'65 Mustang vs. 2003 Mustang

Mustang Forums Mustang Classifieds Photo Gallery Calendars Search Live Chat Contact MF Sponsors
Mustang Recalls Mustang TSB's News Timeslips Timeline Wallpaper Member List Register Login

'65 Mustang vs. 2003 Mustang

Printable Version

Mustang >> Speed Zone >> Street/Strip >> '65 Mustang vs. 2003 Mustang

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

'65 Mustang vs. 2003 Mustang - 4/23/2007 8:12:15 PM

connor90

Posts: 1141
Joined: 11/7/2006
Status: offline

ok i got my mustang a little while ago (in january). it is a 1965 coupe with a lightly modded 302. im talkin stuff like exhaust, suspension, ignition, and a bigger carb (pretty much whats listed in my sig)...thats all it has done to it i think. my friend just got a stock v6 2003 Mustang convertable. we were thinking about racing just for fun and i wanted to see who you think would win. they're both auto's btw.

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: '65 Mustang vs. 2003 Mustang - 4/23/2007 8:19:06 PM

GFenza

Posts: 42
Joined: 3/16/2007
Status: offline

um, im pretty damn sure you will win, but im not 100% sure, cause i dont own a mustang,

(in reply to connor90)

Post #: 2

RE: '65 Mustang vs. 2003 Mustang - 4/23/2007 9:13:22 PM

EmperorOfChicken

Posts: 2091
Joined: 5/16/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline

yeah youve got him, i can take most v6 stangs and ive got a 289 so those 13 extra cubes should help u

_____________________________

(in reply to GFenza)

Post #: 3

RE: '65 Mustang vs. 2003 Mustang - 4/23/2007 9:34:46 PM

connor90

Posts: 1141
Joined: 11/7/2006
Status: offline

ok sweet...thats what i was thinking. i think he might get me off the line though because i have pretty tall gears. it will be a while until i actually race him though. my car isnt registered yet and i still need to fix some stuff for it to pass inspection...mostly electrical. i swear im probably one of the worst when it comes to doing electrical lol

_____________________________

(in reply to EmperorOfChicken)

Post #: 4

RE: '65 Mustang vs. 2003 Mustang - 4/24/2007 9:59:21 AM

Quick Shot xMLx

Team MF Member #016
Posts: 3095
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Charlotte, NC
Status: offline

Don't know too much here since older cars are often slow as balls even with mods. If he D-2-Ds it's over though

_____________________________

quote:

Lame Mods:
275/60/15 BFG DRs, Mac O/R H Pipe, NX 125 wet shot, 4.10 gears, SLP LM1
7.997 @ 87.17 MPH 1.708 60' First Day On The Nitrous(100 shot)

(in reply to connor90)

Post #: 5

RE: '65 Mustang vs. 2003 Mustang - 4/24/2007 10:15:46 AM

fallfast90

Posts: 1408
Joined: 5/23/2006
Status: offline

Him being a vert auto, his times are probably in the mid 16's. Probably closer to high 16's since he just got the car and isn't used to driving it. You should have him. Now if he was a 5spd coupe, then i think the advantage may swing towards the v6. In any case, keep us informed!!

_____________________________

2000 Mustang 3.8L 5 spd
M112 Project Status: Acquiring parts

(in reply to Quick Shot xMLx)

Post #: 6

RE: '65 Mustang vs. 2003 Mustang - 4/24/2007 10:17:36 AM

drhoward

Posts: 2500
Joined: 2/4/2006
From: Calgary Alberta Canada
Status: offline

D2D will even the playing field

You should take him, the old mustangs aren't that heavy are they?

_____________________________

1994 Mustang GT
www.cardomain.com/id/bigshirtlesspete

quote:

ORIGINAL: redass02gt
the 2 guys would have to be related or I wouldn''t swallow their semen.

(in reply to fallfast90)

Post #: 7

RE: '65 Mustang vs. 2003 Mustang - 4/24/2007 10:27:55 AM

fast65

Posts: 1484
Joined: 1/15/2007
From: Oregon
Status: offline

You'll smoke him for sure if you can get traction off the line

. Good luck.

_____________________________

My car is a hybrid...it burns gas and rubber

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2992710

(in reply to drhoward)

Post #: 8

RE: '65 Mustang vs. 2003 Mustang - 4/24/2007 12:32:11 PM

92hatchLX

Posts: 8062
Joined: 2/10/2005
Status: offline

I'm putting my money on the classic

_____________________________

I'm looking to purchase a MAF calibrated for 36lb injectors, Wideband AFR kit, and a Tweecer R/T!!! PM me if you have anything!!!

(in reply to fast65)

Post #: 9

RE: '65 Mustang vs. 2003 Mustang - 4/24/2007 4:38:35 PM

chrispy98cobra

Posts: 123
Joined: 4/11/2007
Status: offline

quote:

Don't know too much here since older cars are often slow as balls even with mods

I had a '65 with almost his exact same set up but it had a fairly agressive cam, trick flow heads, and 4.10's...was in the low 12's all day

(in reply to 92hatchLX)

Post #: 10

RE: '65 Mustang vs. 2003 Mustang - 4/24/2007 5:54:26 PM

connor90

Posts: 1141
Joined: 11/7/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: drhoward

D2D will even the playing field

You should take him, the old mustangs aren't that heavy are they?

i believe they are around 2500 lbs...ill keep you guys informed and let you know how things turn out. i dont think it will happen for a couple of weeks. thanks for your input

_____________________________

(in reply to drhoward)

Post #: 11

RE: '65 Mustang vs. 2003 Mustang - 4/24/2007 7:38:41 PM

EmperorOfChicken

Posts: 2091
Joined: 5/16/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline

nah, 2900 lbs. my car is just at 2900 with me in it (1965 coupe) so we do have a weight advantange on most cars, and manually shift ur auto, thats where the actions at

_____________________________

(in reply to connor90)

Post #: 12

RE: '65 Mustang vs. 2003 Mustang - 4/24/2007 8:27:23 PM

connor90

Posts: 1141
Joined: 11/7/2006
Status: offline

oh oops well i was pretty close. haha thats the only way i drive my auto. im kind of saving for a 5-speed right now so until then

_____________________________

(in reply to EmperorOfChicken)

Post #: 13

RE: '65 Mustang vs. 2003 Mustang - 4/25/2007 12:34:03 AM

Quick Shot xMLx

Team MF Member #016
Posts: 3095
Joined: 7/27/2006
From: Charlotte, NC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: chrispy98cobra

quote:

Don't know too much here since older cars are often slow as balls even with mods

I had a '65 with almost his exact same set up but it had a fairly agressive cam, trick flow heads, and 4.10's...was in the low 12's all day

Well that's with some more mods. I often hear about stock/semi-stock 289s/302s running like 16s and ****.

_____________________________

quote:

Lame Mods:
275/60/15 BFG DRs, Mac O/R H Pipe, NX 125 wet shot, 4.10 gears, SLP LM1
7.997 @ 87.17 MPH 1.708 60' First Day On The Nitrous(100 shot)

(in reply to chrispy98cobra)

Post #: 14

RE: '65 Mustang vs. 2003 Mustang - 4/25/2007 10:21:30 AM

fast65

Posts: 1484
Joined: 1/15/2007
From: Oregon
Status: offline

The old 289's and 302's are actually pretty snappy, with the right drivers. Besides the old mustangs are so light that with a slighty modded engine, they can run pretty well, but I don't pay much attention to track times so I wouldn't really know much about that.

_____________________________

My car is a hybrid...it burns gas and rubber

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2992710

(in reply to Quick Shot xMLx)

Post #: 15