The first generation Mustang debuted in 1964. It cost $2,368.

those cars were even more bare bones though

>>16499697
Everything is more expensive, even accounted for inflation. Anyways, none of those cars acutally made 240 or 330hp - that was gross horsepower. Performance has massively increase, not just in power. You try building a 707hp Hellcat in 1969, you'd need well over 100.000 dollars before inflation to pull that one off, nevermind actually running it on the street.

Performance isn't just horsepower, and has drastically improved. Ponycars like the Mustang and Camaro nowadays can keep up with sportscars like the M3, where old muscle cars couldn't. Also, compare the equipment of a 1964 Mustang to a modern one, and then claim it's barebones.

>>16499727
This

Also, the amount of safety standard equipment in modern cars that just did not exist back then. Nowaday Mucle cars can turn corners as well, and can also save your life if something goes wrong. And good luck having features like navigation and, basically a built-in PC in your car at that time

>>16499752
There's also one big savings point in modern cars: a modern FI V8 can actually make 400hp and still get 25MPG highway. A 400hp carburated big block will be lucky to get 10.

>>16499770
The biggest Chrysler engine made could get 17 mpg, 10 is a convenient meme

>>16499697

Why are you looking at sports cars and bitching about a $8k difference? A Civic with a decent amount of options is almost $25k if not more.

Live at home, save your money and go to trade school. That's how guys here afford their sports cars and brotrucks. My uncles had new Camaro's and Firebirds in high school.

>>16499779
Maybe during the smog era with tall rear gears. A properly equipped Hemi would never, ever get 17MPG.

>>16499797
Sorry friend, a 440 was bigger than a 426 obviously. Mpg was determined by the carb sitting on the engine.

>>16499697
You also can't ignore what's happened to wages for all but the wealthiest.

>>16499697
I'm 18 driving a 2017 Mustang GT Premium, shit's dope. Sports cars are for the young, the price tag isn't. Thanks grandma.

>>16499805
>A 440 was bigger
In terms of displacement, but a Hemi is literally the biggest. It's the same base block, but with way wider heads - way bigger than an RB 440. The displacement was so that new kids wouldn't order the Hemi as much, because that thing was supposed to be their best kept secret.Sucked fuel like a pig though.

I read last week that first generation mustangs dyno 135hp at the wheels. And let's not even start talking about cornering and braking performance. Old cars are shit, were shit, and can't be compared to today's vehicles.

those are bare bones shitboxes and thats gross hp

modern V6 pony cars stomp old V8s for the most part will being better in every objective way

>>16499847
Heads don't determine how much gas is going into the engine.
Additionally hemis only had a 90 day warranty, that's why nobody bought them.
>sucked fuel like a pig
Because dual quads and six packs

>>16499853
>modern V6 pony cars stomp old V8s for the most part will being better in every objective way

very true.

>>16499910
>>16496725

>>16499908
>Heads don't determine how much gas is going into the engine.
Heads determine air flow, which combined with the ideal AFR determines fuel flow.

Nobody bought Hemi's because they were expensive.

>Because dual quads and six packs
Which were the only carbs worth buying. Too bad they didn't offer quad Webers. Also, Hemi's never came with Six Packs.

>>16499919
modified cars dont mean anything

a stock 340 was a mid 14 to a high 15 depending on car trim gear and whatnot

>>16499927
>Italian carbs on an American engine
Wat, why would they offer that?
Regardless, the hemi wold like shit. Wedgeheads dominated sales.

>>16499931
>modified
You realize in 1970 you could order your car however you like it?

>>16499956
I don't think you could order a 12 second 340 Challenger.

>>16499956
what does that have to do with anything

oh wait it has 0 relevance to the topic

if that Challenger was stock it would have lost even with that awful driver in the SRT

>>16499960
or 17 inch chrome wheels

>>16499974
Your choice of carbs, rear-ends, transmissions, engines, etc

>>16499974
You are now aware the drivers traded cars between runs

>>16499981
yeah I already said that in the post you replied to

>a stock 340 was a mid 14 to a high 15 depending on car trim gear and whatnot

youre not running mid 13s on a factory stock 340

maaaybe scratch high 13s with one hell of a tune and 4.11s

>>16499991
doesnt matter neither know how to drive it

those run 13s stock

>>16499981
No factory carb, rear end gear or transmission would've gotten a 340 Challenger into the 12.0 range in 1969. Hell, it's hard to make a small block n/a B-body do 12's nowadays, with much better equipment.

>>16500001
You're right but this isn't about the times, a 440 thermoquad could achieve 17 mpg easily. Also, "economy" engines sometimes had worse mpg.

>>16500016
mostly because those economy engines were underpowered to high hell and they had to strain to haul itself around

>>16499697
>The first generation Mustang debuted in 1964. It cost $2,368. Adjusted for inflation, that's the equivalent of $18,105.
Depending on engine option, it made 240 HP, and could tune up much higher.

Now op you know how simple cars where back then? Back then radios, ac used to be options on cars. Hell 90% of the car was a option. Nowadays there is a 2000 dollar screen and infotainment system mandated by the ntsb. Hell look at the door cards on your car today compared to that cardboard thin vinyl wrapped shit they had back then. Spartan vehicles back then actually ment you wherent getting shit other than a steering wheel, garages and peddles in your car.

File: images.jpg (34KB, 457x322px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 457x322px

>>16499847
Im pretty sure nobody ordered the Hemi as it was an expensive option and almost undriveable on the street. 440 was a better street engine or better yet a 340/360 so you can actually turn corners

>>16499840
Because you're leasing it.

>>16499853
Also 50+ years difference, not exactly fair

>>16501364
old cars are shit its a known fact no need to get all "its not fair!"

File: 1963 Plymouth Super Stock 426 Engine BW.jpg (141KB, 1024x728px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1024x728px

>>16500883
never understood why people went apeshit over the 426 hemi
it was for one, overweight.

>>16501396
t.camry rider

File: uf427soh.jpg (83KB, 590x399px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 590x399px

>>16501427
this was the best big block of the period
not a mopar

>>16501396
No but when people compare an old cars speed or safety or fuel economy to a modern car it feels kind of retarded

>>16501436
Shame they're unobtainium.

>>16501436
>it's literally a 426 with OHC
prove me wrong.

>>16501450
not really
you can build one if you have deep enough pockets

http://www.robertpondmotorsports.com/SOHC-ford-block.htm

>>16501464
If it doesn't list a price then it's too expensive.
The only purpose that block has is to be top fuel.

>>16501440
it feels retarded when you compare price too
even more so

honestly theyre so shit they shouldnt be compared to anything made except in their own era if thats how you want it to be

>>16501472
figure $30,000 to build one.

>>16501472
price list for you
http://cushmancompetition.com/ford427.htm

>>16501485
Fuck that lmao, a 500 Caddy will do the same for less.

>>16501436
There's a reason Ford never homologated them for Nascar: they're too heavy. They could've undergone the exact same homologation process they did with the Boss 429, but they didn't, and it's because the engine is flawed. It might also have something to do with the ten foot timing chain not being that great for extended high-RPM use.

>>16501459
>It's literally a 427 with OHC
FTFY.

File: images (4).jpg (25KB, 470x313px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 470x313px

>>16501427
Never undestood yank obsession with big blocks the cars could barely turn a corner and they already had great small blocks like the Chrysler 340 and 351 Cleveland. In Australia straight sixes like the 265 Hemi gave the V8s a good run for their money as well

Aren't all three, Challenger, Mustang and Camaro, all putting out over 300HP in their V6 versions? The Challenger was rated at 305HP since like 2011 and I think the other two are also over 300HP.