1967 Mustang GT With 428 Cobra Jet Hits The Dyno!
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 09. 2024
- 1967 Mustang GT Fastback with 428 Cobra Jet & T45 5 Speed Transmission Hits The Dyno!
Scott Hubbard bought this 1967 Mustang GT Fastback when he was 15 years old in April 1979 and finished the restoration at age 21 in 1985. The car had 100,000 miles when restored and driven 38,000 miles since then.
The car is an original S-Code 390 with the 4-speed transmission, but now it has a 428 Cobra Jet engine bored .030-over with Edelbrock aluminum heads, stock 428 CJ Ford camshaft, roller rockers, Pertronix pointless ignition, Ford medium riser "PI" Aluminum Intake, 428 CJ exhaust manifolds, Holley 4 barrel 750 double pumper fitted with a 1969 Shaker hood scoop and T45 5 Speed transmission adapted to the original bell housing. With original 3.00-1 positraction 9-inch rear end.
________________________________________
Watch More
Scott Hubbard's 1967 Shelby GT350 dyno:
• 1967 Shelby GT350 Hits...
Coyote Swap Fox Body Build - Project Mercury Rising - ASC McLaren:
• Coyote Swap Fox Body B...
________________________________________
CZcams: latemodelres.t...
Facebook: / latemodelresto
Instagram: / latemodelresto
TikTok: / latemodelresto
#LMR #MustangFastback #428CobraJet
________________________________________
Use of this video is subject to the terms as set forth in our LMR Install Video Disclaimer | lmr.com/page/l...
I always loved the tall tales my dad told of drag racing in highschool on a country road.. hearing about his 70' Mach 1 whooping up on big block Chevelles and Camaros.. he swore those cars made 500hp to the tire but in reality this is what they made.. it's okay I still love these old cars and the stories 😁
I had a buddy's dad throw his pristine and bone stock 70 Chevelle LS6 on the Dyno once back in the early 90's. Car put up similar numbers although I can't recall what they were exactly.
But here is the thing... I didn't care then, and I don't care now. Cars are more than numbers and I would take that Chevelle over nearly ANY car available today.
I too have heard that side oilers were factory freaks churning 400-600hp... 🤔. I'd say don't sleep on em.
He wasn’t lying a well restored 428/429 cj can easily make close to 500trq and high 400’s horsepower
Then they say, just throw a (fill in the blank) on it and a set of headers and 16 other things to get it in the low 12's. A car that awesome looking is cool on it's own.
I have a 428 cobra jet that’s built more than this motor in this video that motor didn’t sound like it wrapps up like mine at all I’d believe my motors easily putting down 400 to 475 hp it’s in a 74 f250 highboy tho truck still rips i havent pushed it to hard but ive gone 115 in the old girl
Dyno may not be amazing but the story and the car's looks are. Thanks for testing it.
It's more torque than stock but less hp
Since it falls off at 4800 RPM the engine isn't setup for anything on the top end where you would make more hp
They just say "Holley 4 barrel" so who knows what carb is on it also.
I wish they would have advanced the timing, it's easy to do, and made another pull
There is something wrong because the engine topped out at 4600rpm, when a stock CJ tops out at 5600rpm. His torque maxed out at 2900rpm instead of 3400rpm like a stock CJ. The problem is the cam is not a CJ and it is most likely a 390 cam. Here is the specs for a 1968 390ci: 265 hp @ 4,400 RPM and 390 lb/ft @ 2,600 RPM......notice the rpms for his engine are closer to the 390 cam
My hat is off to this very nice restoration! It's a torque monster!!! 💯👊🏾
It sure is! Thanks for watching!
Brother you nailed it in the short Amount of time that the video is U got all the information in!! VERY informative you nailed it good job
Thanks for watching!
That’s awesome 😎, we need more of those videos with the 60s/70s muscle cars on the dyno
Thanks for watching! We appreciate the feedback!
I’ll be the one to say it… what in the world is wrong with it?? A stock 428CJ lays down a lot more than that
I don’t think it’s a true 428 CJ, just manifolds and cam
@@baileykelso7771 not even a cam, guy said stock Ford cam, tells you everything.. It was probably bored to make it a 428ci V8.. Probly has super low compression too, in the 8s..
Guys, we're talking rear wheel horsepower here! None of the old engines is going anywhere near 400 at the wheels
@@goldenltd1970exactly
Holy shit that's weak. Should be making at least 450 hp with aluminum heads & all.
Wow I really thought the 428 put out more than this. Still beautiful.💯🙌
Very beautiful car 60s mustangs are hands down the best looking mustangs imo a lot of people are complaining that it only makes 265 hp but fail to mention it makes 375tq thats good tq for a car thats fairly lightweight
Well said!! Many BB show low hp but its the brute low end tq like you said that made these smoke tire
Laugh at the "somethings wrong cause" comments. Dyno sheets are just numbers
@@gordocarbo exactly I would love for my foxbody to make that much torque but you know nowadays if your not making 6000 horsepower your considered slow smh
It looks amazing and sounds solid. I got a 68 coupe years ago and just enjoyed going to parks and looking at it.
It just goes to show how far a story can go. I have a hellcat that has put down over 800 hp with a mild tune. A Callaway Corvette ZO6 with almost 700 rwhp and 725 torque. And I’ve always wanted the fastest car around with a warranty and the dreaded Tesla plaid is simply amazing. Don’t get me wrong. I still love the old cars, but every time I talk to some guy with it a fill in the blank muscle car from the 60s or 70s I just kind a smile.The reality is we are living in the real musclecar era right now. Almost everyone I take for a ride is amazed. Then I put them in the Tesla and the normal response is OK OK that’s enough. I always tell them to make sure their head is against the head rest and some just laugh. They’re not laughing after their neck snaps when I launch that monster…
Great to see an older stang !!!
That HP number was at the wheels. Calculate at least 15% parasitic drivetrain loss and that is more like 315 HP at the flywheel. That is pretty close to the original 428 power rating of 325HP… I agree that there is still something wrong here though because of two things: 1) HP peaked at a very low RPM and 2) with aluminum heads and a PI intake this thing should make a little more than factory power. If he is running the stock cam and stock exhaust manifolds then that is probably why the heads and intake didn’t really increase power or raise peak power RPM level. Heads, cam, intake, and exhaust all have to flow as a package. One bottle neck in the package undermines all the rest of the upgrades.
Awesome! Nice Mustang!
Thanks! 👍
Nice I do like the fe blocks
Not in bad shape for a build that's a few decades out.
Nice Ole stang Scott
It didn't sound like the secondaries opened. It should have done better than it did. Beautiful car!
Beautifull car , way more personality than my 500+ rwhp fox mustang !
"Posi-traction" is GM nomenclature for their performance rear differential. Ford's 9" 3rd member with comparable performance is "Traction-lok".
265 hp? That’s grocery cart horsepower what the hell?
I don’t believe I would’ve told that
My dream car ❤
Love the real numbers. That's pretty decent power.
There's something going on with that 428. It's way down on power in my experience considering the heads used . The P.I. intake and stock cam along with the factory CJ exhaust manifolds are choking it to death.
That engine might have came out of a Thunderbird. Not every 428 was a cobra jet. Also figure that engine is most likely really worn out with alot of compression ring blow by and probably didnt have alot of compression to begin with. Along wtith a stock cam that may or may not be equal to the stock specs makes for really low performance numbers.
May also be that this is what these engines actually make. A lot of people get caught up in the nostalgic hype of the muscle car era and lose sight of gross vs net. Everybody knows at least one guy who had a 65-75 era muscle car that swears it made 500 hp and ran 10's stock. The harsh reality, in most cases, looks like this video. I've seen 460's that Ford listed in the owners manual made 365hp make a whopping 215 rwhp in good running conditions. I have one buddy with a fully restored 69 GTO, 400 4SP. He swears it's good for at least 400 rwhp. We had this very discussion and later that day, he saw the tailights of my (then) daily driver. An 07 F150 XLT 4x4 with a 5.4 3v. More often then not, dyno's are heartbreakers for these guys.
@@joer5057 it is exactly like you say!
This car was very mild and clearly had a lot of original, probably worn out hardware still under. Also the 3.00 gears do not help. Edelbrock heads aren’t ideal and the biggest thing people forget is modern fuel in this old engines kills power. Unless the engine was modernized internal for todays pump fuel it’s going to be drastically down on power. I’m surprised they got the timing out of it they did with pump 93. My grandfather owned a fuel station from the 1960s-1980s and he often told me the leaded fuel tested at the pump in the old days was as high as 117 octane on some deliveries.
You hit it dead on i just picked up a 428 fe out of i believe a T bird but it does have a legit cobra jet top end and its bored 30 over but the stock cam was to small for these motors and you're right its probably worn out I'd say it needs another rebuild because it should be making more than that
335 hp crank. About 70 hp loss drive train . Normale drivetrain loss would be about 40 hp. Engine is not in optimal condition anymore hence the loss.
So basically, the only speed part is the Edelbrock heads. 310hp at the flywheel minus 14% drivetrain loss equals 265hp at the wheels.
Something isn't right, a stock 428 cj was rated at 335 hp... There's others on CZcams that dyno testing stock 428 cj and there over 400hp😮
Numbers are about right. Drivetrain loss esp a 9". Tq shows the true nature of this
Its not a brand new engine and completely stock
How can a stock engine rated at 335 dyno 400 and be all stock its just not realistic
@@gordocarbo..... The 335 HP was under rated do to insurance reason and was well noted. They are numerous people on CZcams that have Dyno these engines and they were all over the 400hp mark.....
@@gordocarbo....... The fact's czcams.com/video/g75YwO_Wdzo/video.htmlsi=xWRbc_F2qf4Q3nct
I thought stock 68-70 428 Cobra Jets made around 400 hp.
wow those numbers are a let down but still a gorgeous car!
That's weak af for such a big motor.
Wow, surprisingly low hp
Anyone else noticed he was dead wrong with the HP rating?
. It actually made 365 HP, not 265.
seeing a pattern here......
not getting my hopes up but, does your man have a Shelby GT350 Eleanor by chance?
would be sick to see one on a dyno.
Reality some people can't accept it.
Lmaooo 265 at the tires. No wonder why old guys can't explain the 16 second 1/4 mile times yet swear they old mustang makes a million horsepower stock.
WOW, that was disappointing. What a 70’s time capsule.
Why is the hp so low ?
We really didn't rabbit hole it when we dyno'd the car. -Landan
Woah woah woah man. That thing is a turd !!! Gotta be the cam and carb killing it. Why use those heads with the stock cam ? I'm betting it has less power than. It came with.
110% the cam it was to small for the 428 CJ I believe it was also the same cam as the 390 GT motor but I've seen people get a 50-60 horsepower increase just with a bigger cam
That's pathetic. My stroker 427 FE (452 cu. in.) in my 1968 fastback made 550 hp and 600 lb. ft. of torque. Your engine can't breath. You need more cam, more compression, more intake flow and a better exhaust system. The Ford stock 428 CJ was rated at 335 flywheel hp. With a 18% driveline loss that would be 282 hp at the wheels. The Edelbrock heads are of an old design. My engine makes maximum hp at 40* timing advance. Also, you are probably losing lift from lifter collapse. The Edelbrock valves are very heavy and can cause early valve float. The correct cam is about 248/254 0.62/.062 on a 110* LCA or 240/246 @0.05 on a 114* LCA, if you want a smoother idle. If you advance the timing, you'll probably pick up 30 hp. My engine is 10.8:1 compression. I have no detonation on 93 octane pump gas.
That exhust looked 2 b tiny
You forget some people just enjoy the car as is, not everyone wants a 1000 horsepower fire breathing race car.
@@ClementeGalloJr yep, dude put a/the stock cam on the engine, says he doesn't care to make more hp, thing is a torque machine anyway, I love it..
@@turbojetpowered8299 You are correct about the SAE hp calculation changes. But look at the hp curve. This engine won't even pull to 5000 rpm. I previously owned and rebuilt a 428 CJ in a 1968 Shelby GT500KR. Shelby used a solid lifter cam and adjustable rockers to keep the valve train stable beyond 5800 rpm. Like I said: Lifter leakdown and valve float is killing this engine. The Ford FE valves are some of the heaviest ever made. That's why Ford made sodium filled exhaust valves for LeMans. Partly for heat rejection and partly for weight reduction. Ford derated the LeMans engine from 600 hp to about 450 hp to keep the valvetrain alive for the 24 hrs.
Just a set of "anit-pump up lifters and 6* more timing would wake this engine up.
@@turbojetpowered8299 I agree, I was gonna explain all that but got lazy in typing..lol Dyno numbers are consistent with a stock low compression rebuild..
Most engines are dynod at the flywheel. That's gross hp. What it puts to the ground at the rear wheels is net hp. Net hp is always way less.
my subaru has a lot more HP and TORQUE = your figures are weak and need a tune up !
THIS IS MISREPRESENTATION AND NEEDS ITS CAPTION CHANGED.
Not even 300hp😔
Stock cam, stock rebuild just bored a lil, low compression..