Looking at historical printing from back in the days.
What seems to be a stock or not modified Shelby Hertz vehicle we come up with this.
Your thoughts on these "Black & Gold Bad Boys"?
Tested: 1966 Ford Shelby Mustang GT350-H
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15141429/1966-ford-shelby-mustang-gt350-h-road-test/
That was one of the "prototypes" note the 15" Crager style wheels and the "Smooth" style interior seat upholstery, That's a 65 style, not 66
The Green/Gold ones were Faster.
On the Bonneville Salt Flats in 1973 we saw an indicated 126 MPH at a little over 6250 RPM's with E-70 Firestone Wide Ovals driving back from around the 6 miles marker one evening. We exceeded the requested speed limit by a "little" bit
R model spec heads no doubt.
stock except for set of Crane Valve springs
Car & Drivers results appear to be pretty darn close to this example.
66 GT350 auto
(https://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/21/6-031025173432-213271772.jpeg)
Slow compared with the average street cars friends and I were driving on the street at the time. in the early 70's
Fuel mileage looks right also. Worth every penny.
Seems quite close to what it should run.
My 68 with 3.50 gears and a little bit of work on the 302 ran 14.5's.
6S1431 ran a bunch of times down the 1/4 mile at Capital Raceway in Crofton Maryland. mostly with a range of 14.1-14.2 91-92 MPH. Best ever was with a fresh tune-up and a cool evening 14.08 at 93.1 mph, never hit a 13 second ET
Oops I meant to say 15.1-15.2 with a best of 15.08, never hit a 14
Brain fart caused by old age
Quote from: Steve McDonald Formally known as Mcdonas on October 03, 2025, 10:36:17 AMThat was one of the "prototypes" note the 15" Crager style wheels and the "Smooth" style interior seat upholstery, That's a 65 style, not 66
Steve you and I know that
Just sent a memo to car & driver
Tested: 1966 Ford Shelby Mustang GT350-H
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15141429/1966-ford-shelby-mustang-gt350-h-road-test/
A stock automatic was in the 15's. A good running 4 speed, 'maybe' high 14s.
Back in the day a lot of magazines would fudge a couple tenths over what the manufacturer (or another magazine) published. Maybe it was the buy our mag we test harder or are better at wringing the max out of it. Then there was the fact that NO ONE ever tested a car right off the line. They were all tuned to the max before they got loaned out.
When Titus did the Hot Rod article on the Dodge Omni v GT350 article the car was well tuned but withing stock specs. After all the hate mail for beating the GT350 we took one to a COCOA Willow event so the haters could see it in action. CS did admit this one had a different tune with a 20 hp boost. He wanted to make sure it couldn't lose.
SLOWER THAN A MANUAL. I know.....
I know..........
6.6 seconds 0-60 is very respectable for a car of the 60s. Only a couple of seconds slower than some of the exotics of the 2000s...
Does the weight figure seem a little higher? I thought they were sub 3000 lbs, or was that the 65?
Quote from: 98SVT - was 06GT on October 04, 2025, 06:41:25 PMBack in the day a lot of magazines would fudge a couple tenths over what the manufacturer (or another magazine) published. Maybe it was the buy our mag we test harder or are better at wringing the max out of it. Then there was the fact that NO ONE ever tested a car right off the line. They were all tuned to the max before they got loaned out.
When Titus did the Hot Rod article on the Dodge Omni v GT350 article the car was well tuned but withing stock specs. After all the hate mail for beating the GT350 we took one to a COCOA Willow event so the haters could see it in action. CS did admit this one had a different tune with a 20 hp boost. He wanted to make sure it couldn't lose.
Exactly! Most test cars were wringers. Just ask (or read about) Jim Wangers...