Skip to main content
Topic: My 1972 Comet GT (Read 16275 times) previous topic - next topic

My 1972 Comet GT

Reply #15
Yeah from the '60 Falcon thru '80 Granada it's the same basic chassis... Was beefed up in '66 for Fairlane/Comet and '67 For Mustang/Cougar as big blocks became available... From that point on, upper & lower control arms are same through the Granada/Monarch(Torino went full frame in '72 & Mustang hopped in bed with Pinto in '74, those are totally different chassis)...

Interestingly the '66-70 Falcon shares all the suspension of the Fairlanes, even engine bay is exact same and will easily fit a 390/428 even though was never a factory option... The Maverick/Comet were narrowed and Ford bestowed the Torino shock towers(wider than Mustang type), so even a 351 is a tight fit, big blocks ain't happnin' without cutting... The chassis was widened for Granada/Monarch, those fit a 351 reasonably well but big blocks still require mods...

My 1972 Comet GT

Reply #16
Quote from: TurboCoupe50;446239
Yeah from the '60 Falcon thru '80 Granada it's the same basic chassis... Was beefed up in '66 for Fairlane/Comet and '67 For Mustang/Cougar as big blocks became available... From that point on, upper & lower control arms are same through the Granada/Monarch(Torino went full frame in '72 & Mustang hopped in bed with Pinto in '74, those are totally different chassis)...

Interestingly the '66-70 Falcon shares all the suspension of the Fairlanes, even engine bay is exact same and will easily fit a 390/428 even though was never a factory option... The Maverick/Comet were narrowed and Ford bestowed the Torino shock towers(wider than Mustang type), so even a 351 is a tight fit, big blocks ain't happnin' without cutting... The chassis was widened for Granada/Monarch, those fit a 351 reasonably well but big blocks still require mods...

I thought that's how it went. Ford got a lot of mileage out of the Falcon platform, just like the Fox platform.

Oddly enough a big block (385 series) fits in a fox no problem.
88 Thunderbird LX: 306, Edelbrock Performer heads, Comp 266HR cam, Edelbrock Performer RPM intake, bunch of other stuff.

My 1972 Comet GT

Reply #17
Quote from: TurboCoupe50;446197
Looks like he's gettin' there, has small bumper conversion... Is he planning on adding the stripe??

Mine has the duck tail Maverick Grabber spoiler added, these were not available on Comet... Also both bumpers were freshly rechromed when I got it, plus gas cap and tail lights are NOS...



He is definitely adding the stripe.  And yes, the bumper conversion was ideal for his taste.  He is a Mercury fanatic.
'88 Thunderbird LX
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Engine:  FR B303 cam, GT40P heads w/ Trickflow valve springs, Explorer upper/lower intake, SR cold air intake w/ MAF
Exhaust:  shorty headers, BBK O-R X-pipe, glasspacks w/ turn downs
Misc:  8.8 rear, Saleen SC replicas 17x8/17x10, Mach 1 front springs/SN95 rear springs
&
'74 F100 Custom 351W

My 1972 Comet GT

Reply #18
I like it.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
1986 T-bird 3.8 *SOLD*
1990 Mustang
2004 Mach 1

My 1972 Comet GT

Reply #19
Just stumbled across this. Great looking Comet.

My 1972 Comet GT

Reply #20
That's bitchin

Clean work

My 1972 Comet GT

Reply #21
Looks good Tom, how come no kenmore badges under the hood? lol
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]


My 1972 Comet GT

Reply #22
Thanks guys...

Quote from: Bob;448051
Looks good Tom, how come no kenmore badges under the hood? lol


Always chance of a comeback...


My 1972 Comet GT

Reply #23
Quote from: TurboCoupe50;448057
Thanks guys...



Always chance of a comeback...


yes sir,, nice rides as always you do great work.

questions on the Comet,
so there is no metal in the way under the car like a full k member, what are your thoughts on our cougs/birds?.

In your comet I think I see the rack/pinion ties the two sides of your car together and that's it.

I assume that motor even stock had more ponies than our fox's.
why did ford not tie the two sides of the car together with a kmember?

I am staring down into an empty engine bay and wonder what alternatives there are to "not" blocking off an oil pan on a 5.0.
making the oil pan easier to take out by dropping out the bottom.

My 1972 Comet GT

Reply #24
Quote from: jcassity;448114
yes sir,, nice rides as always you do great work.

questions on the Comet,
so there is no metal in the way under the car like a full k member, what are your thoughts on our cougs/birds?.

In your comet I think I see the rack/pinion ties the two sides of your car together and that's it.

I assume that motor even stock had more ponies than our fox's.
why did ford not tie the two sides of the car together with a kmember?

I am staring down into an empty engine bay and wonder what alternatives there are to "not" blocking off an oil pan on a 5.0.
making the oil pan easier to take out by dropping out the bottom.

LOL compared to a Fox Chassis this thing is a tin can, with a aluminum headed 5.0 weighs less than 3K Lbs...

What isn't shown in previous pictures are the firewall to shock/spring tower braces and the brace under engine that's affectionately known as a belly bar(only on 302 cars)... It's secured with one bolt on each side, likely doesn't perform much bracing...



In this one P/S hoses are laying on belly bar... Also no rack & pinion in sight, though it's a popular mod, the aftermarket offers kits that use the Mustang-II system...



Original HP for the 1971 models(first year for V8) was listed as 210 but that's a gross figure, real world HP through the asthmatic single exhaust and 2bbl carb, was no more than 150/160(no matter what you're told, there was NEVER a 4-bbl carb or 4-speed available as options for Mav/Comet)... Even that reduced to around 140 when net hp ratings were introduced in 1972 and Ford was trying to meet the new(for '70s) emissions standards... In I believe '75 Hp was as low as 129(No the good ole days weren't as great as we are often led to believe)...

For your Bird, I dunno if there is enough clearance with a aftermarket K member to remove pan in vehicle or not...

My 1972 Comet GT

Reply #25
A buddy of mine just sold a low mileage 72 Comet GT to a guy in Ohio.  I got to see it before it left, neat little car.

Great job on yours!
tbirdregistry.com
26480
27373

My 1972 Comet GT

Reply #26
Quote from: rodsterh;448131
A buddy of mine just sold a low mileage 72 Comet GT to a guy in Ohio.  I got to see it before it left, neat little car.

Great job on yours!


Thanks!!! Guess I haven't' been paying attention to this thread...

I did tidy up the plug ire routing, still plan on cutting a custom set...

I've got around 800 miles on it with no major failings, even took it to strip back in Aug...


My 1972 Comet GT

Reply #27
Quote from: TurboCoupe50;451414

I've got around 800 miles on it with no major failings, even took it to strip back in Aug...


So how fast did it go?
88 Thunderbird LX: 306, Edelbrock Performer heads, Comp 266HR cam, Edelbrock Performer RPM intake, bunch of other stuff.

My 1972 Comet GT

Reply #28
Quote from: thunderjet302;451425
So how fast did it go?


Don't ask, the peg leg 3.00 rear killed it..

Well OK, went 9.23@77.7, equates to a 14.4 1/4... With a good gear I'd think it'd go high 8s, still that's a far cry from the 8.40s(13.1) the Bird would run...

My 1972 Comet GT

Reply #29
Quote from: TurboCoupe50;451446
Don't ask, the peg leg 3.00 rear killed it..

Well OK, went 9.23@77.7, equates to a 14.4 1/4... With a good gear I'd think it'd go high 8s, still that's a far cry from the 8.40s(13.1) the Bird would run...

Ouch. Needs more gear big time. Even my tub-o-lard Thunderbird can pull 8.90s in the 1/8th mile on street tires (with a 2.2 60' :banana:)
88 Thunderbird LX: 306, Edelbrock Performer heads, Comp 266HR cam, Edelbrock Performer RPM intake, bunch of other stuff.