Classic Mustangs List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Vengeance (email redacted)

What is the difference (both mechanically and cosmeitcally) between a
1972 Mustang and a 1972 Mustang Mach 1? People 'round about town are
trying to convince me I have a Mach 1 but I'm fairly certain the Mach 1
had a 4 brl carb standard.

-- Brad
--------------------------------
primenet.com/~vengenc

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Bill Silvershein (email redacted)

Well Brad,
You could have gotten the Mach I with every engine available back in 1972
except the 6cylinder. Just because your car has a 2V or a 4V is
irrelevant...Check the first several digits of your serial number. Then post
them here, and we will tell you whether your car is a Mach I or not. Make sure
that you use the tag on the dash, and the serial number punched into the inner
fender panel, as your drivers door could have been replaced in the past(I know,
I'm streching, but, you never know)..

Yours In Fords,

Bill

On Jul 25, 4:00pm, Vengeance wrote:
> Subject: [CM:4548] 1972 Mustang Vs. Mustang Mach 1
> What is the difference (both mechanically and cosmeitcally) between a
> 1972 Mustang and a 1972 Mustang Mach 1? People 'round about town are
> trying to convince me I have a Mach 1 but I'm fairly certain the Mach 1
> had a 4 brl carb standard.
>
> -- Brad
> --------------------------------
> primenet.com/~vengenc
>-- End of excerpt from Vengeance



--
William E. Silvershein Silicon Graphics
Phone:201-263-1661 300 Interpace Parkway
Fax:201-263-8460 Parsippany,N.J.07054
Alt Fax:201-263-8302
Voice Mail:201-299-5701 Mailbox 5735

E-Mail: (email redacted)



Cogito ergo zoom
I Drive Therefore I am

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: John Schwarberg (email redacted)

I'm an owner of both a 72 coupe and a 71 Mach I. I agree with Bill,
engine really has no bearing on whether your car is a Mach I.

The cosmetic difference (there are many) is essentially the addition of
a sportsroof (fastback) although it was possible to buy a 71-73 Mustang
with a Sportsroof that was not a Mach I.

A Mach I also had a deluxe interior package, usually indicated by the
door panels.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Anthony J. Pisarek (email redacted)

> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 16:00:04 -0300
> Reply-to: (email redacted)
> From: Vengeance <(email redacted)>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <(email redacted)>
> Subject: [CM:4548] 1972 Mustang Vs. Mustang Mach 1

> What is the difference (both mechanically and cosmeitcally) between a
> 1972 Mustang and a 1972 Mustang Mach 1? People 'round about town are
> trying to convince me I have a Mach 1 but I'm fairly certain the Mach 1
> had a 4 brl carb standard.
>

Can't speak for 1972 but in 1980 I owned a 1973 Mach I with a
351C-2v, C6 in it....



Anthony J. Pisarek CNE-3, CNE-4, (MCSE in Progress)
Director of Network Integration
Fraser Business Systems
320 Penn Avenue
West Reading, PA 19611

1970 Mustang Sportsroof
302-2v AC PS AT

E-Mail: (email redacted)

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Vengeance (email redacted)


--------------073E5C5F076720CF7403A8C1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bill Silvershein wrote:

> Well Brad,
> You could have gotten the Mach I with every engine available back
> in 1972
> except the 6cylinder. Just because your car has a 2V or a 4V is
> irrelevant...Check the first several digits of your serial number.
> Then post
> them here, and we will tell you whether your car is a Mach I or not.
> Make sure
> that you use the tag on the dash, and the serial number punched into
> the inner
> fender panel, as your drivers door could have been replaced in the
> past(I know,
> I'm streching, but, you never know)..
>
> Yours In Fords,
>
> Bill
>
> On Jul 25, 4:00pm, Vengeance wrote:
> > Subject: [CM:4548] 1972 Mustang Vs. Mustang Mach 1
> > What is the difference (both mechanically and cosmeitcally) between
> a
> > 1972 Mustang and a 1972 Mustang Mach 1? People 'round about town are
>
> > trying to convince me I have a Mach 1 but I'm fairly certain the
> Mach 1
> > had a 4 brl carb standard.
> >
> > -- Brad
> > --------------------------------
> > primenet.com/~vengenc
> >-- End of excerpt from Vengeance
>
> --
> William E. Silvershein Silicon Graphics
> Phone:201-263-1661 300 Interpace
> Parkway
> Fax:201-263-8460 Parsippany,N.J.07054
>
> Alt Fax:201-263-8302
> Voice Mail:201-299-5701 Mailbox 5735
>
> E-Mail: (email redacted)
>
> Cogito ergo zoom
> I Drive Therefore I am

I have the VIN number here, I hope it's what you're looking for:

2F01F118575

Thanks..

-- Brad
--------------------------------
primenet.com/~vengenc

--------------073E5C5F076720CF7403A8C1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>
Bill Silvershein wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>Well Brad,
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; You could have gotten the Mach I with every engine
available back
<BR>in 1972
<BR>except the 6cylinder. Just because your car has a 2V or a 4V is
<BR>irrelevant...Check the first several digits of your serial number.
<BR>Then post
<BR>them here, and we will tell you whether your car is a Mach I or not.
<BR>Make sure
<BR>that you use the tag on the dash, and the serial number punched into
<BR>the inner
<BR>fender panel, as your drivers door could have been replaced in the
<BR>past(I know,
<BR>I'm streching, but, you never know)..

<P>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Yours In Fords,

<P>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Bill

<P>On Jul 25,&nbsp; 4:00pm, Vengeance wrote:
<BR>> Subject: [CM:4548] 1972 Mustang Vs. Mustang Mach 1
<BR>> What is the difference (both mechanically and cosmeitcally) between
<BR>a
<BR>> 1972 Mustang and a 1972 Mustang Mach 1? People 'round about town
are
<BR>> trying to convince me I have a Mach 1 but I'm fairly certain the
<BR>Mach 1
<BR>> had a 4 brl carb standard.
<BR>>
<BR>> -- Brad
<BR>> --------------------------------
<BR>> <A HREF="primenet.com/~vengenc">primenet.com/~vengenc</A>
<BR>>-- End of excerpt from Vengeance

<P>--
<BR>William E. Silvershein&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Silicon Graphics
<BR>Phone:201-263-1661&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
300 Interpace
<BR>Parkway
<BR>Fax:201-263-8460&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Parsippany,N.J.07054
<BR>Alt Fax:201-263-8302
<BR>Voice Mail:201-299-5701 Mailbox 5735

<P>E-Mail: (email redacted)

<P>Cogito ergo zoom
<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; I Drive Therefore I am</BLOCKQUOTE>
&nbsp;I have the VIN number here, I hope it's what you're looking for:

<P>2F01F118575

<P>Thanks..

<P>-- Brad
<BR>--------------------------------
<BR><A HREF="primenet.com/~vengenc">primenet.com/~vengenc</A></HTML>

--------------073E5C5F076720CF7403A8C1--

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Anthony J. Pisarek (email redacted)

> Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 04:00:09 -0300
> Reply-to: (email redacted)
> From: Vengeance <(email redacted)>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <(email redacted)>
> Subject: [CM:4580] Re: 1972 Mustang Vs. Mustang Mach 1

> <P>Cogito ergo zoom
> <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; I Drive Therefore I am</BLOCKQUOTE>
> &nbsp;I have the VIN number here, I hope it's what you're looking for:
> <P>2F01F118575
> <P>Thanks..
>

2 - 1972 (obviously)
F - Dearborn
01 - 2dr Hardtop
F - 302-2v V-8 140Hp
118575 - Consecutive Unit Number ?


That VIN belongs to a 2dr Hardtop, Definitely NOT a Mach I Number.

That's what VIN decodes to...
Source: Mustang Red Book Peter Sessler
ISBN 0-7603-0081-x

Anthony J. Pisarek CNE-3, CNE-4, (MCSE in Progress)
Director of Network Integration
Fraser Business Systems
320 Penn Avenue
West Reading, PA 19611

1970 Mustang Sportsroof
302-2v AC PS AT

E-Mail: (email redacted)

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Vengeance (email redacted)

Anthony J. Pisarek wrote:

> > Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 04:00:09 -0300
> > Reply-to: (email redacted)
> > From: Vengeance <(email redacted)>
> > To: Multiple recipients of list
> <(email redacted)>
> > Subject: [CM:4580] Re: 1972 Mustang Vs. Mustang Mach 1
>
> > <P>Cogito ergo zoom
> > <BR>&nbsp;&nbsp; I Drive Therefore I am</BLOCKQUOTE>
> > &nbsp;I have the VIN number here, I hope it's what you're looking
> for:
> > <P>2F01F118575
> > <P>Thanks..
> >
>
> 2 - 1972 (obviously)
> F - Dearborn
> 01 - 2dr Hardtop
> F - 302-2v V-8 140Hp
> 118575 - Consecutive Unit Number ?
>
> That VIN belongs to a 2dr Hardtop, Definitely NOT a Mach I Number.
>
> That's what VIN decodes to...
> Source: Mustang Red Book Peter Sessler
> ISBN 0-7603-0081-x
>
> Anthony J. Pisarek CNE-3, CNE-4, (MCSE in Progress)
> Director of Network Integration
> Fraser Business Systems
> 320 Penn Avenue
> West Reading, PA 19611
>
> 1970 Mustang Sportsroof
> 302-2v AC PS AT
>
> E-Mail: (email redacted)


How is it possible that a 5 liter, 8 cylinder engine has less horsepower
than almost all the 6 cylinder cars made now?

-- Brad
--------------------------------
primenet.com/~vengenc

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Eugene Y C Chu (email redacted)

Vengeance wrote:

>Anthony J. Pisarek wrote:
>
>> 2 - 1972 (obviously)
>> F - Dearborn
>> 01 - 2dr Hardtop
>> F - 302-2v V-8 140Hp

>How is it possible that a 5 liter, 8 cylinder engine has less horsepower
>than almost all the 6 cylinder cars made now?

Well, you know, it's not the size that matters, but how you make use of
that size. Same goes for engines. I remember the excitement
surrounding the 1982 Mustang HO with something like 157 HP! They went
on and on about use of a marine cam, bigger carb, truck manifold...
And there's where it matters, how the engine is fed, everything from the
carburetor (or throttle body), the intake manifold, to the cam, the heads
(intake and exhaust ports, valves, combustion chamber, even the spark
plug location), exhaust manifold, to the rest of the exhaust system, has
an effect on the power that the engine can produce. I remember being
impressed by an engine Porsche used in the 944 a couple years back, I
think the specs were something like 2.5 liter 4 cylinder, naturally
aspirated producing 250 HP, in a normal production car. (That's half the
size of the 302 V8, producing more power!) How dodeydodat?

eyc

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: MrFomoco (email redacted)

On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 04:00:09 -0300, Vengeance <(email redacted)>,
wrote:

> How is it possible that a 5 liter, 8 cylinder engine has less horsepower
> than almost all the 6 cylinder cars made now?

While its likely newer engines are better, I think
there's a second explanation for the "improvement".

You'll probably find that there have been some big
improvements in the efficiency of belt drives and
the accessories, themselves. I think this, alone,
can account for the higher hp readings, because the
current "net" horsepower - its been used by Ford
since model-year 1972 - system is measured on a
"chassis" dynomometer.

This test, unlike the old "gross" measurement system,
adds several power-driven accessories and drivetrain
components. All this stuff robs a bit of the hp, thus
reducing the readout.
--
MrF
Allen Cross
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE online source for 1960-1973 Ford information.
voicenet.com/~fomoco
Original articles, NOS stuff, tech advice & more!

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: R. Hasson (email redacted)

On Sat, 26 Jul 1997, Vengeance wrote:

> How is it possible that a 5 liter, 8 cylinder engine has less horsepower
> than almost all the 6 cylinder cars made now?
> -- Brad
Hello,
The '70's in general were bad years for muscle cars. With emmisions
controls and rising fuel prices on the way, American car mfgs. were trying
to find ways to be more fuel efficient and clean. This was their
approach: Take the same engines but just tune them for clean running and
better milage. Low or no overlap cams, small carbs, smaller valves, etc,
etc. This is why HP number were going down while cu. in. numbers were
about the same.
Apart from the differences in how HP ratings and testing have changed,
newer engines have in general, better induction and exhaust systems. Look
at some of the more recent exhaust manifolds. They now look more and more
like shorty headers. Smart FI systems help out by atomizing fuel
better(injecting a fine spray of fuel right at the intake port instead of
of, in some cases, a foot away), and by keeping the intake charge at a
more consistent and optimal fuel/air ratio.
And now even "big" engines are being made to wind high. Witness the
new Cobra engines, or earlier on, the Lexus and Infinity V8's. HP being a
function of torque AND engine speed, this makes a difference too.
The fact that the beloved big cu.in. engines can be made to put out
much more HP that stock is evidence that an engine, no matter what size,
is only as good as the methods it uses to get air and fuel in and exhaust
out.

Hope this helps,
Randy

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (email redacted)

MrFomoco wrote:
>
> On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 04:00:09 -0300, Vengeance <(email redacted)>,
> wrote:
>
> > How is it possible that a 5 liter, 8 cylinder engine has less horsepower
> > than almost all the 6 cylinder cars made now?
>
> You'll probably find that there have been some big
> improvements in the efficiency of belt drives and
> the accessories, themselves. I think this, alone,
> can account for the higher hp readings, because the
> current "net" horsepower - its been used by Ford
> since model-year 1972 - system is measured on a
> "chassis" dynomometer.
>
> MrFomoco
> Allen Cross

Didn't Ford change its ratings system to comply with the rest of the
manufacturers somewhere in the early '90s? I remember the panic among the
late-model crowd when rated hp went from 225 to 215, even though it was
the same, just the rating system had changed...again!

-- John Myrick --- SOD '89 --- (email redacted) -- Fordaholic --
---- Dig on my Fordified web page: .ncsu.edu/~jdmyrick/ ----
-- 1965 Shelby Clone - 1968 Mercury Monterey 390 - 1963 Fairlane 500 --
--- The Amateurs '97 -- "There is no such thing as a true bolt-on." ---

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: MrFomoco (email redacted)

On Sun, 27 Jul 1997 11:31:14 -0400 (EDT), (email redacted), wrote:

> Didn't Ford change its ratings system to comply with the rest of the
> manufacturers somewhere in the early '90s? I remember the panic among the
> late-model crowd when rated hp went from 225 to 215, even though it was
> the same, just the rating system had changed...again!

I remember that, but I'm not sure as to the specific
change in factoring. Based partly on the small change,
I'd guess it was something simple - maybe SAE came up
with a new standard for the chassis dyno, or for the
associated math. Something to remember about the "net"
method is that the results will be chassis-specific,
so the numbers will vary from one platform to the next.
Perhaps they've standardized the choice of platform?

The point of my earlier post - the change from "gross"
to "net" measurement - was that the ratings took a HUGE
dive in one model-year. Contrary to what someone else
suggested, most Ford ratings went down at least 40%...
I'll bet the car buyers weren't thrilled then, either!
(To be fair, some of the drop was due to design changes.)

Since there's so much interest in this subject, I've put
some explanatory info in the "Basic Principles" section
of my new "Obsolete Engines Textbook". It includes some
important terminology and has been cross-indexed (through
hyperlinks) with each engine's "spec sheet". Here's the
URL:

voicenet.com/~fomoco/tech/engdex.htm
--
MrF
Allen Cross
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE online source for 1960-1973 Ford information.
voicenet.com/~fomoco
Original articles, NOS stuff, tech advice & more!

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Randy Siwik (email redacted)



>Subj: [CM:4548] 1972 Mustang Vs. Mustang Mach 1
>
>
>What is the difference (both mechanically and cosmeitcally) between a
>1972 Mustang and a 1972 Mustang Mach 1? People 'round about town are
>trying to convince me I have a Mach 1 but I'm fairly certain the Mach 1
>had a 4 brl carb standard.
>

Hey Folks, Sorry I'm late to the party. Boy, and Mach 1 stuff too!

from memory,,,,,,,,,,,,

69-70 Mach 1 base engine was H code 351 2V
Windsor in '69. Windsor or Cleveland in '70.
250 HP gross on each design.

71-73 The F code 302 2V was offered as the base engine
(I would guess the HP gross was close to 200 in 71
and down to mid 100's by '73)

74-7? Mach 1 (Naw, we won't go there ;-)

1969-70 tends to be the peak HP years using the scale of that time.

>
>-- Brad
>--------------------------------
>> > I have the VIN number here, I hope it's what you're looking
>> > <P>2F01F118575
>> > <P>Thanks..
>
>> 2 - 1972 (obviously)
>> F - Dearborn
>> 01 - 2dr Hardtop
>> F - 302-2v V-8 140Hp
>> 118575 - Consecutive Unit Number ?
>>
>> That VIN belongs to a 2dr Hardtop, Definitely NOT a Mach I Number.
>>

Are we still looking for a 63C body style for Mach 1's in 71-73?
This would not be part of the VIN but on the data plate no?
Or are you saying the '01' hardtop cancels this question out?


>
>How is it possible that a 5 liter, 8 cylinder engine has less horsepower
>than almost all the 6 cylinder cars made now?
>
>-- Brad

Well, I wouldn't say 'all' but, it's very possible.

Brad, nothing against your car or anything, but w/ 150ish HP
on tap, there are even some Honda's ya gotta watch out for.


Good Luck Brad, and enjoy your Stang, what-ever it is!


Randy Siwik 70 Mach 1 351W 4V 4-speed.
Central Ohio 70 Galaxie 500 Fastback.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Anthony J. Pisarek (email redacted)

> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:20:05 -0300
> Reply-to: (email redacted)
> From: Randy Siwik <(email redacted)>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <(email redacted)>
> Subject: [CM:4624] Re: 1972 Mustang Vs. Mustang Mach 1

>
>
> >Subj: [CM:4548] 1972 Mustang Vs. Mustang Mach 1
> >
> >
> >What is the difference (both mechanically and cosmeitcally) between a
> >1972 Mustang and a 1972 Mustang Mach 1? People 'round about town are
> >trying to convince me I have a Mach 1 but I'm fairly certain the Mach 1
> >had a 4 brl carb standard.
> >
>
> Hey Folks, Sorry I'm late to the party. Boy, and Mach 1 stuff too!
>
> from memory,,,,,,,,,,,,
>
> 69-70 Mach 1 base engine was H code 351 2V
> Windsor in '69. Windsor or Cleveland in '70.
> 250 HP gross on each design.
>
> 71-73 The F code 302 2V was offered as the base engine
> (I would guess the HP gross was close to 200 in 71
> and down to mid 100's by '73)
>
> 74-7? Mach 1 (Naw, we won't go there ;-)
>
> 1969-70 tends to be the peak HP years using the scale of that time.
>
> >
> >-- Brad
> >--------------------------------
> >> > I have the VIN number here, I hope it's what you're looking
> >> > <P>2F01F118575
> >> > <P>Thanks..
> >
> >> 2 - 1972 (obviously)
> >> F - Dearborn
> >> 01 - 2dr Hardtop
> >> F - 302-2v V-8 140Hp
> >> 118575 - Consecutive Unit Number ?
> >>
> >> That VIN belongs to a 2dr Hardtop, Definitely NOT a Mach I Number.
> >>
>
> Are we still looking for a 63C body style for Mach 1's in 71-73?
> This would not be part of the VIN but on the data plate no?
> Or are you saying the '01' hardtop cancels this question out?


In 1972 the body code is 63R for Mach I.

According to my information the body codes for 1972 were as follows:

65D 2dr Hardtop
63D 2dr SportsRoof
76C Convertible
65F 2dr HardTop Grande'
63R 2dr Sportsroof Mach I


In the VIN all Mach I's will have a 05 as the 3rd and 4th digit.

All Mach I's were of the Sportsroof variety. No Convertibles and no
2 dr Hard Tops.


That particular VIN belongs to a basic 2 dr hardtop (Not Sportsroof)
Mustang. I will venture further that you will find the body code to
be 65D. Unless of course somebody is pulling a fast one and
"Re-Vinned" the car.


>
>
> >
> >How is it possible that a 5 liter, 8 cylinder engine has less horsepower
> >than almost all the 6 cylinder cars made now?
> >
> >-- Brad
>
> Well, I wouldn't say 'all' but, it's very possible.
>
> Brad, nothing against your car or anything, but w/ 150ish HP
> on tap, there are even some Honda's ya gotta watch out for.
>
>
> Good Luck Brad, and enjoy your Stang, what-ever it is!
>
>
> Randy Siwik 70 Mach 1 351W 4V 4-speed.
> Central Ohio 70 Galaxie 500 Fastback.
>
>
>
>
Anthony J. Pisarek CNE-3, CNE-4, (MCSE in Progress)
Director of Network Integration
Fraser Business Systems
320 Penn Avenue
West Reading, PA 19611

1970 Mustang Sportsroof
302-2v AC PS AT

E-Mail: (email redacted)