# Are Classic Ford Mustangs Really Fast? **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Tags:** mustang, ford\ **Created:** [April 2, 2018, 2:49pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/are-classic-ford-mustangs-really-fast/114888 "2018-04-02T14:49:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Rod-Knox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a183cd/32.png) [@Rod-Knox](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Rod-Knox)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2018, 10:21pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/are-classic-ford-mustangs-really-fast/114888/21 "2018-04-02T22:21:40Z")
In 1965 a V-8 Mustang was one of the quicker cars from red light to red light and with a stick shift they could easily spin the wheels which gave the impression of being fast. But I had a 65 Valiant with a 1bbl slant six that could easily outrun all but a few V-8 Mustangs. The Valiant’s 0-60 time was measured on a calendar but eventually it would reach 100+ and only the rare Mustangs with the tall final drive could do that. And the OHC 6cylnder Firebird could embarrass Mustang owners in any heads up competition. And most of the early Falcons had 144 or 177 cu in engines that had weak valve springs that seemed to have been intentionally used as a governor. The valves would float about 4000 rpms @bing. Of course those engines used asthmatic carburetors also. The Mustange V-8 was a hot rod in comparison. ---
**Author:** ![Barkydog](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/barkydog/32/2470_2.png) [@Barkydog](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Barkydog)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2018, 11:26pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/are-classic-ford-mustangs-really-fast/114888/22 "2018-04-02T23:26:11Z")
I had a 68 cougar with the small v8, If I recall correctly the speedometer only went to 120, I don’t know how fast I ever went but recall 120 probably wishful thinking. ---
**Author:** ![B.L.E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/848f3c/32.png) [@B.L.E](https://community.cartalk.com/u/B.L.E)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2018, 1:16am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/are-classic-ford-mustangs-really-fast/114888/23 "2018-04-03T01:16:31Z")
> [@texases](#): > > A quick search leads me to think 50% or more hp is needed to go 150 mph over 120 mph. Lots of cars can do 120, not many 150. I think it’s more like needing to double the horsepower. My 300 cc Kawasaki Ninja motorcycle with it’s alleged 39 horsepower can hit the 100 mph mark if you really crawl under the paint. It takes the most outrageous motorcycles made, with 200+ horsepower engines to double that speed. On the other hand, a '60s era 125 cc tiddler could easily go half the speed of my 300. ---
**Author:** ![texases](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/texases/32/862_2.png) [@texases](https://community.cartalk.com/u/texases)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2018, 1:18am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/are-classic-ford-mustangs-really-fast/114888/24 "2018-04-03T01:18:42Z")
You’re probably right. I could easily find the 50% increase, one place had 100% increase needed to go from 120 to 150 mph. ---
**Author:** ![FoDaddy](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/fodaddy/32/717_2.png) [@FoDaddy](https://community.cartalk.com/u/FoDaddy)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2018, 1:56am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/are-classic-ford-mustangs-really-fast/114888/25 "2018-04-03T01:56:13Z")
Apparently it was governed to 155 MPH, a speed that it could achieve in 5th or 6th gear [https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2003-ford-svt-mustang-cobra-road-test-review](https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2003-ford-svt-mustang-cobra-road-test-review) Your car is governed to 147 MPH, but should be able to exceed it if the electronic limiter were to be disabled. > [@Mustangman](#): > > Naa, that wouldn’t happen would it? Ford had to make up for the horses they shorted 99/01 Cobra owners 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![charles1953\_146715](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f6c823/32.png) [@charles1953\_146715](https://community.cartalk.com/u/charles1953_146715)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2019, 7:25pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/are-classic-ford-mustangs-really-fast/114888/26 "2019-01-07T19:25:03Z")
I am pretty sure none of the 1960/70 era Mustangs could do 150 mph from the factory They were geared for 1/4 mile acceleration and with only a 4 speed transmission w/o overdrive and engines that developed maximum HP at relatively low RPMs they just were not geared for top speed. More recent 5.0 Mustangs can definitely do 150 mph (they are computer limited to 155). ---
**Author:** ![Mustangman](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/mustangman/32/44130_2.png) [@Mustangman](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Mustangman)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2019, 7:31pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/are-classic-ford-mustangs-really-fast/114888/27 "2019-01-07T19:31:00Z")
And modern Mustangs will beat the old ones in 0-60 and 1/4 miles contests, too. They also get better fuel economy and handle better. ---
**Author:** ![bscar2](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/bscar2/32/2468_2.png) [@bscar2](https://community.cartalk.com/u/bscar2)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2019, 4:56am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/are-classic-ford-mustangs-really-fast/114888/28 "2019-01-11T04:56:35Z")
Here’s an interesting site I found while looking up older cars 0-60 and 1/4 mile runs > **[Ford 0-60 Times & Ford Quarter Mile Times | Ford GT, Mustang, F-150, Focus,...](https://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/ford-0-60-mph-times/)** > > The #1 resource for Ford 0-60 & quarter mile times offering a comprehensive index of Ford specs including Ford GT, Mustang, F-150, Focus, Escape, Thunderbird & more! They only have the Mach 1 for the 1969 model year Mustang with an auto transmission listed and it sits at 5.6 seconds 0-60 and 14.1 seconds 1/4 mile. Compare that to my GT with auto transmission and I’m a couple seconds quicker on both. They even have a 1973 Civic listed on there. With a stick shift, that little 4cyl engine took 19.1 seconds to get to 60mph and 23.1 seconds to do the quarter mile ---
**Author:** ![Barkydog](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/barkydog/32/2470_2.png) [@Barkydog](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Barkydog)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2019, 6:41am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/are-classic-ford-mustangs-really-fast/114888/29 "2019-01-11T06:41:51Z")
Had a 68 cougar, 302 it was fast enough. Really fast is not what I would say, buds 360 chevelle or buds GTO was really fast, at least after they got done burning rubber! ---
**Author:** ![common-sense-answer](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/common-sense-answer/32/716_2.png) [@common-sense-answer](https://community.cartalk.com/u/common-sense-answer)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2019, 1:29pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/are-classic-ford-mustangs-really-fast/114888/30 "2019-01-11T13:29:30Z")
The Clipper Ships were fast! Steamships were fast! The Pony Express was fast! The Steam Locomotives were fast! The Spirit of St. Louis was fast! The Constellation air liner was fast! Classic Mustangs were fast! Classic fast. _ **CSA** _ 🌴🕶🌴 ---
**Author:** ![Purebred](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/purebred/32/46796_2.png) [@Purebred](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Purebred)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2019, 3:09pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/are-classic-ford-mustangs-really-fast/114888/31 "2019-01-11T15:09:20Z")
I am a Ford guy, but but Pony cars from any Mfd. would have similar performance depending on the boxes checked on the order. I don’t have any performance figures but my gut instinct says a Firebird OHC 6 would out perform their six cylinder rivals. ---
**Author:** ![shadowfax](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/shadowfax/32/13026_2.png) [@shadowfax](https://community.cartalk.com/u/shadowfax)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2019, 3:32pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/are-classic-ford-mustangs-really-fast/114888/32 "2019-01-11T15:32:30Z")
The bottom line is that anything that old is not going to be fast by today’s standards. My boring old-man daily driver 2007 Acura TL is considerably faster than a 1965 Porsche 911. It will even keep up with a 1965 425hp Stingray, which is one of the fastest, if not the fastest, stock 0-60 cars produced in that year. And the Acura is considered to be a slow car for its class. ---
**Author:** ![texases](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/texases/32/862_2.png) [@texases](https://community.cartalk.com/u/texases)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2019, 4:02pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/are-classic-ford-mustangs-really-fast/114888/33 "2019-01-11T16:02:18Z")
I think you’d be right about the OHC 6: > **[The Six-cylinder Firebird Sprint: Slouch or sleeper? - Old Cars Weekly](https://www.oldcarsweekly.com/features/bill-krause-1967-firebird-sprint)** > > 1967 Firebird Sprint pulled plenty of power from six cylinders ---
**Author:** ![Mustangman](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/mustangman/32/44130_2.png) [@Mustangman](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Mustangman)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2019, 4:10pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/are-classic-ford-mustangs-really-fast/114888/34 "2019-01-11T16:10:27Z")
You could also get the OHC engine in a LeMans. A friend owned a '67 4 door version (he had kids!) with the 4 barrel engine with a 4 speed manual. ---
**Author:** ![TwinTurbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8baadc/32.png) [@TwinTurbo](https://community.cartalk.com/u/TwinTurbo)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2019, 4:41pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/are-classic-ford-mustangs-really-fast/114888/35 "2019-01-11T16:41:54Z")
Fast is relative. The acceleration and top speed on those old cars was scary as heck given the level of technology. Steering precision, body roll, brakes… it’s an apples to oranges comparison IMO. ---
**Author:** ![texases](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/texases/32/862_2.png) [@texases](https://community.cartalk.com/u/texases)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2019, 4:46pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/are-classic-ford-mustangs-really-fast/114888/36 "2019-01-11T16:46:59Z")
Also known as ‘the thrill is gone’… A Tesla S is crazy fast, but not thrilling, I’d think. ---
**Author:** ![shadowfax](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/shadowfax/32/13026_2.png) [@shadowfax](https://community.cartalk.com/u/shadowfax)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2019, 5:01pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/are-classic-ford-mustangs-really-fast/114888/37 "2019-01-11T17:01:55Z")
> [@texases](#): > > A Tesla S is crazy fast, but not thrilling, I’d think. Oh… I’m not sure about that… [![](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/original/3X/7/3/73a8fc39808b0f624b4a0817a41a5035fdf37735.jpeg "Tesla P85D Insane Mode Launch Reactions Compilation - Clean Version - Ludicrous Mode Coming Soon") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qFV5i8tBhs&t=10) ---
**Author:** ![Dakotaboy](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/dakotaboy/32/21842_2.png) [@Dakotaboy](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Dakotaboy)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 1:46am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/are-classic-ford-mustangs-really-fast/114888/38 "2019-01-14T01:46:07Z")
Given that most speedometers have up to a 5% +/- accuracy, the following should be taken with a grain of salt. One of my neighbors and I took his car to watch the street racing at a rural street close to where we lived. He had a 1992 Mustang LX 5.0. At the time I think the only mod he had was an underdrive pulley for the A/C. When we got to the road the racing was going to be on he punched it, and from the passenger’s seat I saw 140mph on the speedo, in 4th gear. Don’t know how accurate his speedo was, and also remembered that given aerodynamics (or lack thereof) a lot of cars would actually have a higher top speed in 4th gear rather than in 5th gear due the engine falling below its peak horsepower rating. ---
**Author:** ![It\_s-Me](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/it_s-me/32/12660_2.png) [@It\_s-Me](https://community.cartalk.com/u/It_s-Me)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 12:47pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/are-classic-ford-mustangs-really-fast/114888/39 "2019-01-14T12:47:23Z")
> [@Dakotaboy](#): > > He had a 1992 Mustang LX 5.0. At the time I think the only mod he had was an underdrive pulley for the A/C. When we got to the road the racing was going to be on he punched it, and from the passenger’s seat I saw 140mph on the speedo Thanks, I needed a good laugh. 140 mph with 225 HP ain’t gonna happen. ---
**Author:** ![Mustangman](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/mustangman/32/44130_2.png) [@Mustangman](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Mustangman)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2019, 1:49pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/are-classic-ford-mustangs-really-fast/114888/40 "2019-01-14T13:49:58Z")
> [@It\_s\_Me](#): > > 140 mph with 225 HP ain’t gonna happen. I liked your comment but a little research shows top end for one of these 225 hp “beasts” as 145! 😲 > **[1992 Ford Mustang GT LX specifications](https://www.musclecardrive.com/ford/1992-ford-mustang-gt.php)** > > 1992 Ford Mustang GT and LX history, specifications, pictures, and more [Previous page](https://community.cartalk.com/t/are-classic-ford-mustangs-really-fast/114888.md?page=1) [Next page](https://community.cartalk.com/t/are-classic-ford-mustangs-really-fast/114888.md?page=3)