I love watching all these vintage car reviews, almost every car review of them I have seen of the era so far had there brakes fade within 4-5 hard stops, oh how technology has advanced
I had a 67 RS Camaro with 4 drums and put in a 396/325 with headers and holly spreadbore, i worked at a gas station then mid 70's and a drive in was right behind the gas station. I took it down the long drive in road which was a good 1/4 mile after a few 0-100+ mph runs i had NO brakes
Hey mom look, real bumpers LoL Nothing like old school Muscle. I just love driving my 1968 Mustang, the feel of the car and pure joy I get is amazing. I smile everytime I drive her.😀😀
I was watching this, and thinking to my self, if only they would show me something in slow motion . . . Nope, they went way beyond with, "Ultra slow motion" Mind blown!!
Reminiscent of the older John Vacenda NFL films slow motion, love it! All slow motion was back then was the producer literally slowing the projector down by hand. Whoever does the ultra slow motion must not have had any drinks the night before....
Considering there aren't any new Olds, Hurst is doing pretty good. They made quite a mark for themselves that benefits them to this day, just as Shelby has. Though Shelby is mostly branding these days.
I went to high-school when all these muscle cars were just used cars. Chevys, Fords, NOTHING BEAT THE MOPARS. When you closed the doors on the Mopars, no thud, just the sound of the whole car rattling over and over, like a tin can. BUT, nothing could touch them. 340 Mopars would eat 396 Chevelles, Camaros, Mustangs for lunch. 383, 440 Mopars were just stupid crazy fast. That's the truth from a die-hard Chevy lover, from back in the day. I know. I was there.
I was there too and dont remember it being quite that way. I had and saw some fast Fords and GM as well. 428CJs Fords and LS6 Chevys would tear those 440's a new....well tear them up.
DYNO DON I'm a Chevy guy, my dad was a Chevy man, BUT the mopars were kings of the street as two or three year old used cars, back in the day. Mopar never made 'grocery getter" 340, all 340's were fire-breathing monster small blocks. Unless you ordered an LS6 or 428CJ's (very expensive, so most guys didn't), or spent gobs of money modifying your Chevy, all you would see is Mopar tail-lights.
+Teresa67 Factoid The 340's were hot as were other Mopars but they didnt dominate the streets of North Houston. In 71, a 351CJ romped many of Mopars, Chevys and some big block Fords
DYNO DON The mopars dominated the streets where I grew up. They were just poorly assembled pieces of tin though, with a motor. When you slammed the door, the car would rattle for a week. But fast? Oh yeah. Stupid fast, and affordable right out of the box, no tinkering or speed parts required, just mash the "go" pedal, and hang on. There were some quick Chevys and Fords, but the quick ones were rare, and the guys spent "cubic dollars" in order to keep up. Serious horsepower big block Chevys were expensive, and Chevy small blocks were "belly button motors". Everybody had one. That's how it was in my day.
+Teresa67 Factoid Interesting, thanks for sharing. I had a 68 Charger back in 1987. It was a one owner, black, just like the Bullet Charger but not a R/T, had a 383 just turned 100k miles. It was clean and needed very little work. I sold it in 1990 made some money but could kick myself for letting it go. It still had ice cold A/C...I love those old Mopars.
"Operating at an *advertised* 360 horsepower at 5,400 RPM". "Advertised" is code for, "Downgraded For Insurance Purposes"; meaning, *"475-hp"* in reality! My eldest brother had a Ford, XL convertible with the vicious Ford 429-ci which was tested and had exactly 475-hp. Remembering back to just 1963 alone when Ford sponsored the great Tiny Lund who won the biggest race of the entire year, 'The Daytona 500', with Ford's 427-ci finishing FIRST THROUGH FIFTH! Ford won 23 races to Plymouth's 18; Plymouth won all of their races on the short tracks while Ford completely dominated the Super Speedways. Chevrolet finished with just eight wins, Pontiac had only four. So... Anything with the Ford, "F.E." series engines, (F.E. 'Ford Edsel'), were truly *The Kings of The Road!*
I grew up in the 60's and there were lots of cars that were fast with big rubber added. At the end of the day the last man standing was almost always a Chevy. Small block Vettes on the road, big block Vettes at the track. I started with Mopar, ended up in Chevies. They were harder to break on top of it.
R B series mopiles were a really tough big block to beat,and really didn't have to prove a thing.The thing is Chevy is an easier language to learn,and are far more forgiving.
@FlintIronstag2008 You will love this story...My best friends father goes lookin for a car one saturday in Pomona, ca. where we lived. He promises his wife it will be a fuel efficent car. This was 1980. We are all sitting in the front yard waiting for the, "new" car to come down the street. Well he bought a car alright, but it was a 69 orange with black hood super bee!! 440 six pack-4 speed hurst-4/88 gears 3 miles to the gallon, and once owned by Dick Landy! The wife was pissed!!
Apples and oranges, the R model was a race car, the KR a powerful boulevard cruiser..and there was no R in 1966, they were 65's and only 34 of them were built. They are well over $1,000,000 in value today
I own a 68 GT 390 hi-po mustang, and they are great cars, but very little room inside, and the stock brakes and tires are pathetic. I guess in the day they just didnt know any better. Ford made alot of mistakes with the mustangs back in the day. My car was very undercarbed, heads were too small, brakes etc...But i paid 200 bucks for it in 1984 and it's now worth 50,000. But dodge and chevy were just head and shoulders above ford in the muscle car dept. Fords looked good however.
Lol to Think gas was only 25 cents a gallon in those days by the time the energy shortage to the states hit in late October of 1973 that Mustang was either sold sat in a garage or sold as someones 1st car in the 70s.
He says this car had bad rear visability, why not just order it with a rear backup camera, complete with a large 8" veiw panel complete with Pandora????
@harddrivin1le true, but... 1. all these old road tests were done on bias-ply tires. If you've ever driven anything with them, you know what a huge handicap that is. 2. very few old cars are stock nowadays. They have more aftermarket support than any other type of car and thus have the most tuning potential. p.s. would you rather have a new v6 one, though?
I know thats true, but people wanted them for their beefy prowess, which the Europeans could never match. Remember however, Europe has alot more winding roads than urban America does. That, like a racetrack, means the Europeans would win on the course in many ways, but not on the street in America in many ways.
I don't dispute that nearly every other product is branded in some form or fashion. But regardless of Shelby's consulting status, the GT500 has been primarily an SVT product for many years. And as you know, Shelby the man is no longer living. My original criticism was that comparing Hurst to Shelby as someone did is moot.
All SUVs and many city cars would have rolled over unless the anti roll system would be programmed to work in reverse- in this case it would prevent them from accomplishing such turn.
It might not compare to cars today but if they put the car in the video in storage and pulled it out now it would sell for several million. I know that some of them have sold for a million. Just remember guys up till 2006 there was not a lot of change in America muscle cars Viper, Mustang and Challenger were so popular things exploded
How's the gas mileage on this car?Even though I don't expect a good result,I just hope some experts who know more about this car than I do could tell me about the fuel economy.1968 Shelby Mustang GT500KR is my favorite Mustang of all time
They didn't make the R-Code 427 anymore in 68. But they definitely should've offered it as an option in 67 for serious drag racers. The 428 wasn't as fast as the 427 but it still had plenty of horsepower and way better street manners than the 427. The dual quad 427 was more of a race engine. It even said in Ford advertisements that the 427 wasn't intended for street use
The only car you could still get a 427 in for 1968 was a Mercury Cougar GT-E. It wasnt the 425 horsepower dual quad 427 though. It was a more streetable 390 horse version with a single 4 barrel. Then the 428 CJ/SCJ replaced the 427/390hp as the Cougar GTE standard engine mid year 1968
for all of you mopar fans, the same guy did a test on the 1969 Hemi Charger 500........the charger was slower to 60 than the shelby but beat it through the quarter, just barely.
I had a '69 Mustang with disk brakes in front. The disk brakes were big and effective, but the proportioning between the front and rear was always bad. You could disconnect the rear and not really notice.
What people don't understand is most cars back then were faster than today's cars. a lot of hot rods in the 50's were getting up to 2,000 horsepower. Especially family cars were faster than today's family cars. and there were a lot more muscle cars back then, there are only a couple muscle cars left. the muscle car era was the late 60's and early 70's. There were 2 different horsepower ratings for the '68 Shelby GT 500 KR, there was 360hp and 400hp. But cars back then were underated for horsepower back then, people were getting close to 600 horsepower stock on the Shelby when they tested it. If this car in the video would have had some better tires and a better driver, it would have done way better on those times. Tires make a huge difference. Who ever ordered that car in the video got poly glas tires on it, because they were cheaper, radial tires were expensive. teens put them on there hot rods in the 50's and most muscle cars in the 60's could be ordered with radial tires, you had a pick. If had radial tires or racing tires on it, it would do much better. The '68 Shelby was also about 2,000 pounds lighter than the new Shelby. cars were easier to modify back then.
Something like this is great and also for its comedy. Don't get me wrong, I love my old Fords, but they were all pretty pathetic when it came to handling. Sometimes death traps when you mixed power with the car. I fully understand that you can't compare these to today's cars, but some things they did just weren't understandable. Pretty much everything from back then has a false mystique about their performance. They'll never make cars with as much style, but they'll also likely never make cars that handled as bad and were as inefficient.
The car was so garish looking. A ‘68 fastback with the 428CJ option would have been a better buy and would have had cleaner look. I don’t get why collectors cherish them so much (yeah, yeah I know...it’s a Shelby - but it’s not a ‘65 or ‘66).
3:53 "HEY IT'S HAPPY TIME!!" I almost spit out my breakfast burrito! LOL! BTW- Calling a car that goes from 0-60MPH in in 6.2 Seconds a "Road King" is pretty silly.
Always liked the 1967 GT500's better. Wasn't a fan of the changes to the front end the 68 model year. Still a beautiful car for the most part, but the 67's are just an automotive work of art.
After hearing all the claims by people that weren't even around back when how all these kind of cars ran 12's stock I had to kind of laugh. Although I think something may be a little off with this one. Kind of hard to believe it only ran 101 in the 1/4 mile.
i see alot of brandnew cars even today running around with a headlight or tail light out. i have yet to understand it. cause when they replace the bulb, it lasts for years, just not the that single one (or in this case 3) from the factory.
If you lower a Mustang, Javelin, Camaro, by replacing the front springs with higher rates and lowering the rear (very easy) you can significantly improve their handling. With larger wheels and modern rubber the old pony cars have good grip and response but the steering sucks compared to modern rack n pinion.
Almost identical 0-60 as my 98 5.9 Limited Grand Cherokee and it has 4 wheel disc brakes 4wheel drive lol how times changed lol these actually were not that fast compared to other cars of the era. A 340 Dart would wax it.
Joey, One car disputes two of your claims, and does it with a live rear axle no loss....and the paint, panel gaps, and fit & finish are equal to anything Europe has to offer...what car is that? the 2012 Mustang Boss 302, which beats the M3 around Laguna Seca (that was Fords mission, and it was achieved), and $20k less than the M3, plus less costs less to own over the life of the car. I know, I've owned examples of Porsche, BMW & Mercedes, and my 2012 Boss beats them hands down in smiles per mile
Don't get me wrong I abosultley love this test(it's a great big window into the past) but, if you were to call the GT500KR a "great handling car" now, it would instantly land your ass in prison perjury. I love how they look at every little detail even question the the location of the extractor louvers location which is right over the plug wires. For it's the KR was close to perfection: it was 100% pure badassery and yet somehow the car had a safe dose(for 68 detriot anyways) of refinement.
LOL...your focus is not spinning its wheels all through first gear like that either. Add modern tires to this car and it would lay waste to your focus. Add a modern 6 speed close ratio trans and those 14 sec time would be 12 sec. times. This car like many of the oldies had the power but could not put it to the pavement efficiently.
The Mustang was spinning tires halfway to 70 MPH. That was the problem back then. Your Focus would be in this Mustang's rear view mirror by a wide margin with a decent set of modern drag radials on the Mustang's rear. LOL.
so in other words, this top tier mustang is outperformed in every way by the convertible 442 from the other video, which weighs a thousand pounds more. good job, ford
Is this the "other video" you watch?: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qzBOsbcvOxk.html I watched that same YT video and I came away with a Different Conclusion! If anything they were very close in Performance and overall the 68 Shelby has the Higher Ground, Especially in Value! Here are the Specs: 68 Shelby GT500KR ("top tier mustang"/ Shelby) vs 71 Olds 442 W-30 4sp Convertible 428ci.: 360HP (335HP factory rated) vs 455ci.: 350HP (with W-30 Option) 0 to 30: 2.5 sec.s vs 2.7 sec.s 0 to 50: 4.8 sec.s vs 4.9 sec.s 0 to 60: 6.9 sec.s vs 8.9 (with TH400 Auto Trans, could not find 0 to 60 times for the 4sp manual) 0 to 70: 8.2 (3sp Auto) sec.s vs 7.3 (4sp manual) i/4 mile times: 14.04 sec.s @ 102.73 mph vs 15.20 sec.s @ 99 mph Curb Weight: 3,570 ib.s vs 3,713 lb.s (143 lb.s Differents Does Not = "thousand pounds more"!) Top Speed: 130 mph vs 119 mph So in Other Words, this Top-Tier Mustang/Shelby Out- Performanced in 99.9% of the time the Convertible 442 Period!...Thank You and God Bless! BTW!...FORD!...Job # 1!
@sofa67 Kiddo, I have the E-type you're talking about sitting right outside. It has been in the family since it was brand new. There's always been a pony or muscle-car somewhere in the garage beside it, mostly Mopars. The E-type NEVER EVER have stood a chance in performance or reliability compared to the american cars we have owned. Don't get me wrong, I love it for what it is - but you probably should do as I always have done - get some FACTS, try things yourself, before you start preaching.
