72 exhuast cutouts...

[keith1562]

My 1972 Mach 1 has exhaust cutouts in the rear valance. I know this is standard for 71 & 72 mach 1's. I recently had a "Correct Factory Style" exhaust installed. I'm running stock exhaust manifolds and it all seems to fit fine. However it stops a good 4" before the rear valance & turns down. Is this correct? If so whats the point of the cut outs. Did 72's come with any kind of extension or chrome outlet?
Just wondering.
Keith

[grabber71]

http://www.ohiomustang.com/store/order_p...itemid=180

[ohiomustang]

In 71 - 72 only 351 4 V and 71 429 Mach 1's got cutouts

Who ever did your exhaust system installed the tail pipes for turn downs

There are turn-down tail pipes and through the valance tail pipes

Turn-downs were for 351 4 V non Mach 1's and boss 351 cars

If you cut off the turn-down section the pipes might be to short to use the chrome tips - you may have to add a section.

[Kit Sullivan]

This has been a confusing subject for many years. I am certain the following is true, but if there is concrete evidence to the contrary, I would like to hear it.

1) ALL Mach 1s with 2V carbs came with single exhaust, turn down tips and smooth valance.
2) ALL Mach 1s with 4V carbs came with dual exhaust, 3" chrome slash tips and cut-out valance.

All other models of Mustang( Coupe, Sportsroof, Grande, Convertible, BOSS 351, Sprint, Springtime Special, "Sports" Decor pkg) came with a smooth valance and turn-down tips regardless of 2V or 4V carbs.

I admit I have seen many cars over the years that contradict this, but none that can be proven and documented original.
But, as I said....I could be wrong. ( but I don't think so)

[Steven Harris]

Kit are you wanting reference to the 71 and 72's only or are we throwing the change up for 73 in as well?

[Kit Sullivan]

I think that applies to 73s as well. However, when it comes to production anomalies, it sure seems there are a higher percentage of 73 owners who claim to have "factory freaks" and one-offs.
It is in my nature to not easily believe many of the apparently convenient stories of "special ordered that way", " an example of Ford using up what they had left", "Monday/Friday produced cars and line workers were not paying attention", and the multitude of other easy exaplanations why a car that technically should not have been built in a certain was.
The true, well-known "factory freaks" out there are excrutiatingly well documented and those cannot be denied.
I am referring to Bob Perkins' low-mileage BOSS 351 built with a Mach 1 hood stripe, or the 351 2-V Mach 1, with 4-speed and dual exhaust ( a freak right there) which was later discovered to be the original 1971 BOSS 302 factory test mule, re-badged and re-engined and ultimately delivered with an MSO that way. Those cars each have a mile of impressive documents.

However, I see ram air on cars that were never "officially" allowed to be built that by Ford that owners claim is original, or Magnums on 73s that were technically no longer available, incorrect mixing of options that are just odd...stuff like that I tend to disbelive without substantial proof.

It may seem picayune to most out there, but I think it is important that we don't so easily accept a casual claim of some "new knowledge" about how and why these cars were built without exacting proof, otherwise we inadvdrtantly damage the value and history of the truth of the reality of how these cars were actually built.
What comes to mind as an example of this revisionist history to me is the paint scheme for the mach 1 hood blackout.
First of all, there are NO official Ford documents that anyone has ever discovered that detail exactly how this was painted.
It would seem that a surviving OEM-painted car should provide the answer...but they were so haphazardly painted from the factory that there is a huge variance in what can really be considered "official" or correct.
Then the then-editor of Mustang Monthly, Jeff Ford publishes an article on how to paint a factory-correct Mach 1 blackout, and that single article then becomes near-gospel to many who believe it to be "correct". The only problem? It is NOT correct...it is WAY off in several respects. When shown irrefutable proof his article was incorrect, instead of publishing a follow-up, he lets it ride.
Why does this bother me so much? Because there are many, many examples of big-dollar restorations out there that are not right, through no fault of thier owners or painters.

We should all be careful what we claim as "ultimate fact", lest we lead someone to use incorrect info on thier car.

[gxr02190]

Ohio Mustang's and Kit's post are not contradictory-they say the same thing in different words, and, to my knowledge, are correct.
Also, all '73's came equipped with the non-cutout valance - regardless of model or engine option. GXR

[Kit Sullivan]

Back in 1980, I bought a white, 73 Q-code, 4-speed mach 1 from the original owner. If had duals, chrome tips and a cut-out valance. It was the OEM exhaust system. Very quiet, big heavy mufflers.
The car had average equipment: PS, PB,A/C, mach 1 interior and gauges, non-functional NASA hood, 2-piece hubcaps.
75,000 miles, average condition, psid $1000 for it.
It was an original, as-delivered car, equipment wise.
I still say the exhaust cutouts followed the same criteria for all years from 71 through 73

[ohiomustang]

Back in 1980, I bought a white, 73 Q-code, 4-speed mach 1 from the original owner. If had duals, chrome tips and a cut-out valance. It was the OEM exhaust system. Very quiet, big heavy mufflers.
The car had average equipment: PS, PB,A/C, mach 1 interior and gauges, non-functional NASA hood, 2-piece hubcaps.
75,000 miles, average condition, psid $1000 for it.
It was an original, as-delivered car, equipment wise.
I still say the exhaust cutouts followed the same criteria for all years from 71 through 73

ALL 73's after 1 / 1 /73 had turn downs

[Kit Sullivan]

After 1/1/73? Ok, I guess a few early 73s may have come with cut-outs then?

Not trying to be argumentative, but what documentation is there to coroborate this? I am always interested in details...