The dragstrip was also the place to find out whether the hood scoop had as much effect on acceleration as it did on appearance. Its operation is very simple. Whenever manifold vacuum drops below a predetermined value a trap door in the bottom of the scoop opens and lets cooler air into the air cleaner. By simply taping the scoop opening shut we were prepared to see how the Cobra Jet would run without its snorkle. Ford can be justifiably proud. It works. With the scoop closed off quarter mile times were nearly 0.2 seconds and 2 mph slower. In fact, you can even feel a little surge in the acceleration as the trap door opens—an eager lurch forward we had originally attributed to the opening of the secondaries in the carburetor.
While we’re talking about good parts, the C-6 automatic transmission that Ford couples up with the Cobra Jet deserves mention. The test car made its full-throttle automatic upshifts at 5600 rpm with enough vigor to break the tires loose for at least a car length. Although buzzing the tires in the nose-heavy Mustang really isn’t that difficult, the positive shifts are very much in keeping with the character of the car. Best of all, manual upshifts weren’t complicated by an annoying lag in shift time frequently found on automatics.
|
Still, no matter how well the transmission performs, it can do nothing to help the Mustang’s biggest shortcoming—handling. The beak-heavy machine just won’t corner with any dignity at all. Does it understeer? Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full. It’s just not possible to pick a fine line through a corner at high lateral acceleration rates. The front tires howl and smoke and absolutely refuse to go in the direction they’re pointed. In really hard cornering situations, steering wheel corrections of a quarter turn have virtually no effect on the direction of travel. The Mustang wants to be thrown into a corner and helped through with lots of power and lots of steering wheel angle. Hardly a tidy way to go about things not to mention that in this already crowded world it takes up a lot of space.
A “competition handling” suspension, which is standard equipment with the Cobra Jet engine, includes higher rate front and rear springs, stiffer anti-sway bar, high control shock absorbers and bias/belted tires on 6.0-inch wide wheels. The ride is “competition” enough, but too much of the roll stiffness is supplied by the front suspension for what we think is reasonable handling. We also noticed that the rear suspension wasn’t too happy when subjected to sudden inputs—like a manual downshift that you might make to gain engine braking. The rear axle takes several awkward steps before it settles back down to earth to do its intended job. The manual transmission models have a unique shock absorber location which mounts the left rear shock absorber, behind the axle to minimize the hop tendency. If it works as well as Ford claims we don’t think the automatic transmission cars should be deprived of its benefit.
Since weight distribution seems to be the cause of our dissatisfaction in the Mustang’s performance, it’s only fair to admit that in addition to the huge Cobra Jet engine the test car was equipped with power steering and power disc brakes. Still, the disc brakes are available only with power assist and with an engine as heavy as the 428 we’re not prepared to sacrifice power steering so we think the equipment list is quite reasonable. Another weight-adding device that should be mentioned is the engine oil cooler mounted forward of the radiator, which is standard with axle ratios numerically higher than 3.50 to 1. We made no attempt to compensate for weight distribution by adjusting tire inflation—all testing was done with the factory recommended 28 psi all around. There is no doubt that an extra 5 psi in the front tires would do wonders—but for those really interested in handling we’d suggest the smaller 351 cubic inch V-8.
|
The Mach I uses the same single-piston caliper disc brakes as the last Mustang we tested (March, 1968) although the stopping distances were longer this time. The best maximum-effort stop from 80 mph required 256 feet (0.83G) compared to 230 feet for the 1968 model. The stops were made in a straight line, but, as before, fade was noticeable on the third stop. Also as before, the Mustang’s particularly good pedal feel is conducive to controlled stops.
Although many of the Mustang’s mechanical parts are carried over from past models, the body is all new and the 2+2 fastback has even more visual strength than ever. All of the Mustangs have been lowered 0.5 inches on the suspension but the roofline of the fastback has been dropped 0.9 inches below that of the hardtop. To add to the sporty lowness, the windshield has been raked back an additional 2.2°. As a special concession to the people who have to fit inside, the front seats and steering wheel have also been lowered.
Ford has always considered the fastback to be a 2+2 (as opposed to a 2-door hardtop) and rightly so. Even though thinning the doors has increased the front hip and shoulder room 1.6 and 2.6 inches respectively, the rear seat provides barely acceptable transportation for a full grown adult. A six-footer can fit in back there but he must slouch to keep the top of his head from rubbing the back window and claustrophobia sets in rapidly because the tops of the high-backed front seats and the broad C-pillars completely block his view.
View Photos
View Photos
Leave a Reply