Ford Mustang High Performance (Mk I 289 cui) specs

Here is an article on classic muscle Mustangs on a chassis dyno: https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/5216-8-mustang-musclecars-dynojet/

I have seen a chassis dyno of one of these, it put down 141 rear wheel horsepower and 254 lb/ft of torque. Gross rating was 271 hp and 312 torque. Not exactly sure what the net rating would be, but probably around 190 hp net. Ford didn't publish net figures until 1972. Gross ratings are usually around 60 to 100 more than net ratings like we use today. Drivetrain losses were also higher with older transmission designs.

@fastestlaps please add "High Performance (Mk I 289 cui)" to the name and change the displacement to 288.5 cui.

The first Mustangs ever built had the same power-to-weight ratio as some of the entry-level Corvettes?

@ Super8: As a Mopar man, that frustrates me, too, Dodge has nothing to compete against Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 and Chevrolet Camaro ZL1, Chrysler needs to get with the times, it's not the 60s anymore, all of its competitors have more powerful cars. Come on Chrysler! Put a supercharger on your 392 already!

Ford usually as low power but has very good both top end power and low end torque. So the car is quiet agile. Chevy is the acceleration king and has good power since most of their engine had 350 net hp but has not too good max speed (except for Corvette). Chrysler is the best answer for those two. Had good top end power but still below Ford but also good low end torque but still below Chevy. Also, it has the biggest power in that 60's which about 390 net hp which most the people think it only has 350 net hp. I wonder why today they become crappy? ZL1 and GT500 is way up than SRT 392 and the only good thing they have is Viper and 300C.

@ Viking: He traded waaaay up, the '65 Mustang Convertible and the '71 Charger are the 2 cars my Dad always regretted getting rid of. I believe he traded in the Mustang for the Charger.

@Shaggy
Yeah, a fun car. One of my high school buddies traded in his first car (a Pinto) on one of these '65 Mustang V8s. He played with it so much that he burned off the rear tire tread so much that sparks came off the steel belts while accelerating. It is amazing that we never had a blow out. :)

@ Viking: Cool car, my Dad's 1st car was a white 1965 Ford Mustang Convertible, probably with a 260 C.I. V8, a 289 would be too much to hope for, especially a 271 horsepower K-Code.

The 289 Hi-Po engine with 271 hp (gross) came out later in 1964, at introduction in April they only offered the standard 289 4 barrel carburetor with 210 hp (gross) as the top performance engine. The original specification sheet from the Road and Track road test in 1964 is here: http://www.roadandtrack.com/cm/roadandtrack/data/1965FordMustangSPECPAGE.pdf

The 289 Hi-Po engine had the following output: 271 gross bhp @ 6000 rpm and 312 lbs. ft. gross torque @ 3400 rpm.

Everyone knows that americans are crap at the track (Except zr1 supercharged)

Its amazing how only the body has changed from then until now, exact same suspension, my how technology has changed this car. LOL LOL LOL....

NO SHIT SHERLOCK

the best mustang ever

http://www.autozine.org/Classiccar/html/Ford/Mustang.html States that the 271bhp was road tested at 8.2sec to 60mph so I've edited the time from the original 7.5sec..... I know this isn't 0-62mph but I'm being kind to the old timer. Top speed of 116mph.

I understand what you are saying, but if it werent for all that safety equipment, many of us wouldnt be here today.

2800 lbs... health and safety people have really ruined sports cars over the years havent they?

PS: I couldn't find how much torque the 289 V8 made.

The original Mustang from 1964. Specs are from the 271hp 289 V8 with 4-speed, the fastest version offered in 1964. It would quickly be eclipsed, performance-wise, by later Mustangs, but this was the original.