I’m not a ford mustang fan but Ford has gained my respect since its the only American car manufacturer that will continue making V8 Muscle Car ( Mustangs ) with stick shift version available..
2nd seat belt buckle was for the shoulder harness (which seems to be missing on this car). You had to buckle both individually. I'll still take the '68 all day long! Ford's next redesign should be an exact copy of the 60's body design with updated chassis and engines.
another company is already doing that and turning them into modern electric cars they bought the rights to reproduce the 67’ (Company is ‘Charge Cars’)
I weighed my GT/CS on a certified scale in 1974, about a year after I bought it from the original owner. It was dead stock when I bought it. When weighed, the 289 had a Torker intake, long tube headers, 2 1/2 exhaust with Walker Turbos, original power discs, a swap to manual steering, no spare in the trunk, and some gas. Without me, it came in at 2950 pounds. The weight advantage I had over other musclecars at the time was very apparent. Street raced at 8200 rpm shift point. Never at the track, but could edge out guys with low 13-second time slips. Better if I had my Blue Streaks on that night and BF-22's.
Having grown up in the 70s and 80s, there was a time the old cars were definitely an upgrade in performance, but time and technology has revered that. Kids are lucky to grow up with the new technology in cars. Learning to drive in the 80s with the worst generation of cars ever kinda sucked. Now the old cars are great for nostalgia, and easier to work on, but the new engine technology really is great. Mom's cars of today blows away the hot rods of the 80s. Thanks CARB.
Wow, it is so refreshing to see a comment that isn't saying classic cars were amazing and every modern car is terrible. Thank you for actually being objective and not wearing rose tinted glasses pretending like the 80s as peak auto industry as so many enthusiasts tend to do.
@@themidnighttavern6784nobody says the 80s was good. It's called the malaise era for a reason. The 60s was fun, the 70s was style, the 80s was horrible, the 90s was a revival, the 00s was boring
@@bldontmatter5319 The 70s was style. Good sir most 70s cars are hideous. You have a few good ones, like the '70 mustang or Cuda, but those.were just 60s designs that carried over into the 70s.
The screens are fine, but at least take some time to make them flow into the dash like the s550. They literally just look like pads slapped on an elevated dash. No design beauty at all......tfl you should have these 2 do more videos together. They do a nice job. My oldest son gets his license in just over 4 years, if he somehow gets this, yes that high school parking lot will have more rubber on it than a playground, lol.
I agree. While I like the new car itself much more, the dash looks like they designed it and then threw two tablets on as an afterthought. Like the infotainment center on the Camaro. Decent dash but threw it on like a cheap aftermarket item!
47 years ago I bought my 68 stang from the original owner. Lifelong Southern California car. 289 coupe, power steering, factory AC, automatic and the optional hood turn signal indicators. Light blue, white vynil top. with this same color interior, which 10 years ago I had completely redone in factory correct colors and grains. It looks exactly as nice as this one. One option my car doesn't have, is power brakes. Its has manual 4 wheel drums. Im sure that this car has the same. That would be why he felt he had to really push on the pedal.....no power assist. You get used to it! Im very glad I decided to never SELL IT when I bought my 1st new car in 1980. I use it for around town errands on weekends and to car shows. Its perfectly happy to cruise down the freeway at 70 mph. I was 9 years old when it was built. I remember well when a neighbor bought one in 68, I thought it was so cool. Didn't know then I would have one, and would be driving it for 47 years and counting! 😊
Okay there a few things that don't seem to ad up here. First the 289 V8 even in it's lowest HP set up in 1968 with the two barrel carb (which I guess this CS must have had) is 195 and 233 FTlbs torque. When you got onto the highway and "Punched it" I didn't hear the rpm change or any type of power delivery. Even a base 289 would have dropped a gear and revved up to a much more toque friendly gear. So I suspect something is wrong with that Mustangs automatic gear box set up and/or kick down switch and the secondaries that should have opened on the carb.
I think 1968 was the first year for the shoulder seat belt that was probably taken out when they did the headliner.. I had a 68 fastback it had the shoulder harness as well as the waist one..
@tflclassics ...it's a good thing you pointed out the differebce in weight between the 64 & 24. It highlights how much unnecessary junk the automakers are adding to the cars as Standard equipment. You can't get rid of all that unwanted weight since it's now all tied into the entertainment junk. Anyway, I'd take any of the classics over the new junk made after 2009. Cheaper and easier to repair/maintain, wouldn't cost over $8K to fix or be listed as " a total loss" in a minor fender bender and wouldn't blow up if i put $3.67/gal 87 octane in it instead of $5.87 93 octane. BTW the 64 will still be running in 2050 and the 24 will be junked because you won't be able to get a 24 y/o microprocessor. 😂
What I don't get is this current trend is of just slapping a couple of big screens clumsily on the dash surface without any attempt to integrate them in any way into the dashboard structure itself. It just looks like someone has grabbed a couple of iPads and retrofitted them ghetto-style onto the dash and in front of the existing analogue instrument cluster with Velcro or duct tape (I blame Tesla for starting this look). OK, the screen in the middle I get; many car makers install them this way these days, however the gauge-cluster screen in front of the driver too; maybe they're trying to go for that "tuner" look or something, where the drag guys will slap the screen for their Holley set-up bang in front of the old analogue cluster? I'm all for screens, but at least make some effort to attempt to integrate them into the interior design theme of the vehicle rather than just make them appear like a casual afterthought.
They are both awesome cars. Doesn´t matter if the 68 is not powerful by today´s standards, they still move around nicely for cruising on car shows. The new ones are awesome cars, lot of fun to drive, very powerful and comfortable, and despite most fan´s dislike of the auto, the truth is that it is an awesome transmission that is faster than the 6 speed and makes for a great daily driver if you live in a big crowded city with stop and go traffic. The manual is NOT fun driving in stop and go traffic for an hour... I really hate the screens, my 2019 has a way better dash design than the new one. Maybe Ford should offer a version with the previous generation´s dash for us who prefer the analog gauges.
Also, you gotta hear the purr and rumble of the 302 V8 with cherry bombs, headers and cams, oh man that purr and rumble will give that new Mustang a run for it's money 🤩🤩 soundwise...
68 Mustangs had optional shoulder belts that were separate from the lap belts. It is likely that the CS either had them and they were removed, or the wrong set up was installed at the factory.
@@donalddrane2795 Ford was installing the shoulder belts at the beginning of the 1968 model year, August 1967. Shoulder belts easy to remove, I am sure that both of your 1968's have the provision for belt installation.
No, the 2bbl 289 was not fast back in the day lol. They had FAR more capable motors that are still fun today when they're not in desperate need of a restoration
@@Matticus289 better carb,better cam,headers,better heads or get em ported w/e cheaper better ignition system,better pistons/rings stroker cranks w/e else better intake,bigger values many things you could make that mustang faster than the price they paid for that mustang gt. my dad was pushing 500 hp in the 1960s with his 1965 289 bro lol.289 in general is far better than a coyote straight up.
@@billybobbob3003 ah, yes...so essentially a complete tear down and rebuild of the motor. Oh, wait...but then you'd have to upgrade the suspension. Oh, and the brakes. Hmmm...not so sure a 3 speed slushbox is ideal for that setup. Better swap that, too. Yeah, sounds easy
@@Matticus289 289 is very easy to work on next to some computerized piece of garbage like the coyote.This new mustang would be faster with a 289 not to mention you can get one already built and just swap it right in lol this 2024 GT.
R u guys familiar with the "passing gear"? As you're driving lift sharply off the accelerator and then slam the pedal to the floor. That will cause the transmission to down shift increasing revs allowing to accelerate quicker
The 68 any day for me. You're going to race a 2bbl cruiser against a street legal racer? You should find a 1st gen with a 428. At least that would be competitive.
If I were in the market for a new Mustang I would find a used 2023. I hate the glued on screens of the 2024. Of these two mustangs I would take the 1968 all day long.
I love the old car's I really do. But after reading some comments, here is my experience. Im 66 years old, and my first car was a 1966 Mustang 289 Hp. Trying to compare my 2019 GT A10 Whipple charged GT is like comparing me at this age to me at 18. There is no comparison. Run thur a puddle of water in a old mustang and try to stop. 😢 My 289 smoked, and broke oil pump drive shafts. Power steering problems etc. A old car had 12/12 warranty for a reason. The great muscle car error knew nothing of getting close to 100,000 thousand miles. BTY I've had a every generation of mustang except the pinto 1974/78. But opinions are like butts, everyone has one. 😅
I would love to see this comparison done with a more potent classic Mustang. This windsor 289 - 195hp was the base V8, and backed by the automatic, it wasn't exactly fast even by 1968 standards, and had been detuned from previous years, when it made as much as 271hp in K code form. It was phased out for the very similar windsor 302 mid year, making 230hp. Then there was the 390 and 428 Big blocks. The 390 made 330hp. You guys should find a '67 or '68 "S code" 390 car, and a stick shift car was faster back then.
I hate screens, using them for the media center is one thing; but using them for the instrument cluster is incredibly stupid. That screen is a part that will break, a part that will go out of production and then what happens? You won't be able to keep that new Mustang running for 60 years the way the old one has, you won't even be able to keep it running for 20 years because 10 years from now the screen with your speedometer on it is going to break and 15 years from now Ford is going to stop making OEM replacements.
I guess one thing no one ever mentions is just how the new car is so much safer than the old one, if you are in a head on crash with the old one at 40mph 99% you will not survive but with the new one it is 99% that you will and for me this is the biggest difference.
Re: brakes - did that ‘68 have power brakes? Could have been an option. Non-power brakes will require a lot more effort to work those drums. Re: exhaust - the sound of that ‘24 exhaust really makes me want to go back to straight pipes on my S197. My glasspacks sound ok, but really quiet compared to muffler deletes. CA police were cracking down on exhaust mods, so I put mufflers back on about 4 years ago - much to the delight of my neighbors. 😅
The first Gen Mustang was designed to be affordable, and it was and to be clear the 67 68 mustang gt had two engine options the 289 with two or four barrels and the 390 with tow or four barrels. The biggest drawback of the 390 car was that it couldn't get traction with the torque it put out.
3:33 that button panel looks insanely cheap the whole chunk goes in like a space bar what do you mean the classic mustang isnt sophisticated? it has a loaded gauge cluster
The original having only 198 hp is what annoys me the most when I see alot of young people taking power for granted with modern cars. Like the new one has 480 and people will say it is slow until you supercharge it smh. Just about all modern cars are fast enough to have fun on the streets.
In 68 seatbelts were just an after thought they weren’t for safety they were there because they had to be lol 😂I come from the era where cars had 3 peddles we rode in beds of pick up truck on the highway walked around barefooted drank garden hose water when it was 110 outside throwing metal yard darts society has become soft and pampered the economy sucks an most of us can’t afford a 65,000 mustang ford has made them unattainable to the blue collar working class with that said I’d take the 68 any day over the 24 I own a 97 cobra I got 15 years ago for 8,000$ a true drivers car !🤘🏽🤘🏽
I love my classics, especially the Mustang. However, I'm gonna make some older guys pretty upset by saying I'd take the new Mustang. But I'm comparing these two _specifically._ If I had the choice to spec them to how I wanted... naw I'd still pick the new one. In terms of value, they are very close, but the new Mustang just edges out the old one. Plus, that 68 Mustang doesn't even have one of the more desirable larger engines, and a 3-speed? That's unfortunate. I'm very biased towards manual, but I know that the new 10-speeds in the Mustang and F-150 are absolute beasts. Additionally, in my current situation, any new (to me) car that I get would have to be a daily of sorts, and the 24 is just so much better for that. I'm also gonna be controversial by saying I prefer the new Mustang's look to the 68. A 1969 Mustang, though? That's a hard one.
0:50 Remember back then your insurance was set by the horsepower. To keep insurance low car manufacturers purposely under rated the horsepower. You also could go to the parts counter to buy performance upgrade parts, bring them home and install them. It’s hard to compare new to old. Back then you ordered the biggest engine, no options, radio delete. You wanted the car light as possible and fast. The new cars are crammed with luxury and unnecessary items, like the exhaust. Your 68’ is more comparable to a new V6 Mustang daily driver. But thanks for comparing
Got to see the dark horse ( RHD ) here in vic Australia 17/03/24 from a Ford dealer display . I was a bit disappointed , didn’t like that plastic rear end . It looked great on tv , but up close it just looked plastic in a non muscle car way
A C4 three speed slushbox on the drag strip will act as a time machine, sending these boys back to the Summer of Love. Can they get to Canada fast enough to avoid the draft? Dang! The good ole days weren't so good after all. Nope, they didn't make it. Off to Full Metal Jacket land. Here I am in Vietnam for Uncle Sam. Is the tech even solid state? :)
Only kids could F this up.. The original pony cars were really fun to drive, light weight, small, and a good v8 with down low torque. The mustang died when the sn95 was killed.. The new ones are huge, yeah they make tons of power, but they are hard to see out of, they are also way too electronic, one of the exciting parts of the old mustangs was the fear factor, where you had zero controls for safety, it took self control and skill to drive one. Also the fact that both are automatic transmission mustangs.. neither of these kids are 50 year old house wives or 80 year old men returning from a golf course.. The mustang image is dead..
Have you driven an 05-09 S197? Mine has a 5 speed manual, no stability control, and I think the traction control and abs were deleted in a tune, bc this car will spin both rear wheels if you look at it wrong. I have manual dials for fan speed, blue-red temp dial, and a third to direct air where I want it. And that’s about it. A radio. A button to turn on the AC. It’s a retro design, and with that live axle, it’s still a wild horse. Of course the modern suspension and brakes make it handle a whole lot better than the original ones! Also, while I love the ‘64.5-‘69, the early 70’s got bigger and less pony like. Then the Mustang II came out and was just a more sporty looking Pinto. 4cyl engine, zero performance. Eventually the V8 returned and the Cobra II was a fun car - though the 13” wheels with tiny tires got all of zero traction. Early Fox bodies were still under 200hp for the V8. Mustang really hit a second life as a performance car in the mid 80’s when they had 200+hp, and Saleen was tuning some for more power, and the Cobra R came out, etc. The ‘94 new Stang tried to refine the car to be modern and still sporty. Brought back some original design cues. But the ‘05 release of the S197 was really a modern tribute back to those original 60’s cars. After that, the S550 and S650 got IRS, more power, more comfort, more tech - and are really a very current car, while still giving you the option of a near 500hp V8 in a 2 door coupe or convertible, mated to either an automatic or manual. The Mustang is as alive as ever. (and if you prefer the old school originals, still plenty around!)
@@stephen3164 I have owned; 1985 lx 5.0 hatch 5mt 1985 lx 5.0 vert 5mt 1986 Svo 1993 cobra convertible (clone) 5mt 2001 sn95 GT 5mt 2009 Roush 429R jack Black Edition vert with Stage 3 kit and 6mt The 09 was way too big.. and a fat pig in weight.. The new one is FAR worse.. 68 mustang = 15.3 feet Weight = 2782lbs 85 mustang = 15.1 feet weight = 2515lbs 01 mustang = 15.2 feet Weight = 3201lbs 09 mustang = 15.9 feet weight = 3483lbs 20 mustang = 16 feet Weight = 3705lbs 24 mustang = 16.4 feet weight = 3947lbs
@@rustbeltrobclassic2512 - you have a good history with the nameplate, but aside from your Roush, everything else was Fox body based. (SN95 was essentially a reworked fox platform). So I understand why you think the S197 was big - but the first gen Mustangs were big too. They got longer and wider almost every year between ‘65 and ‘73. From ‘74-‘04, the Mustang was built as a small car. Those 3 decades definitely define the model, but they really seem like a departure from the first gen cars. The S197 onwards feels like a continuation of the first gen, yes, with their long hoods. Today’s cars weigh a lot. Teslas check in at 6,000 pounds! How much did a big block Mach 1 weigh in the early 70’s? I’m betting it was heavy for its time, especially categorized as a pony car. So, to say the Mustang ended with the SN95 -to me - sounds like you think it began with the ‘74. Or maybe the ‘79. 😉. Seriously, try to meet up with an early 70’s owner for a drive. Those boats were nothing like the ‘74-‘04 cars!
I'm a tech guy too but the screens are bullshit. Especially for the instrument cluster. They won't age well and will date the new car. Once it's as old as the California special car they'll look terrible but the old car will still look good.
When you guys talk about the lack of acceleration (listed HP, etc.) you need to keep in mind that the federal smog control restrictions were just coming out at that time, and they got A LOT worse in the next few years. The performance Mustangs (non-Shelby GT models) from 1966 were far more performance oriented. Hotter engines, 4-barrel carbs, and the typical list that came out of the early/mid-1960s performed much better. The fact was that none of the manufacturers knew how to deal with the new requirements and nothing ran well!!! You did not want to buy a 1974 ANYTHING. No manufacturers had figured it out yet. Car guys like to bitch about those "stupid" computers but their development brought back the performance we enjoy now. For at least 10 years, nothing ran well and all the guys that had experienced the "Pre-Smog" engines just hated what the government was doing with the rules. A lot of my friends from the 1950s & '60s would mess with the engines to get them to run like they wanted but they had to return them to stock to pass the smog tests... what a PAIN!!
Like my BIG Caddies & anniversary '73 Corvette. I mean who doesn't ❤to fill a Big Beautiful beast in the back? It's only propa😂- I'm not a big mustang guy between the 2. Even though I love older vehicles. I'll go with the faster one. Though wish it were a hatch. If the older were a 65 Shelby? Then sure, but by 68, it was becoming bloated. & not even in the cool way a Mach 1 was. - Lastly Alex disheartened by the Edward ✂️cut. But we have room for 1 more on our Pan Am journey just saying 😂
The dashes is are like comparing a nice analog watch to a Apple Watch, the Apple does way more, but the analog has a soul, gears and springs ticking and whirling. That’s my biggest problem with EV’s no soul, Thank God Ford hasn’t stuffed the Mustang with a giant battery and silent motors!
Even money says that the new Mustang will be virtually undrivable in5 years without spending thousands on repairs, In 56 years, I seriously doubt the new Mustang will move under its own power. The old Mustang was a slightly improved Ford Falcon.
That’s a stupid comparison, why would you pick a two barrel 289 car instead of a four barrel car or a 390 big block? Either way, nothing can touch the coyote, best V8 ever made.
No sense in racing these two. Even if the '68 had a 427 and decent rubber it would still lose in the CO altitude. If you're going to take your '68 down the strip, find a fairer matchup... perhaps to a modern, economical daily-driver to demonstrate how far modern powertrains (& cars in general) have come.
That dash is HORRIBLE. Looks like a tablet velcroed to a board. For what these cars cost AND represent the interior stylists totally dropped the ball. We deserve better.
Nope. The '67 fastback is the best, but I'm a stupid boomer. I had many Mustangs back in the seventies. All were fun in some way or another. I'm sick of the electronics. I have one car that the electronic parking brake locks up uncommanded. Several dealers can't figure it out. I think about it sometimes when flying around a curve. Luckily it's only activated when I've been going straight ahead. I guess I should go slow around curves. I never had to worry about that back in the mechanical era.
cost affective adding your time to fix issues popping up. If that old car was restored and in great shape and great upkeep. Hands down the ease to fix it compared to the ew one far outweighs the looks of new one! No way that new one is a winner. if you includ you time and money And ease of fixing each one basic tools fix the old car! and no scan tools and speciality tools and computer to fix and or having to call for to unlock the tranny codes or engine mapping and etc compare to old ford. Im not impredded of new JUNK all expensive playstation gameboys LMBORH!
Mustangs (1965-1973) were equipped with drum brakes. 1974-'93 Mustangs were fitted with front disc brakes. Mustangs after 1993 were fitted with four-wheel disc brakes.
