[DeTomaso] '70 Muscle Car Mustangs

[Asa Jay Laughton]

Mike is correct.  Aside from (in my opinion) the bad-ass wicked fast 
appearance, they don't handle real well  in autocross type competition 
or high end street use.  They are much better suited to straight line.  
However, with that said, the true Mach I and Boss cars did have more 
handling do-dad add-ons, the primary of which was staggered rear shocks 
and an anti-sway bar on across the rear axle, which in my opinion much 
improves the handling of the car.  Again however, as Mike points out, 
it's big, it's heavy, is prone to body roll, etc.  And with that said, 
I've never had a problem on dry pavement, even in high speed cornering, 
but not as high speed as the Pantera, which you definitely need if 
following Maj, Drew through the small mountain roads near his home.  :)

Asa Jay


Asa Jay Laughton, MSgt, USAFR, Retired

& Shelley Marie
Spokane, WA

1973 Pantera L 5533
[ASASCAT]
    
******************************     
http://www.asajay.com
http://www.351c.info
  



MikeLDrew at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 4/18/08 19 20 48, rimov at charter.net writes:
>
>
>   
>> I may be wrong 
>>
>>     
>>>> You are. :>)
>>>>         
>
>
>   
>> but I have heard many say the 71-73 fox body mustangs
>>
>>     
>>>> There is no such thing.   The Fox platform was originally invented for the 
>>>>         
> 1978 Ford Fairmont.   When Ford wisely decided to ditch the Mustang II (which 
> was built on the Pinto chassis, hardly a paragon of fine automotive 
> engineering), they shortened the Fox platform to support an all-new body.   The new car 
> was significantly bigger inside as a result, but smaller externally than the 
> original Mustang.   It also used a completely different suspension layout, 
> with MacPherson struts in the front.
>
>
>   
>>  rode
>> and handled much better than the earlier fox body style mustangs, 
>>
>>     
>>>> So patently false as to be utterly laughable.   The '71-73 Mustangs have 
>>>>         
> their own virtues which can not be ignored, but handling definitely is not one 
> of them.   Compared to any other Mustang, even the Mustang II, the '71-73 
> series cars are absolute pigs, exacerbated in the 429-powered cars.   Even the 
> 351C cars understeer something wicked, and boast prodigious body roll, chassis 
> flex, and all sorts of other undesirable traits.   They are big, soft, heavy, 
> flabby, flaccid boats, some of which are fast in a straight line, and admittedly 
> very good-looking (particularly the fastbacks).
>
> I was nearly killed (twice!) in a '72 Mach I while I was in college, both 
> times due to a driver who thought he was better than he really was, and the fact 
> that the car simply wasn't up to the challenges he was putting before it.   In 
> both instances, had we been in an early Mustang, or any one of the 
> Fox-platform cars, it would have been no problem.
>
>
>   
>> looks with
>> standing of course... Did all the 71-73 come with Cleveland's ?
>>
>>     
>>>> No, you could get a 250-inch six, a wimpy 302, 2v or 4v 351C (rated at 240 
>>>>         
> and 285 hp), Cobra Jet and Super Cobra Jet 429s, and a Boss 351C with solid 
> lifters, 11:1 compression and 330 hp (1971 only).
>
> By 1973, the cars were truly emasculated, with the top offerings being either 
> a 351W or 351C rated at just over 150 hp each!
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> **************
> Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car 
> listings at AOL Autos.
>       
> (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
> _______________________________________________
>
> Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
>
> Archive Search Engine Now Available at http://www.realbig.com/detomaso/
>
> DeTomaso mailing list
> DeTomaso at list.realbig.com
> http://list.realbig.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso
>
>
>