Ford and Mustang Trivia
4/7/07, 11:29 AM
#65
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: October 22, 2004
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, what you're looking for is the 390. But, this is an Urban legend - later info from SAAC has stated that there is no evidence of 390s being installed in '68 Shelbys. The new version of the Registry (when it finally comes out) should provide this info.
a non Ford 390...
4/8/07, 06:12 AM
#71
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: October 22, 2004
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you need to check the accuracy of your "trivia-thingy"! No way was a "non-Ford" 390 ever put into a factory production Ford vehicle. Think about it - how would they warranty an engine they didn't even stock parts for??? Where would they get the motor mounts? And in '68 they had to start passing emissions testing - do you think the EPA would sign off on a combination like that? As many in our club here can attest, don't believe everything you read either in magazines or on the internet about Ford/Mustang history - there is lots of misinformation about... There is one hardback book out called "Mustang - Forty Years" which has nice big pretty pictures in it, but I counted over 40 errors in it just casually reading over it. Most, not all, of the people writing Mustang books today are just in it for the bucks, having very little concern for accuracy or in doing diligent research before spouting off their "knowledge" on the subject.
4/8/07, 06:38 AM
#72
Look at it yourself:
http://www.funtrivia.com/submitquiz....ugh=qid:107846
<TABLE class=lighttable cellPadding=5 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD>9. The standard engine for the 1968 Shelby GT500 Mustang was the 428ci. Late in the year, however, Shelby ran out of 428s and substituted it with a _______ ? </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Your Answer: [No Answer]
The correct answer was non-Ford 390ci.
Shelby substituted with non-Ford 390's. The 428s were rated at 355hp, although they were actually closer to 400. These 390's had only 290hp but visually looked the same.</B> <TABLE class=lighttable width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD>7% of players have answered correctly. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
http://www.funtrivia.com/submitquiz....ugh=qid:107846
<TABLE class=lighttable cellPadding=5 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD>9. The standard engine for the 1968 Shelby GT500 Mustang was the 428ci. Late in the year, however, Shelby ran out of 428s and substituted it with a _______ ? </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Your Answer: [No Answer]
The correct answer was non-Ford 390ci.
Shelby substituted with non-Ford 390's. The 428s were rated at 355hp, although they were actually closer to 400. These 390's had only 290hp but visually looked the same.</B> <TABLE class=lighttable width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD>7% of players have answered correctly. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
4/8/07, 08:33 AM
#74
GT Member
Join Date: January 18, 2007
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can only think of two 390 engines around that time, one is the Ford and the other is an AMC. I am sure they did not put the AMC in. Also how would a non Ford mototr bolt up to a Ford trans. Everyone know how bad Ford was about bell housing bolt patterns. I betting on a mis-print. Non Shelby motor perhaps or non police intercepter? We all know it was a Ford motor...I think.
4/8/07, 11:15 AM
#76
GT Member
Join Date: January 18, 2007
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This reminds me of a funny story, A friend from high school bought a 69 mustang fastback with a 390 engine years back, He was fxiing it up over time and he does some numbers running to see whats what. Turns out he bought a 428 Mustang instead. He was more than pleased with his accidental purchase.
4/8/07, 01:50 PM
#77
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: October 22, 2004
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't put much stock in that trivia website - just looking at the 10 questions I see problems with 3 of them. The one we already discussed, number 6 spells "Halibrad" incorrectly twice - it is "Halibrand", and number 10 says that 1970 Shelbys had a different front valence - they actually had front spoilers added, not different valences - think about it - if they had new front valences, then that would have required them to be painted to match the cars - and some of the cars were special order paint colors which would not have been on hand at the dealership.
Like I said earlier, don't believe everything you read! Mustang Monthly and other national magazines are often guilty of presenting incorrect info as well - I've had Jim Smart, Donald Farr, and Jeff Ford (all former editors) admit errors and print retractions on numerous occasions. It's not that they intend to do so, it's just that they don't always use good reference info.
Ah, and look at funtrivia.com - the questions are generated by visitors and not experts in each field! So I could create a quiz about wedding dresses or something I know nothing about - and the answers would not be correct.
Like I said earlier, don't believe everything you read! Mustang Monthly and other national magazines are often guilty of presenting incorrect info as well - I've had Jim Smart, Donald Farr, and Jeff Ford (all former editors) admit errors and print retractions on numerous occasions. It's not that they intend to do so, it's just that they don't always use good reference info.
Ah, and look at funtrivia.com - the questions are generated by visitors and not experts in each field! So I could create a quiz about wedding dresses or something I know nothing about - and the answers would not be correct.
4/8/07, 04:29 PM
#79
Cobra Member
Join Date: June 9, 2004
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's right here in the handbook.
Well, yall better get to throwin' me in 