@Big Rock I've seen ads for about 40k, which is more expensive than a base new mustang, but less than the higher priced models. Granted a 69 mustang was $3000-4000 new.
I love these old Bud Lindemann Road Test videos. Bud seems like a real car guy. Beautiful Mach 1. But my favorite big block Stang is the 68 Mustang 428 CJ
the 428 cobra-jet was available in 1968 models. at the winternationals in 1968 two 428 68 fastbacks faced off for the superstock eliminator title. Don nicholson won in the ss 4 spd car. the 68 fb was a couple of hundred lbs lighter than the 69. in hotrod mags road test of the 68 428 cobra jet they clocked the fastest 1/4 mile time they had ever recorded for a street stock car. 13 plus seconds. I was there (pomona) in 68 and 69 and saw the whole shooting match.
My favorite Mustang . A girl I dated had a 69 sports roof with a 302 and automatic. It also had the fixed hood scoop , rear window louvers , and a spoiler /wing on the trunk lid. In the late 80's it got a complete restoration and a Ford performance 302 crate engine.
Pinnacle of American power. We walked on the Moon this year. And this Mustang was unadulterated epic. No smog, no lawyers. Just brutal performance sucking down gallons of hydrocarbons
I probably know your Dad, He was just talking about this car tonight and mentioned his son found this video on here and forwarded it to him. Told him that I can't help but think that the mention of his car's VIN to that Ford Customer Service person had to elicit the same response as the name "John Wick" did in the first movie!
@@MustangTim68 Yup, my name is Joe. He's brought the car up hefore, but last night was the first time he mentioned this video. I searched it out after getting home from the meeting and showed to my Dad, John, who has been at the meeting when you Dad has mentioned this car the last time.
The video showing the "wheel spin", was NOT the run that gave them the 5.9 time. To achieve 5.9, they ran the car probably 25 times to get the best time, as any car test would do. They show the wheel spin in the video, ONLY because its impressive for us, the viewers to see when watching the film. When Bud and his drivers tested these vehicles, that had each vehicle at the track for a fair number of days, running the tests over and over, being sure to get the beat results possible on every test, on every car. At the same time, they also drove the cars at times, to get better, more exciting footage for the film we're watching. For example: They would test the car over and over around the track, to obtain the best high speed, lap time. This is best done by smooth driving, minimum sliding etc.. After obtaining that best high speed lap time, THEN they would film the car doing a lap, showing it sliding and smoking the tires as its drifting around the corners of the track. All of that filming, had nothing to do with the best lap time. It was only for the viewers benefit, to see the car sliding and drifting, smoking the tires through the lap. Understand? The true fastest lap, would NOT the lap with smoking tires etc.. And as I mentioned above, the fastest 0 to 30, or 0 to 70 speed times, would not be any with rear tire spin. To think it was, is incredibly naive. And to suggest that Linderman and his professional drivers wouldn't know such a basic idea such as this, is to suggest they were incompetent morons. The film you just watched, was approx 4 minutes long. The actual testing of the vehicle in that 4 minute film, was about 6 DAYS of testing. Is that clearer? The film is to show you the car, and how it looks being put through its paces. The film is NOT showing you the actual tests!!
My friend bought one of these in 1989 for $4k (expensive for a muscle car at the time, but the 428's were already getting collectible). I remember going up Reseda Blvd. in the San Fernando Valley and some guy made his way next to us in a Taurus SHO. We kept whipping him the next 3 lights, and the fourth, without even looking at us he got into the right lane, turned right, and took off like a dog with its tail between its legs, LOL
@@m42037 The old-school SHO cars were naturally aspirated built by Yamaha, in V6 form until 1995, then V8 from 1996 until 1999 or thereabouts when the Taurus was redesigned and looked like a catfish. They were very impressive for the day, at least the V6s. I believe the later V8s were underwhelming performers considering they had about the same hp as the V6s. I am not sure when the most recent SHOs came out, but those were quite fast and, yes, used the Ecoboost V6 turbo engine. I am quite certain my friend's '69 would have lost at the stoplight grand prix to the up-to-2019 SHO. My friend still has the car and is slowly restoring it.
@@culcune What's a "stop light grand prix? I'm 56 never heard that saying. If you're saying a modern SHO would do 12s you're very mistaken, only a Coyote powered modern Ford in 2019 would beat a 68 CJ Mustang. These 428s would pull 12s with slick's and a 4:11 with a little tuning as I said. I used to race a 390 warmed over Galaxie, my best with bad traction was 13.79, and no SHO ever beat me
@@m42037 Stoplight grand prix is the nickname for a quick red-light race. The '69 my friend owned/owns was mostly stock, so guessing high 13s at best on the street surface. The late 80s SHOs were 15 second cars at best, so easily dispatched. The newer SHOs were low 13s partly due to their awd so could probably pull on my buddy's '69.
@@culcune Ya I googled too. I see 15.5, 15.1 best 1999 SHOs, The eco isn't naturally aspirated so sure, now let's take a turbo and put it on a 428 CJ and see what we get.. Those SHOs (exp the 86-99) were really ugly I'm shocked the Taurus did so well in 86 with the public with it's ugly jellybean style, but then the AMC Pacer did really well back in the mid 70s with it's jellybean (upside down bathtub) style so I guess. The price and reliability got them more, as long as you didn't buy the 4 bangers, they blew head gaskets like crazy. The latter is my almost 57 year old memory not Google 😑
Absolutely! Seen a bone stock 428 CJ on an engine dyno before and it made 410 horsepower in factory tune with the too small 735 cfm carb that came on that engine from the factory. A bigger carb, headers, and advanced timing and you could probably get close to 450 hp out of the 428 CJ. Maybe even more. And that engine had great street manners compared to an R-Code 427 or a BOSS 429, both NASCAR bred engines that we're too raucous for everyday street use. Even the street versions of those two engines really weren't streetable
@@jeremythompson9895 This freshly rebuilt 428 CJ made 365 peak HP - on open exhaust pipes (no restrictive mufflers, etc.) and with no air cleaner housing/element or engine accessories of any kind in place: www.hotrod.com/articles/testing-4-2-8how-much-horsepower-ford-428-cobra-jet-really-make/ Even the water pump was a facility powered electric unit! In its AS INSTALLED state (all factory engine accessories, air cleaner assembly/element and full factory exhaust system in place (including the restrictive OEM transverse muffler), were looking at maybe 280 SAE Net HP (at the crank), or something on the order of 240 HP at the rear wheels on a modern day inertia chassis dyno.
@@peteshea8010 I'm talking gross horsepower. They weren't using net horsepower measurements yet in 1969. That didn't happen until 1971-72. But yeah I realize that. Been a mechanic for nearly 40 years
Pete shea Correct Peter. Absolutely over BS merchants claiming 400+ HP for these motors from factory - the Qtr mile MPH (106.64) simply doesnt support stupid claims like that.
Got my license in 66. Ford was nowhere with street muscle cars until 1968 and the 428 CJ. Sure you could get the hot 427 Super Stock engine for around a thousand bucks, in a Galaxie unless you were one of the privileged allow to buy one of the 100 or so Fairlanes. But the GT 390 and 428 7 liter were stones, even with the dual quads and headers Shelby put on the GT500 they just weren't quite up to the performance potential of the cheaper GTOs and SS 396s that were the big sellers. Then the 428 CJ gets new heads with decent sized exhaust ports and a new cam and at least 390 hp. And for a few hundred bucks over the standard 390 GT you could get it in any Mustang or Torino and keep up with just about any muscle car. Rare in 68, by 69 428 CJ Mustangs were out in force.
"At least 390 HP." LOL Per HOT ROD Magazine, this freshly rebuilt example was all done at 365 HP - with no power robbing mufflers, air cleaner assembly/element or engine accessories in place. (Even the water pump was electric driven by facility power). www.hotrod.com/articles/testing-4-2-8how-much-horsepower-ford-428-cobra-jet-really-make/ You can knock a solid 80 HP off that figure to obtain true "as installed" output, with all of those items included and operational. We call that SAE Net Horsepower, which has been the Federally mandated standard since the 1972 model year.
@@peteshea8010; NHRA changed the horsepower on the 428 CJ a long time ago. They have the factored hp on these engines between 380 and 389 hp. So 390 hp is pretty close. NHRA keeps a pretty close watch on these cars, If they bomb the record or many are running way under the class index, NHRA adds hp.
I dusted every car you mentioned with my '69 428CJ Mach 1. Was well known all over Los Angeles as the car to beat and no one did. You have to know how to drive them. I used to beat Judges like they owed me money. Smoked a hemi cuda in front of everyone at the street races in Van Nuys, CA. Only car ever stayed by my side was a 427 Daytona Corvette which was much lighter and rated higher on HP... Ford unsold power ratings on those. "With a clever tire strategy, the great LeeRoy Yarbrough won the 1969 Daytona 500 in a Torino Talladega prepared by Junior Johnson. David Pearson meanwhile would take 11 wins and the 1969 season championship driving Holman-Moody Talladegas. Richard Petty won another 10 races in Fords and finished second in the championship." I've owned mopar, Chevy, Pontiac, Ford, you name it, if it was American muscle I owned it at one point or drove for friends in theirs (because I was the kid to win the races). Believe me, your experience is nothing like my car was. 11.31 qt mile at Long beach speedway, stock with slicks... twice!
69 was the peak year for the musclecar era and the Mach 1 epitomizes the performance cars of that model year. I was a high school senior that year and the new Mach 1s were everywhere, mostly 351s. I saw more than a few totaled Mach 1s sitting at gas stations which is where they hauled wrecks to back then. After a few years their numbers dwindled with the survivors ending up in teenage hands, jacked up and wearing primer with glasspack mufflers. A lot of them rusted into oblivion not long after the warranties expired. Fords rusted fast and hard back then. But I'm happy to see all the restored (and expensive) Mach 1s these days.
Not if you go by sales figures. Pick any muscle car from any maker you want and you'll find sales were way higher for the 69 model year. You can argue that GM lifting its displacement ban made 70 the peak year. But for 1970, GM killed the optional L-71, L-88, and ZL1 engine options, (thus ending any big block solid lifter Corvette option until 71). GM also, for 1970, stopped the over-the-counter availability of the Pontiac Ram Air V engine, and ended the COPO Camaro program. While Mopar introduced the Cuda and Challenger for 70, their other muscle car sales were way off from 69. Plus the hemi switched from solid lifters to hydraulic for 70. @@aaronrainey788
@@aaronrainey788 Wrong. Check production figures of all the leading performance cars and you'll find 69 blows away the 70 model year. Plus, GM axed all their Corvette big block solid lifter engine options for 1970 (L-88, L-71, ZL1). Then GM killed the planned LS6 engine for the 70 Vette. They also stopped the Ram Air V program as well as the COPO Camaro. Plus GM killed multiple carbs as an option for 1970 Vettes and Camaros. Yes, GM went to 455 displacement for the 1970 A bodies but that was partly a compensation for more restrictive smog regs and upcoming compression ratio reduction, as much as anything else.
This car ran a best of 13.56 on slicks bone stock all motor and no computers, 335hp was underrated. With a little tweaking, a 4:11 you're well in the 12s"
Legendary vehicle. Power, speed, good looks and wonderful handling!! What more could anyone ask for?!! PS. Although I was changing cars as frequently as changing underwear back in those days, (lol) unfortunately I never got around to buying one of these. And I regret it! ... BUT, a good buddy I had DID own one. And I spent a lot of time in it, AND, spent a fair amount of time behind the wheel driving it. So, I knew the car very well. One last thing to consider. I get so tired of seeing in so many comments, people writing that "all these cars were big boats that were all over the road", or that "these cars don't have performance because the designers had little to work with, and didn't know much"..."way back then" 8 ......... These statements are absurd...!! Manufacturers had to meet NEW, completely ridiculous regulations to conform to emissions and gas mileage limits. This meant actually De-tuning motors to put out less HP & performance than they did from the factory. Today, we have $5.00 per gallon gas, and car makers using electric to combat the problem. We see car makers today, struggling to squeak out every extra HP they can, from tiny 4 cylinder engines, all bolted into basically a plastic body that rides and drives like a go kart. That isn't progress IMO. Most people reading & writing here in these comments, probably we're not even born yet when the gas crisis hit us back in 72-73. But if you think todays bad, paying $5.00 a gallon? Imagine back to 1972- 1973, when WE paid nearly the same amount per gallon!!! But, minimum wage at that time, we were only making about $100 a week BEFORE taxes taken out!!! Even if you had a high paying job at the time, say $300 a week before taxes, and that was a LOT then, the gas prices made it impossible. Also, unlike now, back then they would run out of gas!! So, you'd wait 3 hours in line to get gas, then finally you get to the pump and the station attendant tells you all the tanks are empty/dry. "Sorry about that, you can try again tomorrow".... Stations were all closed, "Out of gas".... So it was serious. OPEC tightened the grip, and everything that takes gas stopped running!! So car makers HAD to take drastic steps to show the buyers gas mileage was going to be better in new cars. Lastly: These cars all drove similarly to one another. They all slid in turns. Most had oversteer characteristics, but people knew this, and expected this, since they were all rear wheel drive. (just a couple of exceptions, front wheel drive was an oddball, that most people either hated or knew nothing about) ... A few cars like the front heavy Chevy Impalas with big blocks, had terrible understeer issues. All (or at least most) of the Chrysler vehicles back then (Dodge, Plymouth, Chrysler) used a unique torsion bar suspension up front, and in their big full sized cars like the Fury lll's etc. had fantastic handling due to that system. Especially when the vehicle was light in the front end, due to having a small engine like the 318 V8 for example. Short on power, but great handling. My point is people today would call the fury three a "land yacht" that's all over the road. When in actuality it's a beautiful handling car. The problem is they're comparing it to one of today's Go-cart type vehicles. These old cars were not designed to ride or drive like a "go-cart". All of these old cars would slide through turns, they ALL exhibited either understeer or oversteer, were ALL rear wheel drive, and they ALL drove/drive exactly like they were designed to drive. And THAT'S a good thing. Not a bad thing.
those tests were made on bias ply tires too. with radial tires it would hook up better and have a quicker 0-60 time! the 428 had very impressive torque!
Bigdog302V8 and I think this car may have been tested with an automatic since he doesn't state which and it's kind of hard to see. If that's so then a Manual would shave a few tenths off that time.
I think a rolling 10-to 60 mph test would have been a much better way to rate these cars years ago. Or maybe a rolling 20 to 70 mph test using an accurate outboard speedometer / timer that had some degree of scientific accuracy.
5.9....yeh right....it burned rubber all through first gear. Recorded times back then were very inaccurate do to excessive wheel spin. Todays tires lock up.
@@scdevon Try 365 peak HP, but only if you think "real world" is an open exhaust system (test pipes with no mufflers), no factory air cleaner assembly or element in place and no engine accessories of any kind. Even the water pump on this freshly rebuilt example was a facility powered electric unit! www.hotrod.com/articles/testing-4-2-8how-much-horsepower-ford-428-cobra-jet-really-make/ Even the water pump was a facility powered electric unit! In its AS INSTALLED state (all factory engine accessories, air cleaner assembly/element and full factory exhaust system in place (including the restrictive OEM transverse muffler), were looking at maybe 280 SAE Net HP (at the crank), or something on the order of 240 HP at the rear wheels on a modern day inertia chassis dyno.
@@Lucille69caddy No, hard and well documented facts are "at it again." The old muscle car engines were inefficient dogs by today's standards. 50 - 60 years worth of global automotive engineering improvements has a way of doing that.
i was 16 my dad had one just like it xcept it had a 4 speed 2nd gear 3rd gear locked you back in the seat o ne time was leave the little city of pinole calif headed to rodeo calif took off up the hill was gone 130 i slowed down and in the distance behind me i see flashing red and blue lights police man stops me and says son i took off after you just as you were cresting the hill and iam couldnt see you when i came over the hill how fast was you going and dont lie to me i said 65 officer ok he says ill write this ticket for 80 in a 45 becuase i know it was faster than that he says i was going 115 and i still couldnt see you if i had gone a little further he would have turned around and went back to pinole my mom covered for me as i sneaked it out and the ticket busted me trust me that car was the shit every body wanted that car it was silver and black and not a blimish on it my dad sold it in 1984 for 40 gs the badest car i ever drove thanks dad r.i.p 2014
So far it Doesn't look like Ford will have enough sense to bring back the Mack 1 for 2019, which would be just in time to celebrate the 50th anniversary of this Ridiculously good Looking Iconic muscle machine ..Too Bad...I would buy one for sure!
@@brandonhumphries3377 Ford is a car maker? No shit..what is your point? I have a point even if you do not so i will say it again.....NO CAR MAKER, including Ford, ever under rated their engines back in the 60's and 70's. Actually they OVER RATED the horsepower. The Dodge 426 Hemi was advertised at 425 hp, but was really 350;the 440-6 was 325 hp, NOT the 390 advertised. And this 428 installed in the car was more near 300. That was the difference between GROSS horsepower and NET (real) hp.
@@chadhaire1711 you don't know shit! Ford motor company did underrate their engines. It's fucking documented dumbass!! Another keyboard cowboy that don't know his ass from a hole in the ground. Get educated before you comment about something you don't know shit about!
@@brandonhumphries3377A. I test cars for a living you stupid kid.....about $1 million in cars every year---look it up. And unlike you I drove these cars back then long before you were born, and I can only laugh at a greehorn like you lecturing me. There is NO "documentation" that Ford under rated those engines aside from bullshit that was printed in media publications, which lied to get advertising $$$. You dont even understand GROSS power vs NET..I mentioned it in my post and it went right over you head. B. The horsepower ratings back then were industry "GROSS" . That means a bare engine on a bench with NO mufflers, NO air cleaner, NO smog pump, and NO belts. So equipped powerful engines like the 426 Hemi and GM L88 could crank hp readings of up to 425//450 hp. But once all that gear was put back on the engine and in the customers car, horsepower dropped 18/20%. That is called SAE-NET. That is why the Dodge 426 was advertised at 425, but that was a lie,,,in the car it was actually 350. And that 426 was FAR more powerful that this lame 428 which was more like 300 hp net. c. Starting in 1972 ALL cars were (and are) required to use SAE NET.....the 2020 Dodge Charger with 5.7 V-8 puts out 375 hp NET and there is NO, I repeat, NO muscle car from the 60's and 70's that puts out more, including ANYTHING from FORD.
I had a 69 Mustang 428 CJ minus the accessories, and minus the black hood and stripes. Dark green, black interior and a 4 speed. Mine had the same wheels as this one. I was 18 and in Heaven!
Nice to look at Mustangs when they were real Mustangs tires back then words that good as tires they make now this would allow that car to handle a little better and get better traction
I owned one unrestored and perfect. I was as teenager when I bought it in '79. 510HP to the wheels on dyno and stock. 430 Detroit locker lifted the wheels out of the gate with street tires and beat everything in sight! I've owned over 150 cars, most of them fast! 427 Camaro, 429 Cyclone, 440M Charger etc etc etc and my 428CJ is still talked about at get togethers with what's left of my high school buddies. It was a terror!
@@solidbreed9767 69' 428 SCJ Mach1 R code. It was always much much faster than other CJs and SCJs. Used to blow away hemi cuda, sd455 trans am, all Camaro, judges, chevelle, etc... blew the doors off of panteras and other crazy things. Tied high speed against 427 Daytona Corvette. Raced Kawasaki K900 and people were shocked! Used to lift the wheels. Always knew there's no way that thing was 325hp lol. Faster than my 69' 396 SS 375HP Camaro and my 70' Cyclone 429SCJ 4sp Hurst gutted for racing and slicks. If it was stock, I beat it! Also smoked many a built mother... wish I kept that one but... I've had many cars. That one was among my top 3.
Always thought the '69 Fastback Mustang looked like a '67/'68 that went through a weight lifting program - everything a little tighter and sleeker and a more defined muscularity.
By today's standards 5.9 seconds is pretty average honestly, V6 Camry's and full size Pickups with their top of the line engine can usually do sub 6 second 0-60's, while cars that are this cars modern day equal are running between 3.5 and 4.0 seconds in the same measure. I do however think this cars bias ply tires really hindered its performance, I wouldn't be surprised if a all stock mint condition 1968 428ci Mach 1 with a set of modern radials on it could do the same measure in the low 5 second range.
You know what ,not only was that body style the best ,it was also affordable . Too bad American manufacturers followed the Japanese into oblivion car designs . Anew Mustang was less than 4 grand and the high H.P. engines were only a few hundred dollars option . Now the Mustang looks nice but it has a crapper 4 cylinder as the standard engine everything else is thousands of dollars option . The Shelby is nice but you need to rent out your step sister to afford one . The Mach E is a joke ! All we have in cars these days is computers on wheels ,no heart no soul ,just Ralph Nader shit shoved down our throats by overbearing politicians and insurance scum bag companies . Nice video dude ,We need Bud back to test the new shit in today's show rooms. Later I need a coffee.
@@ProjectFairmont Maybe your right but the 4 cylinder still sounds like a shit sewing machine.,at least the V-6 still had a bit of soul .Worst thing Ford did was get rid of the straight 6 .It was smooth and could be revved up without exploding .Anyone buying a 4 cylinder will unhappily surprised by the long term unreliability of that 4 once the turbo craps out and the injectors contaminate the oil with gasoline diluting the lubricant and burning out the bearings . You'll see !
millwrightman99 I’ll see, I am living it, which based on your comments appears hypothetical. I have owned a 2015 EB PP that I ordered and took delivery on 4/1/15. I have owned 12 other Mustangs all V8’s. This is a keeper. Why? 13 sec ETs, 24.5 average MPG and other than a Motorcraft battery with a dead cell, zero issues. Same trans as the V8 in ‘15 (6R80), diff, 8.8 LSD, 3.55 gears and the same brakes as the base Coyote V8 car. Add this to the fact that it has significantly less mass over the front wheels, and the aforementioned fuel economy it is easily the best driving Mustang I have ever owned. I have built many a roller cam SBF, currently building a 521 385 series motor for the last truely blue chip Ford; a ‘77 Mark V, C6, 9” disk brakes and BBF. I have also built a 200 I6 in a 2-door box top Fairmont. A nice smooth short stroke motor with the worst head ever (Aussies fixed that). I am so impressed by the EB 2.3, I plan on putting one in a ‘73 Pinto. C4, big turbo, injectors and intercooler. Goal is 10.5 ETs.
@@ProjectFairmont @S Schroeder nice work dude ,but th ey still sound like shit. Getting 13 seconds from a 4 cylinder is quite impressive ,but I bet it can not like very long doing that . Your trying to change the laws of physics. over stressed small engines can not stand the punishment period . I bet you'll get blown head gaskets and severely contaminated oil on a regular basis .In the meantime good for you . I owned a brand new Boss 302 right out of the showroom ,and nothing I've seen since 1970 has made my blood burn since then .I paid $4100 take home and my income was $10,00 per year . Lat those numbers sink in compared to the screw job we get today . They can stick their computerized crap up where the sun don't shine . That solid lifter engine was music to my weary ears ! Later dude have fun in your 4 banger .
@@ProjectFairmont That Pinto is one of the most maligned cars ,but I have always liked them .Lots of cars have gas tanks in the rear & nobody crucifies them as being any worse . Tat car was well made and reliable as hell .A nice solid rear axle a very reliable 4 cylinder & a really nice shape . I would buy one today if Ford had the guts to build one . Just move the gas tank to under the seat . A friend of mine had one & he almost beat the crap out of a biker that touched his rear bumper . I think he liked his Pinto more than he liked my Boss mustang ? Ford still puts out my favorite car but they give up on good stuff too quickly . The Fiesta ST should have been available with all wheel drive in North America with the 300 hp engine .
Notice the low rpm. And low hp? But you really shift it at 6500 and the hp goes up alot. They advertised muscle cars like that to keep insurance costs down.
Spinning one that high would be pointless the engine rolls over at 4800-5200 rpm and you would run into valve float around 5800. They didn't have the 427's solid lifters or tunnel port heads to make power up to 6500 from the factory.
@@GlassTopRX7 Thanks for your honest and clearly educated response. In its "as installed" state (SAE Net), the 428 CJ was an honest 280 HP engine. That's with all engine accessories, full factory exhaust system and air cleaner assembly I place. The old (pre 1972) Gross ratings allegedly represented peak theoretical power, with the engine devoid of all those things and (oftentimes) equipped with open long tube aftermarket headers. Alas, many of those engines couldn't achieved the advertised ratings in that state! 100% production line stock vs. same (but tire for tire), the 428 CJ Mustangs has nothing on a 2013 - 2017 Honda Accord V6 manual trans (which of course isn't even a fast car by today's standards).
Not even close. Check out this fresh rebuild. 365 peak HP, but that's with open exhaust dumps, no air filter assembly or no power robbing engine accessories of any kind. And I suspect that modern low tension rings were employed as a minimum. www.hotrod.com/articles/testing-4-2-8how-much-horsepower-ford-428-cobra-jet-really-make/ Figure 280 or so peak HP at the crank with the engine in its "as installed" (SAE Net) state (full factory exhaust system, air cleaner assembly and element and full factory exhaust system in place and running)... One would need at least 360 "as installed" horsepower to get an otherwise 100% production line stock 428 CJ Mustang into the high twelves. When new and 100% production line stock, these cars were at best 102 MPH cars (through the 1/4 mile). 100 MPH was more common, even on slicks, keeping in mind that trap speed is largely unaffected by even large variations in off the line traction. Muscle car myth superseded reality from the moment the car's originally rolled off the showroom floor. That myth has spread ever since, and is still alive and well today.
@silverbird58 "Alloy heads" theoretically make LESS POWER than their cast iron counterparts when all other variables are identical. That's because the (aluminum) alloy is a better conductor of heat, which results in a loss of thermal energy in the chamber. The primary advantage of "allow heads" is weight savings. Of course, modern "alloy heads" nearly always have far more efficient chambers, valve angles, etc. But that's a different story.
Those 428 Cobra Jets were criminaly underrated at 335hp and 445ft/lbs of torque, they've been dyno'd on modern equipment and have been shown to make more like 410 peak horsepower and over 500 ft/lbs of torque.
Let's be honest, though; this car was supplied by Ford--do you really think it was the same as production models? I'm not picking on Ford, all manufacturers did the same thing with press cars. But out on the streets, the 428 CJ was whipped by LS6 Chevelles, big block Mopars and Stage 1 Buicks.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think their high performance v8s were subject to the same reliability standards (starting-up, idling etc) as their normal engines .
@@joneswarrington7242 It's not a question of reliability here, it's performance. Car manufacturers back then would give the press specially modified cars that had more power than regular production models to make them appear quicker than they really were
@@joneswarrington7242 I agree, they were not as impressive. But my original post talked about how the press was given supposedly stock cars to test, when in fact they were not stock.
Ford sandbagged the horsepower rating on the 428 Cobra Jet recent article had a Ford worker work the dino on 428 Cobra Jets stated that the 428 actually put out 428 horsepower not 335 hp. This was strictly done for insurance purposes.
This is pretty far from "428 HP:" This freshly rebuilt 428 CJ made 365 peak HP - on open exhaust pipes (no restrictive mufflers, etc.) and with no air cleaner housing/element or engine accessories of any kind in place: www.hotrod.com/articles/testing-4-2-8how-much-horsepower-ford-428-cobra-jet-really-make/ Even the water pump was a facility powered electric unit! In its AS INSTALLED state (all factory engine accessories, air cleaner assembly/element and full factory exhaust system in place (including the restrictive OEM transverse muffler), were looking at maybe 280 SAE Net HP (at the crank), or something on the order of 240 HP at the rear wheels on a modern day inertia chassis dyno.
@@peteshea8010 Seen em myself on an engine dyno...not a chassis dyno...an engine dyno... make 410 gross horsepower at the crankshaft. Witnessed it myself. So no it's really not that far from 428 gross horsepower. Rebuilt a couple 428's in my lifetime
What an idiot. 🙄. Hot Rod dynoed the 428 and found it made 361HP. They claim with better plugs and headers, near 400 is possible. If you calculate the 1/4 mile mph (106 .64) and weight for a factory car (3600 lbs inc driver) works out to 356 CRANK. HP. The SS/E cars ran 120 mph….but that was under NHRA regs….ANY cam, Headers, Blueprinted motor, Cold air induction - hardly ‘factory’. The only way these things could make 428 HP off the show room floor is on the juice!
The 396 was about the equivalent. The COPO cars were rare and the equivalent of the BOSS 429 cars, and the ZL1 cars were ultra rare at 69 cars built. Mustangs could hold their own.
I had a ‘69 Mach I with a 351w 4bbl with aluminum mid-rise intake. ‘69 was the only year Ford made a 351w 4bbl- the 351c was NO MATCH for it. The car weighed only 2950lbs and would run like a scolded dog. I miss that car.
Ragimund VonWallat Reading comprehension is fundamental. Only ONE year did Ford make the 351w with a 4bbl. ONE. It was a high-compression engine at 10:7/1. I destroyed 351c’s with ease at the drag strip on Ford Day. People I knew were driving the Mustangs with the Cleveland. But nice try.
all Ford had to do was put a higher gear ratio in the rear end and put a different cam in their motors to let it rev up to six grand and they would have whooped ass and all those Chevys & mopars.
These Cobra Jet motors put down 420hp or more to the ground in reality....junk-ass chevy hunks of shit were gettin their asses kicked by these rigs all the damn time...
was rubber not as sticky back then as it is today? I've watched several of these videos and all the cars seem to have terrible tires that make way to much squealing. this is a performance car, it shouldn't be leaning and sliding like that.
No, the 427 was basically a detuned race engine that barely got put under the hood of anything. The 428 was built as a big car engine with lots of a torque for spirited day to day driving, the 428 was a wonderful and reliable engine and far less finicky and problematic than those 427 side oilers.
Hahaha. O-60 in 5.9. Motor Trend’s 0-60 in an Accord 2.0 turbo 4 banger is 5.7. Amazing that some people pay 100k for a “classic” muscle car and loose to some millennial in an accord with a baby seat in the back. Of course I’m old enough to remember when you could pick up a muscle car like this used in the mid seventies for 500 to 1500 bucks. Yeh, I know: Ok boomer. Just sayin. Ummmm, but I’d still love to have one of these 😛
Late 80s and we all laughed at my buddy who got a (very fast) 67 goat for 3500. Why'd we laugh ? 3500 and ya saw waves down the sides. It was fast but definitely had something hiding under there. Did ya hear what the HP and tq was rated at? 3400rpms. They were sandbagging that for sure.
My guess is if the American public demanded handling muscle cars times would have been much quicker based on wide wheels and tires. NASCAR and Trans Am racing featured wide wheels and tires, yet Americans were determined to drag race. Most every musclecar came with narrow wheels and tires, and if someone drag raced them, they threw on rear drag radials and skinny front tires. So, in drag trim, they could post great times, but that was not streetable, and wide wheels and tires which could have made musclecars 3 dimensional corner carving cars vs. 2 dimensional drag cars were non-existant.
![[กูเพิ่งซื้อมึงปิดหนี] 20 นาที ผมรีวิวเกมที่แย่ที่สุดในโลก CONCORD](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XhC-3q3Ii7I/mqdefault.jpg)
“A four wheel drift that felt as smooth as homemade ice cream” 🤣🤣🤣
When I was 15, I worked for a Ford dealer in 1969 and drove these new off the nu-car carriers !
Perfect lines. Such a beautiful design. Of course all American cars this year were beautiful.
1969 was definitely the best looking year of those times
You are correct sir!!!
I`d go back in time and buy 5 of them.
You can still find them, and they're still cheaper than a new Mustang.
A friend bought one in really nice condition for $4k in 1988.
culcune .....If only I had the foresight cause I made really good money back then and didn’t have foresight. The $4000 in 88’ is $20K today
@@dontellgucci1117 exactly!
@Big Rock
I've seen ads for about 40k, which is more expensive than a base new mustang, but less than the higher priced models.
Granted a 69 mustang was $3000-4000 new.
Bud drives em, like he's stole them. Buds the man
The actual test driver has commented in some other videos
I love these old Bud Lindemann Road Test videos. Bud seems like a real car guy. Beautiful Mach 1. But my favorite big block Stang is the 68 Mustang 428 CJ
I’ve been binge watching this Bud guy entertaining stuff
the 428 cobra-jet was available in 1968 models. at the winternationals in 1968 two 428 68 fastbacks faced off for the superstock eliminator title. Don nicholson won in the ss 4 spd car. the 68 fb was a couple of hundred lbs lighter than the 69. in hotrod mags road test of the 68 428 cobra jet they clocked the fastest 1/4 mile time they had ever recorded for a street stock car. 13 plus seconds. I was there (pomona) in 68 and 69 and saw the whole shooting match.
13.56, all motor and no computer crap like today. Now put slicks on it, a 4:11 and a little turn with a screwdriver, timing bump 12s easy
My favorite Mustang . A girl I dated had a 69 sports roof with a 302 and automatic. It also had the fixed hood scoop , rear window louvers , and a spoiler /wing on the trunk lid. In the late 80's it got a complete restoration and a Ford performance 302 crate engine.
David Davis cool story jackass
Were you dating her or the car???
@@jonmeray713 u r a loser
@@joefell7845 ok
What'd she look like? Ha.
Pinnacle of American power. We walked on the Moon this year. And this Mustang was unadulterated epic. No smog, no lawyers. Just brutal performance sucking down gallons of hydrocarbons
Oh man, the description of the carburetor is poetry.
Ahhh the best era for muscle cars 50-70's.
Had a neighbor in 69
Had this and with slicks, tune and headers was into the 12's.
when cubes were king.
gotta love the big blocks.
Amen. No p*ssy turbochargers, ABS, or traction control for me, thank you...
the best looking MUSTANG ever built!!!
The Mustang ll Ghia 1974-1978 trails in second place.
Fred Hommel the best sounding mustang ever built*
@@chargermaster586 Oh god no, ugly crap
@@betsyduane3461 hahahaha
That car i was legitimately my dads car. I’m so glad I found this!! I sent it to him! Thank you!
I probably know your Dad, He was just talking about this car tonight and mentioned his son found this video on here and forwarded it to him. Told him that I can't help but think that the mention of his car's VIN to that Ford Customer Service person had to elicit the same response as the name "John Wick" did in the first movie!
GreenJeep1998 that’s awesome. Are you in a model club with my dad, David?
@@MustangTim68 Yup, my name is Joe. He's brought the car up hefore, but last night was the first time he mentioned this video. I searched it out after getting home from the meeting and showed to my Dad, John, who has been at the meeting when you Dad has mentioned this car the last time.
Knuckle buster yes !! ever try to change a set of plugs on one of these !!
And my feet don't fit at the pedals!!!
OH, it's a magical experience changing the center plugs on a 67 to 70 big block stang/ cougar. back plugs on a Tiger.. loads of fun also.
A new Mustang with the Coyote 5.0 looks like a nightmare to work on as well, the way it takes up the entire engine compartment.
0-60 in 5.9 with that wheelspin? Very impressive.
These 428s really dug in nice in the low end. Gobs or torque. Imagine it with decent tires.
The video showing the "wheel spin", was NOT the run that gave them the 5.9 time. To achieve 5.9, they ran the car probably 25 times to get the best time, as any car test would do.
They show the wheel spin in the video, ONLY because its impressive for us, the viewers to see when watching the film.
When Bud and his drivers tested these vehicles, that had each vehicle at the track for a fair number of days, running the tests over and over, being sure to get the beat results possible on every test, on every car. At the same time, they also drove the cars at times, to get better, more exciting footage for the film we're watching.
For example: They would test the car over and over around the track, to obtain the best high speed, lap time. This is best done by smooth driving, minimum sliding etc.. After obtaining that best high speed lap time, THEN they would film the car doing a lap, showing it sliding and smoking the tires as its drifting around the corners of the track. All of that filming, had nothing to do with the best lap time. It was only for the viewers benefit, to see the car sliding and drifting, smoking the tires through the lap. Understand? The true fastest lap, would NOT the lap with smoking tires etc..
And as I mentioned above, the fastest 0 to 30, or 0 to 70 speed times, would not be any with rear tire spin. To think it was, is incredibly naive. And to suggest that Linderman and his professional drivers wouldn't know such a basic idea such as this, is to suggest they were incompetent morons.
The film you just watched, was approx 4 minutes long.
The actual testing of the vehicle in that 4 minute film, was about 6 DAYS of testing.
Is that clearer? The film is to show you the car, and how it looks being put through its paces.
The film is NOT showing you the actual tests!!
@@jmflyer55 the wheel spin is probably just as real as the 5.9 second 0 to 60 time
jesus christ..relax@@jmflyer55
Guys from around Dearborn always say "DEARBURN" I love it.
Let's go surfing now! Everybody's learning how! Come a safari with me!
I was never a fan of the stamped steel suspension that bent on ever bump but it was a good looking car!
My friend bought one of these in 1989 for $4k (expensive for a muscle car at the time, but the 428's were already getting collectible). I remember going up Reseda Blvd. in the San Fernando Valley and some guy made his way next to us in a Taurus SHO. We kept whipping him the next 3 lights, and the fourth, without even looking at us he got into the right lane, turned right, and took off like a dog with its tail between its legs, LOL
Lol yup those nerds in their modern cars like SHOs think they can beat all the old car's, wrong, and a SHO is turbo not naturally aspirated
@@m42037 The old-school SHO cars were naturally aspirated built by Yamaha, in V6 form until 1995, then V8 from 1996 until 1999 or thereabouts when the Taurus was redesigned and looked like a catfish. They were very impressive for the day, at least the V6s. I believe the later V8s were underwhelming performers considering they had about the same hp as the V6s. I am not sure when the most recent SHOs came out, but those were quite fast and, yes, used the Ecoboost V6 turbo engine. I am quite certain my friend's '69 would have lost at the stoplight grand prix to the up-to-2019 SHO. My friend still has the car and is slowly restoring it.
@@culcune What's a "stop light grand prix? I'm 56 never heard that saying. If you're saying a modern SHO would do 12s you're very mistaken, only a Coyote powered modern Ford in 2019 would beat a 68 CJ Mustang. These 428s would pull 12s with slick's and a 4:11 with a little tuning as I said. I used to race a 390 warmed over Galaxie, my best with bad traction was 13.79, and no SHO ever beat me
@@m42037 Stoplight grand prix is the nickname for a quick red-light race. The '69 my friend owned/owns was mostly stock, so guessing high 13s at best on the street surface. The late 80s SHOs were 15 second cars at best, so easily dispatched. The newer SHOs were low 13s partly due to their awd so could probably pull on my buddy's '69.
@@culcune Ya I googled too. I see 15.5, 15.1 best 1999 SHOs, The eco isn't naturally aspirated so sure, now let's take a turbo and put it on a 428 CJ and see what we get.. Those SHOs (exp the 86-99) were really ugly I'm shocked the Taurus did so well in 86 with the public with it's ugly jellybean style, but then the AMC Pacer did really well back in the mid 70s with it's jellybean (upside down bathtub) style so I guess. The price and reliability got them more, as long as you didn't buy the 4 bangers, they blew head gaskets like crazy. The latter is my almost 57 year old memory not Google 😑
You got the 428SCJ when you ordered a 3:91 or 4:30 gear. Oil cooler,LeMans rods, 1UA crankshaft. Horse power way underated
Absolutely! Seen a bone stock 428 CJ on an engine dyno before and it made 410 horsepower in factory tune with the too small 735 cfm carb that came on that engine from the factory. A bigger carb, headers, and advanced timing and you could probably get close to 450 hp out of the 428 CJ. Maybe even more. And that engine had great street manners compared to an R-Code 427 or a BOSS 429, both NASCAR bred engines that we're too raucous for everyday street use. Even the street versions of those two engines really weren't streetable
@@jeremythompson9895 This freshly rebuilt 428 CJ made 365 peak HP - on open exhaust pipes (no restrictive mufflers, etc.) and with no air cleaner housing/element or engine accessories of any kind in place:
www.hotrod.com/articles/testing-4-2-8how-much-horsepower-ford-428-cobra-jet-really-make/
Even the water pump was a facility powered electric unit!
In its AS INSTALLED state (all factory engine accessories, air cleaner assembly/element and full factory exhaust system in place (including the restrictive OEM transverse muffler), were looking at maybe 280 SAE Net HP (at the crank), or something on the order of 240 HP at the rear wheels on a modern day inertia chassis dyno.
@@peteshea8010 I'm talking gross horsepower. They weren't using net horsepower measurements yet in 1969. That didn't happen until 1971-72. But yeah I realize that. Been a mechanic for nearly 40 years
Pete shea Correct Peter. Absolutely over BS merchants claiming 400+ HP for these motors from factory - the Qtr mile MPH (106.64) simply doesnt support stupid claims like that.
Jeremy Thompson The HR text IS Gross HP. Its an engine dyno , no alt, no water pump......go back to fixing Toyotas.
when Ol Bud said it was a knuckle buster he meant what happened to your hands trying to change the spark plugs in a 428 Mustang!
Got my license in 66. Ford was nowhere with street muscle cars until 1968 and the 428 CJ. Sure you could get the hot 427 Super Stock engine for around a thousand bucks, in a Galaxie unless you were one of the privileged allow to buy one of the 100 or so Fairlanes. But the GT 390 and 428 7 liter were stones, even with the dual quads and headers Shelby put on the GT500 they just weren't quite up to the performance potential of the cheaper GTOs and SS 396s that were the big sellers. Then the 428 CJ gets new heads with decent sized exhaust ports and a new cam and at least 390 hp. And for a few hundred bucks over the standard 390 GT you could get it in any Mustang or Torino and keep up with just about any muscle car. Rare in 68, by 69 428 CJ Mustangs were out in force.
"At least 390 HP." LOL
Per HOT ROD Magazine, this freshly rebuilt example was all done at 365 HP - with no power robbing mufflers, air cleaner assembly/element or engine accessories in place. (Even the water pump was electric driven by facility power).
www.hotrod.com/articles/testing-4-2-8how-much-horsepower-ford-428-cobra-jet-really-make/
You can knock a solid 80 HP off that figure to obtain true "as installed" output, with all of those items included and operational. We call that SAE Net Horsepower, which has been the Federally mandated standard since the 1972 model year.
@@peteshea8010; NHRA changed the horsepower on the 428 CJ a long time ago. They have the factored hp on these engines between 380 and 389 hp. So 390 hp is pretty close. NHRA keeps a pretty close watch on these cars, If they bomb the record or many are running way under the class index, NHRA adds hp.
I dusted every car you mentioned with my '69 428CJ Mach 1. Was well known all over Los Angeles as the car to beat and no one did. You have to know how to drive them. I used to beat Judges like they owed me money. Smoked a hemi cuda in front of everyone at the street races in Van Nuys, CA. Only car ever stayed by my side was a 427 Daytona Corvette which was much lighter and rated higher on HP... Ford unsold power ratings on those.
"With a clever tire strategy, the great LeeRoy Yarbrough won the 1969 Daytona 500 in a Torino Talladega prepared by Junior Johnson. David Pearson meanwhile would take 11 wins and the 1969 season championship driving Holman-Moody Talladegas. Richard Petty won another 10 races in Fords and finished second in the championship."
I've owned mopar, Chevy, Pontiac, Ford, you name it, if it was American muscle I owned it at one point or drove for friends in theirs (because I was the kid to win the races). Believe me, your experience is nothing like my car was. 11.31 qt mile at Long beach speedway, stock with slicks... twice!
Zero to sixty in 5.9 seconds was pretty swift for it's weight. It's swift now.
Dumb comment, my 66 XL Galaxie would run to 60 in about 5 second's, 13.79 @98 mph, not great traction and weight was 3900 pds
Lay off @@m42037
I want one in every color available in 1969
You can't have it/them/those...
There folks is your first factory "Shaker " hood scoop.
69 was the peak year for the musclecar era and the Mach 1 epitomizes the performance cars of that model year. I was a high school senior that year and the new Mach 1s were everywhere, mostly 351s. I saw more than a few totaled Mach 1s sitting at gas stations which is where they hauled wrecks to back then. After a few years their numbers dwindled with the survivors ending up in teenage hands, jacked up and wearing primer with glasspack mufflers. A lot of them rusted into oblivion not long after the warranties expired. Fords rusted fast and hard back then. But I'm happy to see all the restored (and expensive) Mach 1s these days.
1970 was the peak, actually
Not if you go by sales figures. Pick any muscle car from any maker you want and you'll find sales were way higher for the 69 model year. You can argue that GM lifting its displacement ban made 70 the peak year. But for 1970, GM killed the optional L-71, L-88, and ZL1 engine options, (thus ending any big block solid lifter Corvette option until 71). GM also, for 1970, stopped the over-the-counter availability of the Pontiac Ram Air V engine, and ended the COPO Camaro program. While Mopar introduced the Cuda and Challenger for 70, their other muscle car sales were way off from 69. Plus the hemi switched from solid lifters to hydraulic for 70. @@aaronrainey788
@@aaronrainey788 Wrong. Check production figures of all the leading performance cars and you'll find 69 blows away the 70 model year. Plus, GM axed all their Corvette big block solid lifter engine options for 1970 (L-88, L-71, ZL1). Then GM killed the planned LS6 engine for the 70 Vette. They also stopped the Ram Air V program as well as the COPO Camaro. Plus GM killed multiple carbs as an option for 1970 Vettes and Camaros. Yes, GM went to 455 displacement for the 1970 A bodies but that was partly a compensation for more restrictive smog regs and upcoming compression ratio reduction, as much as anything else.
My great aunt, at 70 years old, was driving a red 1969 Mustang fastback, cotter pins in the hood to keep it closed while racing.
This car ran a best of 13.56 on slicks bone stock all motor and no computers, 335hp was underrated. With a little tweaking, a 4:11 you're well in the 12s"
Good shit for sure let’s face it 5.9 0 to 60 is fast on shitty tires what a great show
Legendary vehicle. Power, speed, good looks and wonderful handling!!
What more could anyone ask for?!!
PS. Although I was changing cars as frequently as changing underwear back in those days, (lol) unfortunately I never got around to buying one of these. And I regret it! ... BUT, a good buddy I had DID own one. And I spent a lot of time in it, AND, spent a fair amount of time behind the wheel driving it. So, I knew the car very well.
One last thing to consider.
I get so tired of seeing in so many comments, people writing that "all these cars were big boats that were all over the road", or that "these cars don't have performance because the designers had little to work with, and didn't know much"..."way back then" 8
.........
These statements are absurd...!!
Manufacturers had to meet NEW, completely ridiculous regulations to conform to emissions and gas mileage limits. This meant actually
De-tuning motors to put out less HP & performance than they did from the factory. Today, we have $5.00 per gallon gas, and car makers using electric to combat the problem. We see car makers today, struggling to squeak out every extra HP they can, from tiny 4 cylinder engines, all bolted into basically a plastic body that rides and drives like a go kart. That isn't progress IMO.
Most people reading & writing here in these comments, probably we're not even born yet when the gas crisis hit us back in 72-73. But if you think todays bad, paying $5.00 a gallon? Imagine back to 1972- 1973, when WE paid nearly the same amount per gallon!!! But, minimum wage at that time, we were only making about $100 a week BEFORE taxes taken out!!! Even if you had a high paying job at the time, say $300 a week before taxes, and that was a LOT then, the gas prices made it impossible. Also, unlike now, back then they would run out of gas!! So, you'd wait 3 hours in line to get gas, then finally you get to the pump and the station attendant tells you all the tanks are empty/dry. "Sorry about that, you can try again tomorrow".... Stations were all closed, "Out of gas"....
So it was serious. OPEC tightened the grip, and everything that takes gas stopped running!!
So car makers HAD to take drastic steps to show the buyers gas mileage was going to be better in new cars.
Lastly: These cars all drove similarly to one another. They all slid in turns. Most had oversteer characteristics, but people knew this, and expected this, since they were all rear wheel drive. (just a couple of exceptions, front wheel drive was an oddball, that most people either hated or knew nothing about) ... A few cars like the front heavy Chevy Impalas with big blocks, had terrible understeer issues. All (or at least most) of the Chrysler vehicles back then (Dodge, Plymouth, Chrysler) used a unique torsion bar suspension up front, and in their big full sized cars like the Fury lll's etc. had fantastic handling due to that system. Especially when the vehicle was light in the front end, due to having a small engine like the 318 V8 for example. Short on power, but great handling.
My point is people today would call the fury three a "land yacht" that's all over the road. When in actuality it's a beautiful handling car. The problem is they're comparing it to one of today's Go-cart type vehicles. These old cars were not designed to ride or drive like a "go-cart". All of these old cars would slide through turns, they ALL exhibited either understeer or oversteer, were ALL rear wheel drive, and they ALL drove/drive exactly like they were designed to drive. And THAT'S a good thing. Not a bad thing.
People from Barrett-Jackson just cringing watching these videos...🤣
Most of these after they were tested were used as crash test vehicles
If you pay 6 figures for a muscle car just to park it on the grass....
Cars are meant to drive.
@@Mr.Death101 If not by the factory than by the young, inexperienced drivers!
5.9 to sixty is pretty good even for todays cars...impresive!
those tests were made on bias ply tires too. with radial tires it would hook up better and have a quicker 0-60 time! the 428 had very impressive torque!
Bigdog302V8 and I think this car may have been tested with an automatic since he doesn't state which and it's kind of hard to see. If that's so then a Manual would shave a few tenths off that time.
I think a rolling 10-to 60 mph test would have been a much better way to rate these cars years ago. Or maybe a rolling 20 to 70 mph test using an accurate outboard speedometer / timer that had some degree of scientific accuracy.
And I doubt if it had the optional 4:30 gearing with the Detroit Locker differential.
5.9....yeh right....it burned rubber all through first gear. Recorded times back then were very inaccurate do to excessive wheel spin. Todays tires lock up.
Was underrated for sure @ 335HP!
Closer to 400 hp at the crank in the real world.
@@scdevon
Try 365 peak HP, but only if you think "real world" is an open exhaust system (test pipes with no mufflers), no factory air cleaner assembly or element in place and no engine accessories of any kind.
Even the water pump on this freshly rebuilt example was a facility powered electric unit!
www.hotrod.com/articles/testing-4-2-8how-much-horsepower-ford-428-cobra-jet-really-make/
Even the water pump was a facility powered electric unit!
In its AS INSTALLED state (all factory engine accessories, air cleaner assembly/element and full factory exhaust system in place (including the restrictive OEM transverse muffler), were looking at maybe 280 SAE Net HP (at the crank), or something on the order of 240 HP at the rear wheels on a modern day inertia chassis dyno.
🙄Denny Downer is at it again😳
@@Lucille69caddy No, hard and well documented facts are "at it again." The old muscle car engines were inefficient dogs by today's standards. 50 - 60 years worth of global automotive engineering improvements has a way of doing that.
Big block 472 Pity he’s correct.
A little lite on the testing in this one. Drag racing must have been the economical focus.
69. The peak of the american automobile. What a year to buy a car.
love that colour combo
@1:10, the Insurance companies were talking notes.
i was 16 my dad had one just like it xcept it had a 4 speed 2nd gear 3rd gear locked you back in the seat o ne time was leave the little city of pinole calif headed to rodeo calif took off up the hill was gone 130 i slowed down and in the distance behind me i see flashing red and blue lights police man stops me and says son i took off after you just as you were cresting the hill and iam couldnt see you when i came over the hill how fast was you going and dont lie to me i said 65 officer ok he says ill write this ticket for 80 in a 45 becuase i know it was faster than that he says i was going 115 and i still couldnt see you if i had gone a little further he would have turned around and went back to pinole my mom covered for me as i sneaked it out and the ticket busted me trust me that car was the shit every body wanted that car it was silver and black and not a blimish on it my dad sold it in 1984 for 40 gs the badest car i ever drove thanks dad r.i.p 2014
So far it Doesn't look like Ford will have enough sense to bring back the Mack 1 for 2019, which would be just in time to celebrate the 50th anniversary of this Ridiculously good Looking Iconic muscle machine ..Too Bad...I would buy one for sure!
Robert Stewart 2020!
I know this is an old post but they did indeed bring back the Mach 1.
That was my first car in 1971
I had a 69 black on black coupe, my first car in 1985.
huge chunks of etmosphere...oh gosh..😁.good and intertaining video.
I miss my first Mustang 1969 black Mach 1
Bud knew how to use that prose! So did Tom McCahill.
Nobody:
🎙: “knuckle buster.” 🤣🤣🤣
I guess he’s referring to how they had to stuff that 428 in there.
A buddy of mine in High School had a 10 year old '69 Mach 1. I wonder if he still has it.
Bud Lindenmann is cool. I want to get me a Bud Lindemann t-shirt
Model Jet Juggernaut rip budlindenman 1925-1983.
Ford underrated their engines at that time.
no they didn't..no car makers did....
@@chadhaire1711 Ford is a car maker!! LOL
@@brandonhumphries3377 Ford is a car maker? No shit..what is your point?
I have a point even if you do not so i will say it again.....NO CAR MAKER, including Ford, ever under rated their engines back in the 60's and 70's. Actually they OVER RATED the horsepower. The Dodge 426 Hemi was advertised at 425 hp, but was really 350;the 440-6 was 325 hp, NOT the 390 advertised. And this 428 installed in the car was more near 300.
That was the difference between GROSS horsepower and NET (real) hp.
@@chadhaire1711 you don't know shit! Ford motor company did underrate their engines. It's fucking documented dumbass!! Another keyboard cowboy that don't know his ass from a hole in the ground. Get educated before you comment about something you don't know shit about!
@@brandonhumphries3377A. I test cars for a living you stupid kid.....about $1 million in cars every year---look it up. And unlike you I drove these cars back then long before you were born, and I can only laugh at a greehorn like you lecturing me. There is NO "documentation" that Ford under rated those engines aside from bullshit that was printed in media publications, which lied to get advertising $$$. You dont even understand GROSS power vs NET..I mentioned it in my post and it went right over you head.
B. The horsepower ratings back then were industry "GROSS" . That means a bare engine on a bench with NO mufflers, NO air cleaner, NO smog pump, and NO belts. So equipped powerful engines like the 426 Hemi and GM L88 could crank hp readings of up to 425//450 hp. But once all that gear was put back on the engine and in the customers car, horsepower dropped 18/20%. That is called SAE-NET. That is why the Dodge 426 was advertised at 425, but that was a lie,,,in the car it was actually 350. And that 426 was FAR more powerful that this lame 428 which was more like 300 hp net.
c. Starting in 1972 ALL cars were (and are) required to use SAE NET.....the 2020 Dodge Charger with 5.7 V-8 puts out 375 hp NET and there is NO, I repeat, NO muscle car from the 60's and 70's that puts out more, including ANYTHING from FORD.
That was an awesome ride
I had a 69 Mustang 428 CJ minus the accessories, and minus the black hood and stripes. Dark green, black interior and a 4 speed. Mine had the same wheels as this one. I was 18 and in Heaven!
Nice to look at Mustangs when they were real Mustangs tires back then words that good as tires they make now this would allow that car to handle a little better and get better traction
Good tires would have made a huge difference
I owned one unrestored and perfect. I was as teenager when I bought it in '79. 510HP to the wheels on dyno and stock. 430 Detroit locker lifted the wheels out of the gate with street tires and beat everything in sight! I've owned over 150 cars, most of them fast! 427 Camaro, 429 Cyclone, 440M Charger etc etc etc and my 428CJ is still talked about at get togethers with what's left of my high school buddies. It was a terror!
510hp in 1979?
@@solidbreed9767 69' 428 SCJ Mach1 R code. It was always much much faster than other CJs and SCJs. Used to blow away hemi cuda, sd455 trans am, all Camaro, judges, chevelle, etc... blew the doors off of panteras and other crazy things. Tied high speed against 427 Daytona Corvette. Raced Kawasaki K900 and people were shocked! Used to lift the wheels. Always knew there's no way that thing was 325hp lol. Faster than my 69' 396 SS 375HP Camaro and my 70' Cyclone 429SCJ 4sp Hurst gutted for racing and slicks. If it was stock, I beat it! Also smoked many a built mother... wish I kept that one but... I've had many cars. That one was among my top 3.
All of the cars back then would have run considerably lower ET's if they only had TRACTION. And well yeah, a few more broken parts to boot.
Classic lines, great year - 1969
tested by the same guy this car was a full second quicker than the 1969 Hemi Charger.
More more more!!! MORE! that wasnt fast off the line imo by todays standard , but it wasnt slow.
Mine was incomparable. It was a 69 .5 build Mach 1 Super CJ GT. Nobody understands the car more than Carol ,Steve and me and the others are dead .
Best looking Mustang ¹⁹69
Shout out to everybody who identifies as part of the "Performance Youth Market." LOL YYYeeaaa Buddy...FOMOCO Big Block Murica!
Always thought the '69 Fastback Mustang looked like a '67/'68 that went through a weight lifting program - everything a little tighter and sleeker and a more defined muscularity.
@4:04 0-60 in 5.9 seconds. People today would claim that is “slow”.
That was like a rocket back then! Still quick in my book today!
Shit tires killed 0-60 times
@@bernardboka4277 hopefully the damn computer bullshit in them will wake up after 50yrs , that's the only issue I see.
By today's standards 5.9 seconds is pretty average honestly, V6 Camry's and full size Pickups with their top of the line engine can usually do sub 6 second 0-60's, while cars that are this cars modern day equal are running between 3.5 and 4.0 seconds in the same measure. I do however think this cars bias ply tires really hindered its performance, I wouldn't be surprised if a all stock mint condition 1968 428ci Mach 1 with a set of modern radials on it could do the same measure in the low 5 second range.
Nah 5.9s to 60 is still not "slow" it is still considered "quick.
I think "slow" nowadays is around 7 to 8 seconds.
You know what ,not only was that body style the best ,it was also affordable .
Too bad American manufacturers followed the Japanese into oblivion car designs .
Anew Mustang was less than 4 grand and the high H.P. engines were only a few hundred dollars option .
Now the Mustang looks nice but it has a crapper 4 cylinder as the standard engine everything else is thousands of dollars option .
The Shelby is nice but you need to rent out your step sister to afford one .
The Mach E is a joke !
All we have in cars these days is computers on wheels ,no heart no soul ,just Ralph Nader shit shoved down our throats by overbearing politicians and insurance scum bag companies .
Nice video dude ,We need Bud back to test the new shit in today's show rooms.
Later I need a coffee.
millwrightman99 that crappy 4 cyl is faster than this sloppy pig.
@@ProjectFairmont Maybe your right but the 4 cylinder still sounds like a shit sewing machine.,at least the V-6 still had a bit of soul .Worst thing Ford did was get rid of the straight 6 .It was smooth and could be revved up without exploding .Anyone buying a 4 cylinder will unhappily surprised by the long term unreliability of that 4 once the turbo craps out and the injectors contaminate the oil with gasoline diluting the lubricant and burning out the bearings .
You'll see !
millwrightman99 I’ll see, I am living it, which based on your comments appears hypothetical. I have owned a 2015 EB PP that I ordered and took delivery on 4/1/15. I have owned 12 other Mustangs all V8’s. This is a keeper. Why? 13 sec ETs, 24.5 average MPG and other than a Motorcraft battery with a dead cell, zero issues. Same trans as the V8 in ‘15 (6R80), diff, 8.8 LSD, 3.55 gears and the same brakes as the base Coyote V8 car. Add this to the fact that it has significantly less mass over the front wheels, and the aforementioned fuel economy it is easily the best driving Mustang I have ever owned. I have built many a roller cam SBF, currently building a 521 385 series motor for the last truely blue chip Ford; a ‘77 Mark V, C6, 9” disk brakes and BBF. I have also built a 200 I6 in a 2-door box top Fairmont. A nice smooth short stroke motor with the worst head ever (Aussies fixed that). I am so impressed by the EB 2.3, I plan on putting one in a ‘73 Pinto. C4, big turbo, injectors and intercooler. Goal is 10.5 ETs.
@@ProjectFairmont @S Schroeder nice work dude ,but th
ey still sound like shit.
Getting 13 seconds from a 4 cylinder is quite impressive ,but I bet it can not like very long doing that .
Your trying to change the laws of physics. over stressed small engines can not stand the punishment period .
I bet you'll get blown head gaskets and severely contaminated oil on a regular basis .In the meantime good for you .
I owned a brand new Boss 302 right out of the showroom ,and nothing I've seen since 1970 has made my blood burn since then .I paid $4100 take home and my income was $10,00 per year .
Lat those numbers sink in compared to the screw job we get today .
They can stick their computerized crap up where the sun don't shine .
That solid lifter engine was music to my weary ears !
Later dude have fun in your 4 banger .
@@ProjectFairmont That Pinto is one of the most maligned cars ,but I have always liked them .Lots of cars have gas tanks in the rear & nobody crucifies them as being any worse .
Tat car was well made and reliable as hell .A nice solid rear axle a very reliable 4 cylinder & a really nice shape .
I would buy one today if Ford had the guts to build one .
Just move the gas tank to under the seat .
A friend of mine had one & he almost beat the crap out of a biker that touched his rear bumper .
I think he liked his Pinto more than he liked my Boss mustang ?
Ford still puts out my favorite car but they give up on good stuff too quickly .
The Fiesta ST should have been available with all wheel drive in North America with the 300 hp engine .
Since the 428 CJ was introduced in mid-68, wasn't Ford already making up for lost time?
Is this the guy that does the Ralph Williams car commercial goes ballistic on Ralph Williams so sure sounds like it
Notice the low rpm. And low hp? But you really shift it at 6500 and the hp goes up alot. They advertised muscle cars like that to keep insurance costs down.
Spinning one that high would be pointless the engine rolls over at 4800-5200 rpm and you would run into valve float around 5800. They didn't have the 427's solid lifters or tunnel port heads to make power up to 6500 from the factory.
@@GlassTopRX7 Thanks for your honest and clearly educated response.
In its "as installed" state (SAE Net), the 428 CJ was an honest 280 HP engine. That's with all engine accessories, full factory exhaust system and air cleaner assembly I place.
The old (pre 1972) Gross ratings allegedly represented peak theoretical power, with the engine devoid of all those things and (oftentimes) equipped with open long tube aftermarket headers. Alas, many of those engines couldn't achieved the advertised ratings in that state!
100% production line stock vs. same (but tire for tire), the 428 CJ Mustangs has nothing on a 2013 - 2017 Honda Accord V6 manual trans (which of course isn't even a fast car by today's standards).
🙄This Denny Downer guy needs to STFU
Probably a 12sec. car with modern tires and a modern trans.
Not even close.
Check out this fresh rebuild. 365 peak HP, but that's with open exhaust dumps, no air filter assembly or no power robbing engine accessories of any kind. And I suspect that modern low tension rings were employed as a minimum.
www.hotrod.com/articles/testing-4-2-8how-much-horsepower-ford-428-cobra-jet-really-make/
Figure 280 or so peak HP at the crank with the engine in its "as installed" (SAE Net) state (full factory exhaust system, air cleaner assembly and element and full factory exhaust system in place and running)...
One would need at least 360 "as installed" horsepower to get an otherwise 100% production line stock 428 CJ Mustang into the high twelves.
When new and 100% production line stock, these cars were at best 102 MPH cars (through the 1/4 mile). 100 MPH was more common, even on slicks, keeping in mind that trap speed is largely unaffected by even large variations in off the line traction.
Muscle car myth superseded reality from the moment the car's originally rolled off the showroom floor. That myth has spread ever since, and is still alive and well today.
@silverbird58 "Alloy heads" theoretically make LESS POWER than their cast iron counterparts when all other variables are identical. That's because the (aluminum) alloy is a better conductor of heat, which results in a loss of thermal energy in the chamber.
The primary advantage of "allow heads" is weight savings.
Of course, modern "alloy heads" nearly always have far more efficient chambers, valve angles, etc. But that's a different story.
Pete shea You notice how you’re only talking to yourself?🤔
Hp and tq rated at 3400rpms.
That's some sandbagging for sure !
Those 428 Cobra Jets were criminaly underrated at 335hp and 445ft/lbs of torque, they've been dyno'd on modern equipment and have been shown to make more like 410 peak horsepower and over 500 ft/lbs of torque.
I laugh out loud on every single brake test...on every single car... Jeezoo
HOMEMADE ICE CREAM!!!
Fast cars in the NHRA.
I was lucky to have one of these 69 428 cj
Let's be honest, though; this car was supplied by Ford--do you really think it was the same as production models? I'm not picking on Ford, all manufacturers did the same thing with press cars. But out on the streets, the 428 CJ was whipped by LS6 Chevelles, big block Mopars and Stage 1 Buicks.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think their high performance v8s were subject to the same reliability standards (starting-up, idling etc) as their normal engines .
@@joneswarrington7242 It's not a question of reliability here, it's performance. Car manufacturers back then would give the press specially modified cars that had more power than regular production models to make them appear quicker than they really were
@@justsumguy2u I was talking about how the Ford engines were less impressive on the street when compared to mopar or gm not about the modified cars.
@@joneswarrington7242 I agree, they were not as impressive. But my original post talked about how the press was given supposedly stock cars to test, when in fact they were not stock.
That’s incorrect. 428 CJ’s held their own with all those cars you mentioned…
Ford sandbagged the horsepower rating on the 428 Cobra Jet recent article had a Ford worker work the dino on 428 Cobra Jets stated that the 428 actually put out 428 horsepower not 335 hp. This was strictly done for insurance purposes.
This is pretty far from "428 HP:"
This freshly rebuilt 428 CJ made 365 peak HP - on open exhaust pipes (no restrictive mufflers, etc.) and with no air cleaner housing/element or engine accessories of any kind in place:
www.hotrod.com/articles/testing-4-2-8how-much-horsepower-ford-428-cobra-jet-really-make/
Even the water pump was a facility powered electric unit!
In its AS INSTALLED state (all factory engine accessories, air cleaner assembly/element and full factory exhaust system in place (including the restrictive OEM transverse muffler), were looking at maybe 280 SAE Net HP (at the crank), or something on the order of 240 HP at the rear wheels on a modern day inertia chassis dyno.
🙄Denny Downer, or Mr. Copy and Paste, is at it again😆
@@peteshea8010 Seen em myself on an engine dyno...not a chassis dyno...an engine dyno... make 410 gross horsepower at the crankshaft. Witnessed it myself. So no it's really not that far from 428 gross horsepower. Rebuilt a couple 428's in my lifetime
What an idiot. 🙄. Hot Rod dynoed the 428 and found it made 361HP. They claim with better plugs and headers, near 400 is possible.
If you calculate the 1/4 mile mph (106 .64) and weight for a factory car (3600 lbs inc driver) works out to 356 CRANK. HP.
The SS/E cars ran 120 mph….but that was under NHRA regs….ANY cam, Headers, Blueprinted motor, Cold air induction - hardly ‘factory’.
The only way these things could make 428 HP off the show room floor is on the juice!
Jeremy Thompson You were dreaming.
Has anybody noticed this car the mock one is a super cobra jet drag pack with air conditioning
I have this car's little brother.
What?....a Pinto?
@@matrox A Ford Falcon.
The Cobra Jet Mach 1 was the little brother to the 1969 CAMARO SS 375hp 396 not even mentioning the COPO 427 or the ZL-1 CAMAROS !
The 396 was about the equivalent. The COPO cars were rare and the equivalent of the BOSS 429 cars, and the ZL1 cars were ultra rare at 69 cars built. Mustangs could hold their own.
Ok bow tie boy....😂😂😂 I have owned a 396 and a 428 your talking shit.
I had a ‘69 Mach I with a 351w 4bbl with aluminum mid-rise intake. ‘69 was the only year Ford made a 351w 4bbl- the 351c was NO MATCH for it. The car weighed only 2950lbs and would run like a scolded dog. I miss that car.
69 was not the only years and the cleveland destroyed it with ease
Ragimund VonWallat Reading comprehension is fundamental. Only ONE year did Ford make the 351w with a 4bbl. ONE. It was a high-compression engine at 10:7/1. I destroyed 351c’s with ease at the drag strip on Ford Day. People I knew were driving the Mustangs with the Cleveland. But nice try.
I had a good friend with a 69 351w.
We would eat 396s and Mopars for breakfast, lunch and dinner!
all Ford had to do was put a higher gear ratio in the rear end and put a different cam in their motors to let it rev up to six grand and they would have whooped ass and all those Chevys & mopars.
Brand new car and it has the wrong horn pad on it. Matter of fact the whole plastic top piece is not even mounted to the pad.
Great car if y can take big time co2
I had one and it didn't handle worth a dime.ran decent .my 383 road runner would leave it guick.
Can you drop a couple of those at my house?
i know exactly where one is... its sitting in my back yard...LOL
He gushed over this one
Handling ❓😂 it did drift and spin nice . It spun perfectly around the motor . Best were the disc brakes 😜❗
335bhp doesn't seem very much for a big block V8.
These Cobra Jet motors put down 420hp or more to the ground in reality....junk-ass chevy hunks of shit were gettin their asses kicked by these rigs all the damn time...
was rubber not as sticky back then as it is today? I've watched several of these videos and all the cars seem to have terrible tires that make way to much squealing.
this is a performance car, it shouldn't be leaning and sliding like that.
Google Poly Class Bias Ply
My wife's 70 with a 351 and 2000$ worth of c-4 smokes the tires real good, probably, I don't know!!!
.now they cost 50 gs or more
428 is crap it's a tame 427 . same torque with 100 less hp
No, the 427 was basically a detuned race engine that barely got put under the hood of anything. The 428 was built as a big car engine with lots of a torque for spirited day to day driving, the 428 was a wonderful and reliable engine and far less finicky and problematic than those 427 side oilers.
Next time floor it.
Why not CADILLACS NOR LINCOLNS TESTED? ?????
Probably because this was more performance related.
Hahaha. O-60 in 5.9. Motor Trend’s 0-60 in an Accord 2.0 turbo 4 banger is 5.7. Amazing that some people pay 100k for a “classic” muscle car and loose to some millennial in an accord with a baby seat in the back. Of course I’m old enough to remember when you could pick up a muscle car like this used in the mid seventies for 500 to 1500 bucks. Yeh, I know: Ok boomer. Just sayin. Ummmm, but I’d still love to have one of these 😛
Late 80s and we all laughed at my buddy who got a (very fast) 67 goat for 3500.
Why'd we laugh ?
3500 and ya saw waves down the sides.
It was fast but definitely had something hiding under there.
Did ya hear what the HP and tq was rated at?
3400rpms.
They were sandbagging that for sure.
If you want to compare a Honda's 0-60 time to a 1969 Mustang then tell us the time for a 1969 Honda. 😊
TorQUE
At the dyno: th-cam.com/video/nVKAuhxntbI/w-d-xo.html
It shows how times have changed when a new Toyota Camry is faster 0 to 60 then this car.
true but it doesnt look faster .
My guess is if the American public demanded handling muscle cars times would have been much quicker based on wide wheels and tires. NASCAR and Trans Am racing featured wide wheels and tires, yet Americans were determined to drag race. Most every musclecar came with narrow wheels and tires, and if someone drag raced them, they threw on rear drag radials and skinny front tires. So, in drag trim, they could post great times, but that was not streetable, and wide wheels and tires which could have made musclecars 3 dimensional corner carving cars vs. 2 dimensional drag cars were non-existant.