With the new 5.0's putting down 400wheel,

[Baron Von Crowder]

I guess we are spoiled.

'70 Mustang Convertible:
302-2V HP to the rear wheels, dynojet 112 hp

1965 289 High-Performance Automatic
Actual Rear Wheel: 141 hp/254 lb-ft

1965 Shelby GT350 Four-Speed
Actual Rear Wheel: 202 hp/237 lb-ft

1966 289 High-Performance Four-Speed
Actual Rear Wheel: 144 hp/238 lb-ft

1967 Shelby GT500 Four-Speed
Actual Rear Wheel:
240 hp/354 lb-ft

1968 GT500KR Automatic
Actual Rear Wheel: 275 hp/336 lb-ft

1969 Boss 429 Four-Speed
Actual Rear Wheel: 214 hp/324 lb-ft (bad fuel pump during dyno run)

1969 Mach 1 428 CJ Automatic
Actual Rear Wheel: 213 hp/266 lb-ft

1970 Boss 302 Four-Speed
Actual Rear Wheel: 179 hp/209 lb-ft

I guess the "Good ole days" weren't so great after all. And now I know why my 69 feels so slow...

[Pro88LX]

that is fucking horrible LOL. Makes me feel good about my stock 300rw T/A lol

[Mysticcobrakilla]

Technology...it's a wonderful thing.

[yellowstang]

No shit. My 01 with a blower put down the same as my 13 would if I dyno'd it.

[talisman]

My big block 67 Fastback would have gotten its ass handed to it by my 2013 GT. It sure was fun to drive with 411s and a .572 lift cam though!

[Rick Modena]

No shit. My 01 with a blower put down the same as my 13 would if I dyno'd it.

That aint no shit. My Cobra with a KB on my stock motor put out right at 400 to the wheels and my '12 5.0 is just a little below that N/A.

I also raced a CL63 AMG 6.3 a couple of weeks ago and I got out in front and he had to reel me in. And by reeling me in he was slowly getting me and passed me at about 100mph. I'm sure he was like, WTF?

[white trash wagon]

My stock 3.7 Mustang laid down 269 at the rear wheels. That explains why I walked away from a stock '67 with a 390.

[FATHERFORD]

boss 429 is the big surprise to me. I know it says dieing fuel pump, but that makes no sense.

[Baron Von Crowder]

The '66 289 2v's peak (113 rwhp) was at 3200 RPM.

[Vertnut]

I lived it and owned many "muscle cars" from the '60's/'70's, and I've always said this new stuff (beginning in the late '80's) would kill any of those in every form or fashion. Ever see how many G's a '67/'68 GT500 will pull on a skid-pad? How about braking? Trust me...they were/are horrendous. Many of those SS396's and 454's couldn't break into the 14's.

[Vertnut]

My stock 3.7 Mustang laid down 269 at the rear wheels. That explains why I walked away from a stock '67 with a 390.

Nice kill, but most 390's were boat anchors.

[Vertnut]

My big block 67 Fastback would have gotten its ass handed to it by my 2013 GT. It sure was fun to drive with 411s and a .572 lift cam though!

And the "cool factor" made up a lot, too! Those old cars can still draw big crowds.

[Crownline79]

Didn't the leaded fuel back then allow for more HP? Or maybe it was just they had higher octane?

[yellowstang]

My big block 67 Fastback would have gotten its ass handed to it by my 2013 GT. It sure was fun to drive with 411s and a 1/2 race cam though!

Fixed that for ya man.

[stang2be]

Agreed. I just sold my 95 Silverado that had the 210hp 5.7 TBI. New rig in sig. The 5.0 is tuned down a bit in the F150 but it still has plenty of power to get it moving.