Things are VERY Different now...

[DevilDog]

The last car (and only car) I have ordered from Ford was a 1966 Mustang, 289, w/4-speed manual. Cost about $2,500.00.

The first car I ever ordered was a '69 Plymouth Roadrunner when I got out of the Marine Corps in March of 1969. Paid $3,000 out the door. It was a 383 with a TorqueFlite transmission. I've ordered a bunch of new cars since then.

Sponsored

 

[Instant Action]

So let's just engage in some interesting comparisons here, maybe not apples to apples, but the most fair comparison in terms of dollar to dollar relative to horsepower. That would be a modern Ecoboost to a 1966 Shelby gt350, fair how? Because even this top dog old school mustang can't equal the performance of the current Ecoboost, let alone the v8s, it only made 306 hp, but in terms of high performance, its the closest we can get to the level of performance the modern mustang offers. We can't make the argument that the Shelby branding justified the price tag, this was the 60s when Shelby was relatively unknown and just starting out, so branding prestige wasn't really a factor in this original cars performance.

That Shelby that is significantly worse than a modern mustang in every way, had a starting price of $4,547 in 1966, adjusting for inflation, that means it started at $42,230. That not only means it was about 12 grand more by modern standards than the car it was significantly worse than, but it also means that car that couldn't even match a base rental spec mustang on a track costs about as much as a modern base mustang gt, which comes in at $43,048. Again, take the Shelby branding out of the equation, just look at the level of performance.

For basically a $750 dollar difference, you go from 306 hp to a 480 hp V8. From a falcon family car chassis to a dedicated sports car chassis. From no creature comforts to all the tech you could reasonably want. From a car that will likely only last a few years, to a car that will last well over a decade if you take care of it.

The Shelby GT350 was rated at 306 gross hp, but in actuality its output in today's Net ratings would be something on the order of 250hp or less. Of course there is a big weight difference, on the order of around 400 lbs. between a 1966 GT350 and today's Ecoboost Mustang. So let's be generous and say the '66 GT350's 289 output is 260 NET HP (306 gross). Today's Ecoboost Mustang Ford says puts out 315 NET HP and weighs 3588, this according to Fords website. The weight of a '66 GT350 is reported to be 3158 lbs (C&D). So this gives the '66 Shelby GT350 a hp/weight ratio of 12.14. The 2024 Ecoboost would have a power to weight ratio of 11.4. Car & Driver tested a GT350H (although with a 3speed automatic) and got a 0-60 time of 6.6 seconds and a qtr mile time of 15.2 @ 93 mph out of the Shelby. All of us old guys know that C&D's acceleration numbers were about the best or better than you were ever going to see for any car they tested. C&D tested a 2024 Ecoboost and got a 0-60 time of 4.5 sec and a qtr mile in 13.2 @ 103 mph. a 2024 Ecoboost Mustang has a base price of $30,920. The '66 GT350 had a base price of $42,438 (dollar times.com/inflation) in today's dollars. So, just in my opinion (and take it for what you paid for it) outside of the nostalgia factor (again with rose colored glasses off) the 2024 Ecoboost gives you a lot more car, amenities and performance than the '66 GT350 for your 1966 dollars. I won't even go into it with a stock 2024 GT!
The old muscle cars are fun to look back on though in reality were pretty frightful to drive at speed, but we are living in performance car nirvana today and you couldn't pay me enough to have to drive one of those cars on a daily basis today.

 

[Zig]

you couldn't pay me enough to have to drive one of those cars on a daily basis today.

where do I sign up?

 

[Instant Action]

where do I sign up?

https://revologycars.com/car/1966-shelby-gt350/

 

[Germansheperd]

The Shelby GT350 was rated at 306 gross hp, but in actuality its output in today's Net ratings would be something on the order of 250hp or less. Of course there is a big weight difference, on the order of around 400 lbs. between a 1966 GT350 and today's Ecoboost Mustang. So let's be generous and say the '66 GT350's 289 output is 260 NET HP (306 gross). Today's Ecoboost Mustang Ford says puts out 315 NET HP and weighs 3588, this according to Fords website. The weight of a '66 GT350 is reported to be 3158 lbs (C&D). So this gives the '66 Shelby GT350 a hp/weight ratio of 12.14. The 2024 Ecoboost would have a power to weight ratio of 11.4. Car & Driver tested a GT350H (although with a 3speed automatic) and got a 0-60 time of 6.6 seconds and a qtr mile time of 15.2 @ 93 mph out of the Shelby. All of us old guys know that C&D's acceleration numbers were about the best or better than you were ever going to see for any car they tested. C&D tested a 2024 Ecoboost and got a 0-60 time of 4.5 sec and a qtr mile in 13.2 @ 103 mph. a 2024 Ecoboost Mustang has a base price of $30,920. The '66 GT350 had a base price of $42,438 (dollar times.com/inflation) in today's dollars. So, just in my opinion (and take it for what you paid for it) outside of the nostalgia factor (again with rose colored glasses off) the 2024 Ecoboost gives you a lot more car, amenities and performance than the '66 GT350 for your 1966 dollars. I won't even go into it with a stock 2024 GT!
The old muscle cars are fun to look back on though in reality were pretty frightful to drive at speed, but we are living in performance car nirvana today and you couldn't pay me enough to have to drive one of those cars on a daily basis today.

It’s much worse than you explained- factor 10spd transmissions vs 3 or 4 speeds.

Watched a 25k mile bone stock 69 390hp 427 Vette on a chassis dyno- yep 302 rwhp.
Auto 426 Hemi check 318 rwhp.

 

[Zig]

https://revologycars.com/car/1966-shelby-gt350/

… you couldn't pay me enough to have to drive one of those cars on a daily basis today.

Seems there are those that are willing.

 

[Instant Action]

Seems there are those that are willing.

The cars that Revology are building are basically a modern car under a ‘66 body, so they would probably be entirely livable on a daily basis and If you have an extra $286,285. (base) burning a hole in your pocket, go for it!

My point was that living with one of the old muscle cars in stock form today on a day to day basis would have one screaming to be in a new Mustang within a couple of weeks after the novelty wore off. Living in south Florida with lots of long traffic lights and summertime heat most of the year, is no problem for my GT 6sp, PP, convertible with the nice cold ac blowing. I lived with those muscle cars back in those days and I‘m very thankful for being able to drive a car with this kind of performance along with the luxury it affords its passengers today.

 

[Zig]

The cars that Revology are building are basically a modern car under a ‘66 body, so they would probably be entirely livable on a daily basis and If you have an extra $286,285. (base) burning a hole in your pocket, go for it!

My point was that living with one of the old muscle cars in stock form today on a day to day basis would have one screaming to be in a new Mustang within a couple of weeks after the novelty wore off. Living in south Florida with lots of long traffic lights and summertime heat most of the year, is no problem for my GT 6sp, PP, convertible with the nice cold ac blowing. I lived with those muscle cars back in those days and I‘m very thankful for being able to drive a car with this kind of performance along with the luxury it affords its passengers today.

Understood. Was just giving you a hard time, nothing meant other than opinion and preference.

I too have lived through the days of manual choke and defrost hardly enough to create a sight hole through the windshield.

 

[Instant Action]

Understood. Was just giving you a hard time, nothing meant other than opinion and preference.

I too have lived through the days of manual choke and defrost hardly enough to create a sight hole through the windshield.

Ah, the days of the manual choke! But how about when the auto choke would stick closed in the middle of the winter requiring you to jump out of the car, raise the hood, take the top of the air cleaner off and poke the closed choke plate open with a screwdriver. Great memories!

 

[Deleted member 7136]

Cars are far more reliable now than they were back then. Your average car in the 60s only lasted about 5-6 years on average from the time it was brand new to the time it was scrapped in a junkyard.

As for the price, when you factor in inflation, you actually get a lot more dollar for dollar these days. A six cylinder base mustang in the 60s was about 27k adjusted for inflation. A base ecoboost is about 32. For five grand more, you get much better quality, a far better interior, a better exterior imo, obviously a much better engine, much better handling, better brakes, better reliability, better safety, better efficiency, better tech obviously, a longer warranty, just an all around better car in every way for not much more money.

Adjusting for inflation, most older cars were shit for the money they costed. For instance, the excellent maverick hybrid adjusted for inflation is cheaper than those 90s rangers, and better in every way. It's even cheaper than the model t adjusting for inflation.

Like most old things, they actually weren't very good, we just look at the past through rose tinted glasses when we shouldn't.

Is that why Ford had 56 recalls last year? (most of all auto makers)

 

[DevilDog]

Ah, the days of the manual choke! But how about when the auto choke would stick closed in the middle of the winter requiring you to jump out of the car, raise the hood, take the top of the air cleaner off and poke the closed choke plate open with a screwdriver. Great memories!

Yes, those were the days. The muscle cars of the 60's and early 70's were slow and archaic compared to today's standards. If you had a car that ran in the mid to upper 12's, you were pretty much king of the street. We live in an amazing time when it comes to performance cars. As I grow old it's easy for me to look back on those days with fondness, but in reality they weren't so great. Hand crank roll up windows, terrible paint and body panel fitment, AM radios, no air, etc., etc. One of my high school buddies had an '57 Chevy that the defrosters didn't work on. We'd take it out in winter here in Chicago and the windows would frost over right away. I'd sit in the passenger seat with a hand held propane torch and move it back and forth across the windshield. Didn't work too well and certainly wasn't very safe, but we somehow managed to survive.

 

[young at heart]

Yes, those were the days. The muscle cars of the 60's and early 70's were slow and archaic compared to today's standards. If you had a car that ran in the mid to upper 12's, you were pretty much king of the street. We live in an amazing time when it comes to performance cars. As I grow old it's easy for me to look back on those days with fondness, but in reality they weren't so great. Hand crank roll up windows, terrible paint and body panel fitment, AM radios, no air, etc., etc. One of my high school buddies had an '57 Chevy that the defrosters didn't work on. We'd take it out in winter here in Chicago and the windows would frost over right away. I'd sit in the passenger seat with a hand held propane torch and move it back and forth across the windshield. Didn't work too well and certainly wasn't very safe, but we somehow managed to survive.

Yep, everything you say is true to a fault.

But nothing compares to the visceral thrill of a strong ‘60s muscle car. You didn’t have to worry about where the torque curve kicked in-it was just there. And the sound, vibration and feel of the G-force pinning you back when you kicked in the secondary carbs on a good-running tri power GTO? OMG man, you were honestly worried about sucking a low flying Piper Cub out of the sky! And if like most of my buds if you were savvy enough to have ordered a 3.90 or better diff and the 2.20 to 1 low close ratio trans it was even better. You were either there or you weren’t.

Today‘s muscle cars are vastly superior in every way to the cars of my youth and we’re very lucky to have them. I would have bet against them ever coming to market many years ago. But I’ll never give up trying to make them reminiscent of the cars of my youth.

 

[DevilDog]

OMG man, you were honestly worried about sucking a low flying Piper Cub out of the sky!

 

[Instant Action]

Yes, those were the days. The muscle cars of the 60's and early 70's were slow and archaic compared to today's standards. If you had a car that ran in the mid to upper 12's, you were pretty much king of the street. We live in an amazing time when it comes to performance cars. As I grow old it's easy for me to look back on those days with fondness, but in reality they weren't so great. Hand crank roll up windows, terrible paint and body panel fitment, AM radios, no air, etc., etc. One of my high school buddies had an '57 Chevy that the defrosters didn't work on. We'd take it out in winter here in Chicago and the windows would frost over right away. I'd sit in the passenger seat with a hand held propane torch and move it back and forth across the windshield. Didn't work too well and certainly wasn't very safe, but we somehow managed to survive.

Mid 12's on a stock 80's street car? I'm not doubting that you didn't but in 1968 I had a SS/BA Mustang that ran 11.80's with a ton of work to it and wouldn't even think of trying to run it (well that part isn't quite true ) on the street.

 

[DevilDog]

Mid 12's on a stock 80's street car? I'm not doubting that you didn't but in 1968 I had a SS/BA Mustang that ran 11.80's with a ton of work to it and wouldn't even think of trying to run it (well that part isn't quite true ) on the street.

I ran 12.80's with my '70 SS 396 (375 hp) Nova with slicks, headers, and a couple of other little tweaks. There were a number of modified cars in our area back then that were faster than that. I think the fastest car I ever ran on the street was a modified '69 L88 Camaro. It beat me by about 10 cars. I also had a friend who had a '70 SS 454 Chevelle that was wicked fast. I eventually sold my Nova to a high school buddy, who made all kinds of money street racing with it.

Sponsored