1971-73 mach 1 prespects

[go bears]

Of the vintage mach 1s the 71-73 have suffered the most from repeated misconceptions. They were only slightly larger and heavier, the 1971 Mustang fact book lists the Boss 351 at 3370lbs and a couple inches larger. The 351c was faster than the 302 Boss and the big blocks. The only faster Mustang was a blueprinted 429 in a 69. The cornering abilities were the same as the highly praised, as ,should have been, Boss 302. The increase in size made sence, more room to work and better handling. If you are still worrried about wieght install alluminum heads, intake and headers, that will take off a couple hundred pounds. All Mach 1s are cool, the 71-73 are just as cool. Compare prices and facts, the 71-73 has alot of room to appreciate, in dollars and desirability. Everyone has a right to thier own tastes, my point is to only point out the facts.

[Rare Pony]

I agree that the 71 to 73's are becomming more collectable now. I have noticed a lot more reproduction parts for them coming on the market. I have had my 73 Convertible since 1974, so I'm a true fan of that body style!

[go bears]

Convertables are very cool. I was a little nervous expressing my opinion, I didn't want to get hammered. If you look at the prices for the full bodied Dodges at auctions their size doesn't hurt them. The time for the 71-73 is now! People read and quote the same ridiculous articles and accecpt them as fact. Look at the new Challengers or Camaros, they are full bodied. Mustang Monthly has written several articles about the 351c, rateing it above the 302 Boss and 351 Windsor. If Ford had raced the 351c , 351c equipped Mustangs would be double or triple what they are now. Try to buy a nice 302 Boss for under 40,0000.

[vamach1]

I've owned 72-73 Mustangs for almost 35 years and here's my two cents.
Yes they are big cars and the front/rear weight distribution isn't very good. As the years go by more aftermarket companies are coming up with more things to upgrade them if you want (seats, brakes,suspension). One per peeve I have is these years seem to be butchered up more than other years. I suppose this is because you can still get a restorable car for under $10K. Like 90% of classic cars, it costs more to restore one than they will be worth. This is why I would advise someone that is looking at a beater for $3K to stop and think how much time and money they will have to spend only to end up with a car worth $20K. Of course, the money follows the Boss 351, HO's 429's and 351 CJ's but anything else will probably not be worth much, especially coupes. Sure an freshly restored sprint or mach1 may bring 20 grand or more but there was probably a lot more put into unless it's a low mileage original. Check out my Youtube videos (Mach72man) and tell me what you think about how my yellow Mach1 handles.

If my mach1 or sprint was worth as much as a Boss or Shelby I might think twice about driving it to the grocery store - I do know and I do not worry.
I can argue all day how the 71-73's are better than 65-70's but the final say goes to supply and demand. Even though the supply of 71-73's is actually lower the demand just isn't as strong and the earlier years. It's not logical and I chalk it up to nostalgia. The 73's came out and a few years later there were long gas lines and people were unloading large cars. So their loss is our gain. I bought my 72 Mach1 in 1981 for $1650. It had about 60K miles and was bone stock and in very good condition. Back then it was already a dinosaur as they imports were gaining popularity. I bought the 72 sprint convertible for $6,000 in 2003. Okay, I stole that car for that price but I pretty much swore on the comfortweave seat that I would enjoy the car a lot, drive it in parades, write a book about it, find the other owners, find some of the Cherry Blossom princesses, get it in some magazines and the newspaper, and drive it to the Mustang anniversary shows. The owner died a few years ago. I kept my promise :-)

[go bears]

I have been a contrarian all of my life, and made a good liveing finding value in stuff others don't or at least not yet. Price for anthing is determined by one of two methods- value or the "greater fool" therory. Collector cars are primarly governed by the later but value is considered, I am apealing to the former.

---

If the video you are refering to is the one chaseing the 65 350 then I would say your 351c should not have lost ground on the straight aways or the corners. I heard alot of popping noise in the corners maybe something wasn't right, the skid pad on the 71 boss is identical to the Boss 302,.72g. The 351c is a high reving engine, power is best at higher rpms. If one were to strip out the interior as the 350r was it would be faster as well.

[vamach1]

I think the popping noises were the suspension, namely the springs and bushings. Road courses put a lot of stress on the suspension and when you toss the car around like that at speed, trust me, you will hear a lot of noises. As far as top end, remember that was the old 2 bbl engine (before I replaced it with the CJ) and with the FMX, those darn high revving HiPo's with a four speed can pull away from my little old Mach1. I really need an AOD or five speed to run with the big dogs.

[vamach1]

A little more about 72 Mustangs. From a few sources here are the NET horsepower ratings for the lower compression (compared to 71) Cleveland engines.

2 barrel 163-177 Cobra Jet 248-266 H.O. 266-275

Needless to say that's a HUGE difference between the 2 bbls and 4 bbl.
The obvious differences are the intake and exhaust manifolds, carb, heads, cam, pistons, valves crank just to name the obvious.

My 72 Mach1 came with the 2 barrel engine. Even though I added a four barrel intake and carb and dual exhast, I still had 2 bbl heads and exhaust manifolds. I never had it dynoed with this configuration but I guessing it was running about 210 RWHP.

I think every automatically assumes any Cleveland is a 300hp engine. A few years ago when I finally put in a 351 CJ in my Mach1 needless to say there was a dramatic increase in power over the tired 2 bbl motor. However, other than a dyno run which showed about 235 RWHP, I'm still working out some gremlins so I have not taken it on the track (except for the 1/8 mile and a autocross) so when I do get things sorted out (and maybe overdrive by then) I should be kicking some old Shelby butt on those long straights at VIR, etc.

[go bears]

I am very interested in the open track events, let us know your results when you get your car set up like you want it. Its no big secret that a 351c rebuilt with tight tolerances will produce 400 gross horsepower or about 300 net, and run on pump gas. The 2v heads will produce lots of power at a lower compression. Everyone sings the praises of the Aussie heads but if I were to rebuld a 351c, aftermarket alluminum heads with a roller cam and a performer air gap intake. I have a 351c from a totaled Torino, it ran strong when i took it out, if time permits I will rebuid it this summer.

[vamach1]

Yeah - Edelbrock heads are on my wish list too. When I bought the CJ engine I was given this spec sheet.

Grind: Wolverine
cam lift intake/exhaust .295
valve lift intake/exhaust .510
.050 duration intake/exhaust 214
lobe centerline 105 intake 115 exhaust
sae duration intake/exhaust 292
cam lobe spread 110 advanced 5

What distributor would you guys recommend. I want to keep the stock ram-air setup so I can't use one of those crazy tall ones. I tried a Procomp 7004 and the shaft is too narrow and it wobbles. Maybe I just got one that was ground too much. I did not install it so it's back to the stock vacccum one with the Crane XR electronic module instead of points.

[widowmaker00]

msd has low profile 351C distributers.

For aluminum heads take a look at CHIheads.com, they are the leader in 351C heads/intakes. Their heads were used on the winning Engine Masters Challenge engine for years now.

I know where to get most 351C performance parts if anyone needs something specific, ask me.

I also know where to get alot of rare 71-73 mustang parts too...i.e. fiberglass hoods, fenders, doors, etc.