No helmets needed in this race, if you crash a car going that slow then you deserve it :P My 79 firebird would hit 60 by the time this firebird got its whole body completely past the starting line lol. But its still american muscle of sorts, so they have potential these 2 do.
Its a 79 Mustang...i own a moded up 79 Cobra...When it was stock i use to pull on stock Camaros with 350 4 barrel . 301 pontiac were a waste of my time...
wow you retard thats a 79 mustang learn your cars lookup a 79 mustang on google then look up the 87 to 93 and youll see a diff thats a 79 so lean your shit
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
omfg!!! your an idiot!.. first of all learn how to drive the damn car... sorry.. but.. I know for a fact as a proud owner of a restored 79 firebird that mine has more power unless you put a lawnmower engine in it. and on top of that.. that car isn't a 79 mustang it is a 90's model you twit!
Go look up a 79 Mustang and then look up an 87-93.
And just to add injury to insult, you know how I know that you've never even driven a 79 Firebird or Mustang? Because if you truly DO own a 301 powered 79 Firebird, you would KNOW that it could never out run a 5.0 302 Mustang fox. Now if you had the 400 coupled with the 4-speed, that would be a different story, but my money says that now you will claim to have the 400 drivetrain.
My friend has a '79 T/A 403 (6.6L) 4bbl freshly rebuilt and an auto trans. It's got dual exhaust, posi rear end with 3.21 gears, factory shaker hood scoop etc. I have an '82 mustang with a 5.0 and 4 speed tremec (SROD) It's got a 4bbl carb and that's it. It literally has a 2" diameter single exhaust system. I beat his T/A by about 2 cars. Reason is my manual trans and the fact that my Mustang in full factory trim weighs 2920 lbs and the motor will pull until 5500 rpm and his 403 is done at 5000.
The 6.6 IS a 403. I had a friend with a '79 T/A. It had the shaker hood scoop that said 6.6L on the side. We checked the vin and it said 403. I wouldn't call it a joke. It put you in the seat pretty good for what it was. You gotta remember, it was 1979. Horsepower was dead. If you wanted a high-output engine in 1979 you built it yourself. The 403 would've stomped that stang. You'd need an '82 with a 5.0 H.O. to beat the 403.
There is no "normal 6.6L". They only had the Pontiac 400 and the 403 olds in the T/As of that year. The Pontiac 400 normally comes in the Trans Am SE package. The SE package only comes with 220 hp and like 340 ibs of torque, while the 403 olds has 180-185 with also 340 ibs of torque. 403 olds only comes with auto trannies, the Pontiac 400 can come with Auto or Manual trannies.
I had a black '79 T/A with a 403 olds. I had the motor mildy built, with a mild cam, stronger heads, larger exhaust system, removed the cats, and a shift kit, and it was rolling like a mofo. It snaps necks everytime. Hell the car even scares my girlfriend and some friends. A stock 403 T/A can easily reach 130 mph depending on road conditions.
im a big pontiac fan. we have a 77 tA black w72 motor 4 speed. it has a different cam and heads it moves pretty good ha ha. but im saying is that the 301 is garbage
Don't mindlessly trash talk the Olds 403. My 403 car would probably stomp all over your 400 car : )
Olds 403's only put out 185 hp stock, but also 320 lb-ft of torque at 2200 rpm. The motors are great once they get the cam and compression that they need. It's not like the 220 hp cars had much to show for their extra power. That was really only a bragging number as the avg hp throughout the entire rpm range was very similar.
They're both 6.6 litres! Litres are just a unit of volume, not unlike cubic inches. My car came stock with "6.6 litre" (hence the european spelling) emblazoned on the hoodscoop. 403's and 400's alike came stock with "6.6L" available on the hood scoop. 6.6 is not any sort of special designation.
That mustang was also probably a 4.2L V8 (the crappy de-stroked 5.0) with an automatic. Judging by how long it took the T/A just to hit 2nd gear, it's very slow and my 5.0 would've stomped both cars.
Still, it wasn't an H.O. till 1982. They used the 351 cam which is actually pretty decent. I believe it also had a different firing order than the earlier 5.0 which helped. Good job having a real early fox tho like me! Mine's an '82 but i've got so many bolt-ons and mods now that it runs with 6 speed LS1 Trans Ams.
@Perefim I know it's been a couple years since you have commented, but in case you haven't found out by now. That is a 79 Mustang, late 80s- early 90s models look 10 times better than that. Just google 1979 Mustang and see for yourself. It's still a foxbody but the one in the video IS a 79.
Yeah, you're right- I'm sure it's for "just in case". To extrapolate on my previous comment on "pitiful", I was referring to the venue.I'd like to see these cars battle it out on a road course rather than a 1/4 mile, in my opinion.
was this shot in the 80s? LOL
matthewrockslol22 2 days ago
There must have been a speed limit on the drag strip...
zcg3 11 months ago
That's a slow feeling eighth mile...
NotYour94Ranger 1 year ago
How much did the driver of the Mustang pay the driver of the Trans Am to throw the race? Lol:)
hydrowatcher 1 year ago
No helmets needed in this race, if you crash a car going that slow then you deserve it :P My 79 firebird would hit 60 by the time this firebird got its whole body completely past the starting line lol. But its still american muscle of sorts, so they have potential these 2 do.
circlelt1 1 year ago
Its a 79 Mustang...i own a moded up 79 Cobra...When it was stock i use to pull on stock Camaros with 350 4 barrel . 301 pontiac were a waste of my time...
mustangcobramike 1 year ago
i have a 79 trans am with a 403 OLDS with a holley 650 and cherry bombs and that does 0-60 mph in 5.0.secs we clocked in london against a m3
charley1144 2 years ago
That is the slowest 6.6 I have ever seen. The Q-jet wasn't even singing!!
kev6kev9 2 years ago
For sure, the engine is a 4.9l (301ci) :D ...
bazlegro 2 years ago
My 79 trans am 455 could beat that mustang. Get a bigger motor dude!
pc3921 2 years ago
wow you retard thats a 79 mustang learn your cars lookup a 79 mustang on google then look up the 87 to 93 and youll see a diff thats a 79 so lean your shit
kingkong2567 4 years ago
1979 Ford Mustang Hactback V8 302ci...
It's my car. I've 2 Mustang 1979.
Kalifornia1996 4 years ago
Mais d'ou i sort ce mec "Perefim" ??? Blaireau va !
T'inkiete Baz elle dechir ta firebird
ps c ilan du forum dc !
montrealkicksass 4 years ago
Merci mec ;)
bazlegro 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
omfg!!! your an idiot!.. first of all learn how to drive the damn car... sorry.. but.. I know for a fact as a proud owner of a restored 79 firebird that mine has more power unless you put a lawnmower engine in it. and on top of that.. that car isn't a 79 mustang it is a 90's model you twit!
Perefim 4 years ago
Sure, a 90's model :D
bazlegro 4 years ago
Haha...yeah. Its a 90's model. *rolls eyes*
Go look up a 79 Mustang and then look up an 87-93.
And just to add injury to insult, you know how I know that you've never even driven a 79 Firebird or Mustang? Because if you truly DO own a 301 powered 79 Firebird, you would KNOW that it could never out run a 5.0 302 Mustang fox. Now if you had the 400 coupled with the 4-speed, that would be a different story, but my money says that now you will claim to have the 400 drivetrain.
thasssbruuutal 4 years ago
that car isn't a 79 mustang it is a 90's model you twit!: it's my Mustang and it's a 1979 Hactback...
Kalifornia1996 4 years ago
My friend has a '79 T/A 403 (6.6L) 4bbl freshly rebuilt and an auto trans. It's got dual exhaust, posi rear end with 3.21 gears, factory shaker hood scoop etc. I have an '82 mustang with a 5.0 and 4 speed tremec (SROD) It's got a 4bbl carb and that's it. It literally has a 2" diameter single exhaust system. I beat his T/A by about 2 cars. Reason is my manual trans and the fact that my Mustang in full factory trim weighs 2920 lbs and the motor will pull until 5500 rpm and his 403 is done at 5000.
gtdrummerdude 3 years ago
if it would of been the T/a 6.6l It would of stomped that mustang. the 403 olds was a joke
trayton103 3 years ago
The 6.6 IS a 403. I had a friend with a '79 T/A. It had the shaker hood scoop that said 6.6L on the side. We checked the vin and it said 403. I wouldn't call it a joke. It put you in the seat pretty good for what it was. You gotta remember, it was 1979. Horsepower was dead. If you wanted a high-output engine in 1979 you built it yourself. The 403 would've stomped that stang. You'd need an '82 with a 5.0 H.O. to beat the 403.
gtdrummerdude 3 years ago
Also, the T/A in this video has a 301 V8, which is definitely worthless.
gtdrummerdude 3 years ago
no the T/A 6.6l is the a special version of hte pontiac 400 they put out 220 horsepower. a normal 403 olds and the normal 6.6l only put out 180-185
trayton103 3 years ago
There is no "normal 6.6L". They only had the Pontiac 400 and the 403 olds in the T/As of that year. The Pontiac 400 normally comes in the Trans Am SE package. The SE package only comes with 220 hp and like 340 ibs of torque, while the 403 olds has 180-185 with also 340 ibs of torque. 403 olds only comes with auto trannies, the Pontiac 400 can come with Auto or Manual trannies.
Pracerdohczx2 2 years ago
Actually, the special version of the 400 was the w-72 400 that had a lighter intake, 800cfm carb, thicker cylinder walls, and a larger oil pump.
coutts1993 2 years ago
I had a black '79 T/A with a 403 olds. I had the motor mildy built, with a mild cam, stronger heads, larger exhaust system, removed the cats, and a shift kit, and it was rolling like a mofo. It snaps necks everytime. Hell the car even scares my girlfriend and some friends. A stock 403 T/A can easily reach 130 mph depending on road conditions.
Pracerdohczx2 2 years ago
im a big pontiac fan. we have a 77 tA black w72 motor 4 speed. it has a different cam and heads it moves pretty good ha ha. but im saying is that the 301 is garbage
trayton103 2 years ago
Don't mindlessly trash talk the Olds 403. My 403 car would probably stomp all over your 400 car : )
Olds 403's only put out 185 hp stock, but also 320 lb-ft of torque at 2200 rpm. The motors are great once they get the cam and compression that they need. It's not like the 220 hp cars had much to show for their extra power. That was really only a bragging number as the avg hp throughout the entire rpm range was very similar.
Firebert79TA 2 years ago
i dont agree with you haha just never liked the 403 motor. I like the 6.6 better more power and punch
trayton103 2 years ago
They're both 6.6 litres! Litres are just a unit of volume, not unlike cubic inches. My car came stock with "6.6 litre" (hence the european spelling) emblazoned on the hoodscoop. 403's and 400's alike came stock with "6.6L" available on the hood scoop. 6.6 is not any sort of special designation.
So, what sort of times does your 400 car run? : )
Firebert79TA 2 years ago
That mustang was also probably a 4.2L V8 (the crappy de-stroked 5.0) with an automatic. Judging by how long it took the T/A just to hit 2nd gear, it's very slow and my 5.0 would've stomped both cars.
gtdrummerdude 3 years ago
It's a 1979 Mustang, it's my car. It's been a Fox Mustang with the 302 V8.
Kalifornia1996 3 years ago
Still, it wasn't an H.O. till 1982. They used the 351 cam which is actually pretty decent. I believe it also had a different firing order than the earlier 5.0 which helped. Good job having a real early fox tho like me! Mine's an '82 but i've got so many bolt-ons and mods now that it runs with 6 speed LS1 Trans Ams.
gtdrummerdude 3 years ago
@Perefim
that's a 79 mustang,and by the look of it its stock right down to the rear wiper.
stangfever04 1 year ago
@Perefim haha
Mstangman70 1 year ago
@Perefim I know it's been a couple years since you have commented, but in case you haven't found out by now. That is a 79 Mustang, late 80s- early 90s models look 10 times better than that. Just google 1979 Mustang and see for yourself. It's still a foxbody but the one in the video IS a 79.
gunit4life42069 1 year ago
You needed a helmet for THAT pitiful race?
JacksonRazor 4 years ago
The reglementation require that. But i am agree with you, it isn't necessary to have helmet with these powerful cars :D.
bazlegro 4 years ago
Yeah, you're right- I'm sure it's for "just in case". To extrapolate on my previous comment on "pitiful", I was referring to the venue.I'd like to see these cars battle it out on a road course rather than a 1/4 mile, in my opinion.
JacksonRazor 4 years ago
Raaah la tete bazounet =)
Honte à toi le gros t'as laminé =(
Charlinou77 4 years ago