Yeah, I've got a Mustang spec and serial number book somewhere in my old hot rodding books (which I think my brother has now) that lists the stock engines and horsepower/torque ratings for them by year...

The Mustangs didn't really go to sh!t until 72 or 73... the 70 and 71's were still "muscle cars" with high-performance engines. By 72, though, with the effects of the oil crisis, the embargo's, and the friggin' rag-heads and COMMIE-FORNIA screwing EVERYBODY over via the EPA, the engines had been "de-tuned" and choked down with emissions crap that they were a joke... that's why the 72 and 73's were "turds" performance-wise... I'm going by memory, but basically the horsepower was cut in half (at LEAST, in some cases MORE than cut in half) with all the pollution crap and detuning they did on those engines trying to reduce emissions... and things like dropping the compression ratios from 10.5-11:1 down to about 7.5:1 really sapped the power too, and of course the gas mileage as well...

Dad told me about his friend's 66 Galaxy 500 with a 289 Four barrel in it... thing was just awesome stock, FAST, and STILL got about 24-25 mpg... STOCK... Course that engine had 11.5:1 heads on it STOCK IIRC from the books... BUT, the higher the compression ratio, the higher the combustion temps, which equals more NOX, so they cut the compression ratios to reduce NOX emissions... it was only after they started putting EGR's on it and bleeding burned exhaust gases back into the intake that they started ramping up the compression ratios (and thus the performance and economy) again... Why diesels WERE so much more efficient than gassers-- higher compression ratios for compression ignition of injected diesel fuel... that is, until they started putting all that pollution crap on the new diesels and have now ruined them too...

Later! OL J R

__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!