Skip to comments.VIDEO: Mustang gets Aston Martin Vanquish V12
Posted on 04/15/2008 10:11:10 AM PDT by Red Badger
For decades, the Ford Mustang has been a symbol of affordable performance. While the average GT will still run you less than $30,000, for many that is merely the starting point. Next is the booming Ford Mustang aftermarket business, where you can beef up every square inch of your ponycar. One item not commonly found in a Ford Racing catalog is an Aston Martin Vanquish V12 engine, but after hearing one in the engine bay of a beautiful blue stallion, we think that problem should be corrected.
Hit the jump to view video of a very well-modified Mustang that has the face of a GT500, the butt of a Saleen, and the heart of an Aston. If you thought the throaty V8 of a stock GT was music to your ears, the silky smooth symphony coming from the Vanquish V12 is better than Bach. The best part of the video comes about a minute in when the snugly-packed V12 reveals itself for the first time. Is it just us or is a real Mustang with an Aston motor a hundred times better than a 'Stang with a Vanquish body?
V-12 ‘Stang Ping!...........
The new Mustang and Charger just don’t look good or right without the spoiler on the back.
Just like the good ole days when all you saw when you opened the hood was “engine.” Come on lottery.......
LOL...about 10 years back some guy in California was shoe-horning Mustang 5.0 V8s into Miatas...with the beefed up x-missions and suspensions, he was still getting a pretty good (51/49) front to rear weight distribution. The things were rockets.
If I win the lottery, I’ll go for the WHOLE ASTON MARTIN!..............
What a difference with the first car I ever bought. It was a maroon, 3-speed, 4-cylinder, ‘64 Mustang generally known as “the secretary’s delight”. No AC but it did have tinted glass. I don’t even remember if it had seat belts but it did have an ash tray that was full most of the time.
3-speed, 4-cylinder, 64 Mustang?..............
I think you mean a straight 6, not 4 cylinder.
It was a long time ago so perhaps you’ve forgotten that Mustangs never had a 4 cylinder (170 six, 260 and 289 eights) and the first Mustangs went on sale in early 1964 with post July 1964 units labeled as 1965’s. (hence the ‘64 1/2 monikers ). Perhaps the easiest way to identify a “64 1/2” is that they all used a generator instead of the alternators used in post July 64.
Reminds me of the Sunbeam Tigers of my generation....260 CID Fords shoehorned into Sunbeams. And, because small block Chevys have their distributor in the back making them tougher to adapt, the Fords were the next best logical engines with their front mounted distributors. But the bottom line to all of these horsepower wars is how much can you put on the ground without smoking the tires and losing time? This requires major modifications for bigger skins in the back and a beefed up drivetrain.
64 1/2’s didn’t have backup lights either. Did you know the first 500 production model Mustangs had bench seats?
Ouch, got to be a hand-mangler to work on that engine..........but then, if you can afford to do this, you probably do not need to do your own wrenching?
Probably so. If I could afford one, I wouldn’t be getting my manicured nails dirty.............
Yes and I had a lady that worked for me that had a White Mustang convertible with bench seats, generator, six cylinder and C-4 automatic...hers must have been built in July as they used up old parts and started offering more options. She bought it brand new and the last I knew in 1996 she still had it as her every day driver. Of course her son is a car nut, kept it maintained and had already expressed his “dibs” for when she decides to part with it. I tried to tell her she could sell it and buy a new vehicle cash for what hers was worth but she didn’t budge!
I think that a few of these Mustangs had four bangers.
That is 12 kinds of awesome.
Of course, that's what the original Cobra was (289 or 427 Fords in a small English roadster).