Ford Mustang Forums banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,936 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Seems like the new craze is buyers looking for bone stock 5.0L cars. Kind of like the 60-70's muscle car world. Which i can understand. BUT i have to wonder if they actually drove a stock powered 5.0L ? these things are dogs. 60's-70's cars are mostly all 300+HP, so even stock they are a toot to drive. Like the gm products of the day IMO these cars were under powered stock. What did they put to the time 180ish hp ? Mustangs were quicker compared to the F bodies of that era basically because they were lighter cars.

I have the stock HCI off my coupe sitting in boxes in the garage and surprising seems to be less interest in my simple HCI car. I pondered about putting all the stock parts back on right down to the airbox this winter, but i know i wouldn't enjoy driving it stock again. Getting beat on by civics in stock for no thanks lol.

Nothing crazy edelbrock heads typhoon intake and small ford E cam. IMO the foxes should have came in around 280-300 hp at the crank. If i had to guess my car is 260ish hp at the wheels.

I can understand guys not wanting a car so modified that you always have to watch the gauges, or work on it steady ect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,552 Posts
These cars are becoming collector items like many 80's sports cars, and naturally the closer to stock the more money they will demand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,046 Posts
couldnt give my '92 stocker away. And I tried, trust me. Seems most people around here want a brand spanking new $90,000 SUV or diesel 3/4 ton so that they can lift it to the moon and never use it for what it was designed for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,936 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Yup my previous 91 coupe was bone stock right down to gears and nobody wanted it either. Was a clean car but a theft recovery so branded title.

My current 91 hci coupe is as untouched as the come never apart original paint soud dedner trunk divider a9l sticker vin stickers ect super tight no rattles kinda surprised lack of interest, but oh well longer it stays in the garage more it should gain value lol.

Ive been in the fox game for 15 years love them, but I just don't seem them ever being a collector car like the 60-70s csrs. ie selling for more used than they did new. 93 cobras and cobra r's saleens maybe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
506 Posts
I've been watching the market on certain cars, and everything (not just foxes) is kinda down at the moment. Right now it's a buyers market.

Without getting into politics, I think there's a little uncertainty with the economy again, especially with this election coming up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,962 Posts
Seems like the new craze is buyers looking for bone stock 5.0L cars. Kind of like the 60-70's muscle car world. Which i can understand. BUT i have to wonder if they actually drove a stock powered 5.0L ? these things are dogs. 60's-70's cars are mostly all 300+HP, so even stock they are a toot to drive.
I grew up in the 1960's, and I know our memories of old things distort with time.

A bone stock 1987-93 LX coupe would run low 13's with a little timing and tuning and some M&H radials. I had a 79, 83, 85, 87, 88, and 91 brand new.

I also had a 1966 K code GT coupe with a 271 289 and 4.11 gear. Original, that car ran right around mid 15's on stock tires and upper 14's on good tires.

I owned a 409 1961 Biscayne. with careful driving, it ran mid 14's on crappy factory tires of the day.

I bought a 1969 AMC SC Rambler after driving a new Z28 Camaro in 1969. I bought the Rambler because it was cheaper and way faster. That Rambler from showroom ran 14.5's with a 315 HP 390 cid AMC and 3.54 gear on E70 14 tires. It would run right even with GTO's, Road Runners, 390 Mustangs, and so on.

After winning local races around Detroit, I eventually got invited into AMC's racing program. With new "stock" cam, heads, intake, exhaust manifolds, and changes in tires and suspension (like front 90/10 shocks and 6 cylinder springs with spacers to restore height) and some real careful driving, that car managed a few 12 second passes. That killed the D/S record.

Anyone with a 12 second car would dominate the street. If you could run 11's, you owned the whole city. The fastest car in the Toledo street was arguably either a black 427 L88 Corvette owned by Dick Johnson, or a 409 Orange coupe called the "Peeling Pumpkin" by John Fizo? They were 11 second cars on slicks.

Those muscle cars typically got 10 MPG and required constant tune ups because of point type ignitions and leaded gas.

The Fox Mustangs and Grand nationals from the later 1980's were just as fast or faster than 95% of the 1960's muscle car stuff, stopped better, handled way better, and were nicer to drive.

Flash forward to today and my bone stock Coyote Mustang with everything including glass roof and nav can run equivalent ET's to my record setting 1969 rambler 390 that was a stripped out tin box without a factory radio or air! AMC sent me a truck load of parts to get that car into the 12's, and it got 8-12 MPG highway when all were installed.

The later Fox Mustangs should be collectable to some people. They were just as fast as most muscle cars from the 60's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,936 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
True even the big block cars only ran 12's stock form, but i guess the seat of the pants difference is they made wayy more torque than the 5.0L.
My old 91 with 2.73's spinning street tires in 1st was a chore lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,284 Posts
I don't think the desire is to get a stock-engine Fox, but the simple fact that cars that are stock, tend to not be as abused as one that might have a 400HP+ setup in it. You certainly don't put 400HP into a car and then only take it to get a coffee on a Sunday AM. A stock 5.0 might be a sign of someone who didn't care that much about all out speed and performance.

If I were in the market for a Fox, I would look for a near-stock car. I'd be willing to pay more for it than a modded car as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,936 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I don't think the desire is to get a stock-engine Fox, but the simple fact that cars that are stock, tend to not be as abused as one that might have a 400HP+ setup in it. You certainly don't put 400HP into a car and then only take it to get a coffee on a Sunday AM. A stock 5.0 might be a sign of someone who didn't care that much about all out speed and performance.

If I were in the market for a Fox, I would look for a near-stock car. I'd be willing to pay more for it than a modded car as well.
This is true.

On the flip side there was a twin to my car for sale about 2 hrs from me advertised as all original and sure enough stock right down to the airbox mechanically original vin on engine. I noticed it had lakewood front struts on it when i saw it. I recalled of one i had seen at the strip many many times over last 15 years. Once with a HCI 5L another season supercharged. Once with a 347 and once with a 393 windsor. Turns out its the same car. You would never know it looking at the car clean torque boxes ect. Personally would make no difference to me as long as a car is clean.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top