not fusion (not nuclear fission) power is possible--the argument is over whether is is cost effective. Not in this decade, but maybe within the next twenty years--fusion power will be harnessed.
As far as today's automotive products being the "pinnacle" of engineering achievement--that's exactly the same thing that people in general believed when Ford introduced the Flat head V8 back in 1932. "Man it don't get no better than that."
Thanks for participating in this topic--I have really have enjoyed all the posts.
2/17/15, 08:14 AM
#29
Bullitt Member
Join Date: March 25, 2004
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an after thought--I don't know how many people are aware of Ford's investment in 3D print technology, so I thought I should post a link:
https://media.ford.com/content/fordm...t-quality.html
It's not a tech article, (from Ford media) but it is a peek at what they are currently doing and what they plan to do in the future.
bt4
https://media.ford.com/content/fordm...t-quality.html
It's not a tech article, (from Ford media) but it is a peek at what they are currently doing and what they plan to do in the future.
bt4
2/28/15, 06:22 PM
#30
Bullitt Member
Anyone can quote performance numbers all day. No one is disputing that today's cars are faster or whatever. Given the amount of time that has elapsed they absolutely should be. That's not the point of this thread. The OP asked (or in today's vernacular "axed") if this was the Golden Age of Ford Performance and those of us who grew up in the 60s and 70s know what was available back then and what is available today and how much it cost to purchase and operate a performance car then versus now. If performance cars from "back in the day" sucked so badly why is that a restored '69 or '70 428 CJ Mustang that cost about $4000 new sells for over $70,000 today? Those cars sold in reasonably high numbers even by today's standards. I seriously doubt that today's performance cars will command 17 times their original value 45 years from now.
3/5/15, 02:53 PM
#31
Cobra Member
Anyone can quote performance numbers all day. No one is disputing that today's cars are faster or whatever. Given the amount of time that has elapsed they absolutely should be. That's not the point of this thread. The OP asked (or in today's vernacular "axed") if this was the Golden Age of Ford Performance and those of us who grew up in the 60s and 70s know what was available back then and what is available today and how much it cost to purchase and operate a performance car then versus now. If performance cars from "back in the day" sucked so badly why is that a restored '69 or '70 428 CJ Mustang that cost about $4000 new sells for over $70,000 today? Those cars sold in reasonably high numbers even by today's standards. I seriously doubt that today's performance cars will command 17 times their original value 45 years from now.
3/5/15, 04:35 PM
#32
GT Member
Join Date: November 26, 2011
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone can quote performance numbers all day. No one is disputing that today's cars are faster or whatever. Given the amount of time that has elapsed they absolutely should be. That's not the point of this thread. The OP asked (or in today's vernacular "axed") if this was the Golden Age of Ford Performance and those of us who grew up in the 60s and 70s know what was available back then and what is available today and how much it cost to purchase and operate a performance car then versus now. If performance cars from "back in the day" sucked so badly why is that a restored '69 or '70 428 CJ Mustang that cost about $4000 new sells for over $70,000 today? Those cars sold in reasonably high numbers even by today's standards. I seriously doubt that today's performance cars will command 17 times their original value 45 years from now.
3/6/15, 05:19 PM
#33
Bullitt Member
Join Date: March 25, 2004
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's really the million dollar question I've been asking myself for years... "why is a restored '69 or '70 428 CJ Mustang...selling for $70,000 today?" Obviously, it isn't for the performance, since you can buy vastly improved performance (read:acceleration and handling) today for that same $70,000 grand or much less. I think it's nostalgia. What's curious to me is that the people I knew who bought such vehicles way back when, and there were many, bought them for the superior performance they had. I don't believe they would buy the same thing today if they were still only interested in performance.
However, that isn't the total sum of why big money changes hands. Some designs wear well--given the right elements, in the right proportions, some cars do approach art in the form that they wear. Don't try to understand art. It is a very subjective thing. You may like Picasso's cubist period, someone else could be repulsed by the paintings. (Guernica is positively disturbing!) Some consider his blue period to be superior--quite frankly I just don't like Picasso's style. I like Van Gogh, but I wouldn't pay $8 million to own Sunflowers--but someone did pay over $84 million the last time it changed hands.
Once again you are harping on performance as if it were the only yardstick that matters. Something faster will always come along. In your opinion, and I am not being sarcastic, I am truly interested in what you have to say--what vehicle available for purchase right now will not be eclipsed by a future offering?
3/6/15, 06:42 PM
#34
GT Member
Join Date: November 26, 2011
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you're right on the right track on the nostalgia angle. Older buyers with lots of disposable income may want to re-live the days of their youth, and they want to buy the car that they dreamed about when they were young and couldn't afford it.
However, that isn't the total sum of why big money changes hands. Some designs wear well--given the right elements, in the right proportions, some cars do approach art in the form that they wear. Don't try to understand art. It is a very subjective thing. You may like Picasso's cubist period, someone else could be repulsed by the paintings. (Guernica is positively disturbing!) Some consider his blue period to be superior--quite frankly I just don't like Picasso's style. I like Van Gogh, but I wouldn't pay $8 million to own Sunflowers--but someone did pay over $84 million the last time it changed hands.
Once again you are harping on performance as if it were the only yardstick that matters. Something faster will always come along. In your opinion, and I am not being sarcastic, I am truly interested in what you have to say--what vehicle available for purchase right now will not be eclipsed by a future offering?
However, that isn't the total sum of why big money changes hands. Some designs wear well--given the right elements, in the right proportions, some cars do approach art in the form that they wear. Don't try to understand art. It is a very subjective thing. You may like Picasso's cubist period, someone else could be repulsed by the paintings. (Guernica is positively disturbing!) Some consider his blue period to be superior--quite frankly I just don't like Picasso's style. I like Van Gogh, but I wouldn't pay $8 million to own Sunflowers--but someone did pay over $84 million the last time it changed hands.
Once again you are harping on performance as if it were the only yardstick that matters. Something faster will always come along. In your opinion, and I am not being sarcastic, I am truly interested in what you have to say--what vehicle available for purchase right now will not be eclipsed by a future offering?
3/6/15, 08:54 PM
#35
Cobra Member
Join Date: October 18, 2011
Location: North Carolina (currently deployed)
Posts: 1,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not a big NASCAR fan, but I do wish Ford was more competitive in that arena. The Woods Brothers had some potent Mercurys back in the day (1978 with Cale Yarborough at the wheel of the number 21). Bud Moore cranked out some fast Fords--Bobby Allison had a great run for the Moore team.
I still chuckle when I recall Cale Yarborough and Bobby Allison going at in back in '79. After the fight--I can't remember who quoted Allison as saying that perhaps he shouldn't have questioned Cale's ancestry. And the line about "Cale ran his nose into my fist several times..." is classic! Naturally, Cale remembered it differently (LOL).
I am sorry to see Ford cash out of the NHRA as well. I suspect John Force Racing will continue to do well with their new sponsors.
I still chuckle when I recall Cale Yarborough and Bobby Allison going at in back in '79. After the fight--I can't remember who quoted Allison as saying that perhaps he shouldn't have questioned Cale's ancestry. And the line about "Cale ran his nose into my fist several times..." is classic! Naturally, Cale remembered it differently (LOL).
I am sorry to see Ford cash out of the NHRA as well. I suspect John Force Racing will continue to do well with their new sponsors.
OF course that was back in the day before all the restrictions and whatnot....watching NASCAR today there seems to be bias against Ford and in favor of Joe Gibbs and the like.
3/7/15, 08:25 PM
#36
Bullitt Member
Join Date: March 25, 2004
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Awesome Bill from Dawsonville, with his brother Ernie turning the wrenches.
3/7/15, 09:27 PM
#37
Bullitt Member
Join Date: March 25, 2004
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I'm "harping" (curious choice of word) about performance, it's because that was the quality that made those old vehicles so desirable in the first place. Also, it took DECADES for performance to catch up to what it was in, say, 1970. After CAFE standards eviscerate modern offerings I think it way be decades before we see such lofty horsepower numbers again. I'm not talking about Ford GTs or Hellcats (as they will be eclipsed) but the run-of-the-mill Mustangs and Camaros that everyday people buy in large numbers today. Times are a-changin' and not for the better.
It is a huge assumption on your part that performance is what made those old vehicles so desirable in the first place. The split window '63 Corvette wasn't the fastest car of it's day--but it is highly prized. The Boss 429 was no faster on the street than the 428 SCJ, but guess which one goes for more at auction. The 61 Jaguar XKE is highly collectible (despite the six-cylinder engine) Performance may be the yardstick you use to define desirability and I find nothing wrong with that if it works for you. Just don't assume that your opinion is universal. (It isn't)
The times they are a-changing--I do appreciate the irony that you choose to quote a Bob Dylan tune from 1964!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
