• Hey Guest!
    British Car Forum has been supporting enthusiasts for over 25 years by providing a great place to share our love for British cars. You can support our efforts by upgrading your membership for less than the dues of most car clubs. There are some perks with a member upgrade!
    **Upgrade Now**
    (PS: Upgraded members don't see this banner, nor will you see the Google ads that appear on the site.)
Tips
Tips

Bullitt

Share this page

G

Guest

Guest
Guest
Offline
Why did Steve McQueen double-clutch so much in the movie Bullitt? Doing this in a long-stroke-slow-revving TR6 seems an exercise in futility. (By the way, the Charger kicked his butt) How many times have I missed and accidentally jambed second without the clutch. Not good. [As if. My car is still on jack stands. Maybe Christmas.]

Bill
 
I was watching Bullitt the other day and wondered the same thing. I'm guessing its sound track added cuz the editor thought it was needed.
 
Because it was cool?
The chase scene wasn't intended to mimic reality. The predominate sound throughout the chase was his exhaust. So why not a few more of those musical exhaust notes we all love.
Did you notice the amount of axle hop when he did a burnout? I doubt the car would have made more than one or two jumps without having some reinforcement to the suspension and chassis. My guess is the rear suspension was intended to hop. Again for the dramatic impact on the audience.
How many of you roll down your window to hear the exhaust note from a well tuned engine? Triumph, Jag, Ferrari, MGB(ok that's a little weak)Porsche, Harley, Mustang?
One final comment. The Charger only appeared to be kicking his butt. We all know the big block Mustang had it all over that taxi cab.
 
I could be wrong here, but I seem to remember reading that the sound of the engine you are hearing is not the Mustang, but actually a GT40. This assumes that everything you read on the internet is true...

A quick search reveals this text from a Mustang site (www.ponysite.de):

"The movie audio of the Mustang at high speed is not the actual sound of the car. Apparently, the editors dubbed in the sound of a Ford GT-40 at speed. This explains the multiple upshifts and double-clutching; the GT-40 had a 5-speed non-synchro ("crashbox") transmission.
There are times in the film when we hear the actual sound of the fastback. For example, when McQueen drives the car to his apartment (before the chase) and backs the car into a parking space. Also, when he starts the car and first leaves the car wash with the mobsters in tow. And pretty much all the shots leading up to when the Charger screeches away at the intersection.
To achieve that sound, the car had a modified version of the stock 390 exhaust system, according to my research. In 1968, big block Mustangs -- and all Shelbys -- came with a transverse muffler mounted behind the rear axle. That muffler is a crossflow design, similar to the muffler on hi-po Camaros of the same era. Ahead of the muffler and the axle were a pair of resonators in the sections of pipe right under the floor. Those resonators were essentially small glasspack mufflers. You can see a diagram of this system in most Mustang mail order catalogs.
What Max Balchowski seems ot have done is simply remove the transverse muffler and run a pair of tailpipes out the back. It's essentially a straight system with two small glasspacks. I have recreated this on my replica, using 22" glasspacks from a local muffler shop, and the sound is pretty close, judging by audio recordings I've made. However, you need to keep in mind that a 289 and a 390 sound quite different. I've never really cared for the way a small block sounds with glasspacks, the exception being the early Shelby GT-350s, which used Tri-Y headers with a much throatier sound.
 
They say you should never questions someones taste in women or challenge their political beliefs. Perhaps we should add their taste in exhaust music.
My one and only motorcycle was a Harley Sportster. With straight pipes (except at inspection time) The sound of a Harley is still one of my favorites. For awhile in the late '70s and early '80s Harleys were scarce. I considered it a treat to hear one rumble up to a light. I turned down the music and rolled down the window.
Today it seems like everyone but me has a Harley. I'll admit the sound is not as special when it is so common, but it still sounds good to me. How's this? Add a P51 Mustang to the list and we'll call a truce?
 
Hello all,

I know I enjoyed the sound track very much, and its certainly sounded like a track engine. Double declutching upwards is not helped by blipping the throttle, a natural lift is what's required but it is make believe so who cares.

Bill, you might like to try my method, say fourth to third, lift off and slip the gear lever into neutral (no clutch, if you judge it right there is no load on the transmission), dip the clutch and throttle at the same time then engage third. In fact, if you get all your revs just right there is not even any need to touch the clutch, but hard on the gearbox if you are wrong.

Alec
 
[ QUOTE ]
Bullitt rules. I think the car's name was Ellanor or something like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

The first "Eleanor" reference to a Mustang that I am aware of is from the Original Gone in 60 Seconds. Where "Eleanor" was the name assigned as a code name to a Yellow '73 Mach 1 Mustang by the car thieves. Then when the Nicholas Cage re-make hit the theaters the name reference took off with the 67/68 body style fastbacks and all the clones of the Nic Cage movie car. The female name thing in Nic Cages movie was taken directly from the Original movie that I believe was made in 1973 or 1974.

I've only ever heard of the car in Bullitt referred to as the "Bullitt" car.

At least that's how I recall it.

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cheers.gif
 
Number 1 - The 1968 Mustang GT & Regular Mustang (There were two used, pay attention) were not named. Eleanor is the name of a 1967 Shelby GT500 that was used in Gone in 60 Seconds Remake, as was already pointed out. He is also correct as to the original Mustang Mach 1.

Number 2 - The Charger was the faster car. Here are the specs for both cars as they were:

1968 Ford Mustang GT 390 (The faster of the 2 used)
325HP 390CID V8
4sp. Manual

1968 Dodge Charger RT
375HP 440-6pack
727 Automatic

In their stock states the Charger not only had a higher top end, it had a very slightly better power to weight ratio.

On top of that the 727 Automatic transmission, is still known as one of the best transmissions(auto or manual) built, as far as performance and reliability are concerned.

The Charger if souped up was very open to modifications on the 440, as a few minor tweaks would put it in the low 400's. The Mustang if souped up with the same level of mods, would still only be in the mid to high 300's. Not that that is bad, but it is still less.

Remember, even though it was a cool car, and you want the good guy to have the better car, the Charger was a lot better car. The Mustang was a cheap car with a nice engine that could haul, but the Charger was a higher end car; it cost more(about a $1000 more!) and had more stuff on it to make it nice. A more equivalent ride to the Mustang would have been a 383 Charger or a 383 Roadrunner.

GT6
 
[ QUOTE ]
By the way, the Charger kicked his butt

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, from what I've read, in reality it was the other way around... Harley's sound like my roto-tiller X2. I don't understand how running open pipes on those things can sound good. To each their own I guess. Now a bigblock Ford with open headers, that's a different story! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]

Number 2 - The Charger was the faster car. Here are the specs for both cars as they were:

1968 Ford Mustang GT 390 (The faster of the 2 used)
325HP 390CID V8
4sp. Manual

1968 Dodge Charger RT
375HP 440-6pack
727 Automatic

In their stock states the Charger not only had a higher top end, it had a very slightly better power to weight ratio.
GT6

[/ QUOTE ]

GT6,
I think your data is a little off -- a '68 Mustang and a '68 Charger have an almost identical power to weight ratio -- with the Mustang just slightly ahead at 8.02 pounds per HP to the Charger's 8.27 pounds per HP. A Charger is just slightly over 500 pounds heavier than a Mustang Fastback. (The ratio is similar for comparing six-cyl base cars or eight cyl R/T vs. GT cars.)

Furthermore, something that my readers often forget is that "faster" is relative to the type of race course. On a curvy area, the Charger's torsion bar suspension is a real liability. (Yes, I know ChyslerCorp claimed it was better for hard cornering, but for quick turns it simply wasn't so.) Depending on rear axle ratio, of which there were many in the Charger, a straight line race could either way. The base ratio was pretty lazy, and didn't offer a Sure-Grip rear. That being said, Bullitt's Mustang gave us a one-tire-fire as well.

In the last year, I've driven a Charger R/T 440 and a '68 Mustang -- both stock, for profiles in my column. While neither are my cup of tea in terms of driving dynamics, the Mustang was far quicker, and faster overall.
 
I too caught Bullitt the other night just before the chase scene. I had just chased my 12 yr old off to bed, but called him to come & watch the scene. I told him it was one of the top chase scenes ever made.

He seemed to enjoy it & an extra 1/2 hr of staying up wasn't a problem for him either! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
Trying not to get sucked into this one....

Aw heck...I agree with Sammy, plus I think the more equivalent comparison to the Mustang from Mopar would not be a small block Charger at all, but a completely different platform, like the Challenger. The Stang was a unibody car and the Charger body on frame, or what would be considered a full sized car. The Challenger and Stang were both "pony cars". Had the movie been shot using a 428 car there wouldn't be any room for this discussion. The Stang would have owned the Charger, period. My dad ran that very race many times against his Mopar fanatic best friend, and won every time. Muscle car magazine quotes a 68 440 charger as running the quarter in 13.8 at 98.3mph, while a 428CJ Stang ran a 13.1 at 108 (this seems a bit to good to me, and I couldn't find data for a 390 car). Then of course they could have bumped the Charger to a hemi (which ran a 13.5 at 101 according to the same source), and on and on. Isn't that what they call strategic escalation? Of course, as Sammy says, quarter mile times and published output numbers only mean so much.

Having owned a 67 fastback with a 390 (auto not stick) I can tell you that, while not as quick as the later FE motors like my dads 69 428 Cobra Jet Mach1, the 390 can still move when it wants to. Add an aftermarket carb and intake, good headers and exhaust, and a nice cam and it can really fly. Get rid of the peg leg rear and drop in a nice 3.73 trac-lok and look out. Straight line top end I'd say yes, the Charger might get the edge with both cars in stock trim due to better breathing and longer legs, but a twisty in city slice and dice as depicted in the movie I'd put money on the Stang every time, especially with the 4 speed.


[ QUOTE ]
Now a bigblock Ford with open headers, that's a different story!

[/ QUOTE ]

Been there, done that, got the complaints from the neighbors to prove it. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/nonono.gif
 
Dotanukie brings up a point I was going to make before my two-year old forced me to end my last post...You simply don't get a feel for how HUGE a Charger is until you're standing next to it. Sure the '67 Mustang restyle makes it larger than the original '65 design, but it is tiny in comparison. The 'stang has a 108" wheelbase versus the Charger's 117".

The Charger wasn't even a muscle car, being a full-sized coupe (and an expensive, rather luxurious one, at that.) It was the platform for NASCAR.

Even the Challenger/'Cuda -- considered a pony car by classification, really was much larger than both the Camaro/Firebird and Mustang/Cougar.

Although the values for Mopars are absolutely nuts, they really never had much success anywhere other than the drag strip. Even the Chargers did horribly in NASCAR until the Charger 500s, because (as to quote my article on the LeMay Museum's Charger) "the recessed grill and tunneled rear window gave aerodynamic properties of a sheepdog in a Velcro factory."

In a year on the Trans Am circuit, the Challengers performed horribly! (Even with the great Sam Posey behind the wheel.)
 
Bill,
Good thread, stimulating discussion.
It appears that the majority are in favor of the Mustang being the faster car. It's not so much that the good guy drove the mustang as the bad guys dressed in black. The sinister black Charger with that huge American muscle car look fit the role. As for which was portrayed as faster in the movie it has to be the Mustang. After he spun out in the dirt he quickly made up the distance to deal a death blow to the criminals. One of which was implied to be a professional driver during that brief scene where he tightened his driving gloves.
Back to the Harley for a moment. The stock mufflers on the 1000cc Sportster were very restrictive. I never realized how restrictive until I replaced them with a set of straight through drag pipes. A friend and I took the bike to a long straight stretch of road for "testing". I am not into side stepping clutches or popping wheelies on motorcycles. So my starts were not hole shots. I did have the front end come off the ground when I hit second. That in itself was pretty amazing. My friend was concerned that he may have been a little hard on the machinery and was reluctant to say what happened to him until I mentiond the second gear jump. He had the front end come up in 3rd gear. That may not seem like much today with all of the unreal street bikes available. To put it in perspective, at the time Kenny Roberts was one of the top racers in the world. He rode for the factory Yamaha Team in the big bike class. I don't think Super Bike had been coined yet. His ride was a 3 cylinder 750cc (I think). Top tuners were pulling a gargantuan 120 HP from this engine. That hardly raises an eye brow in todays world but it was astronomical in the early '70s. Between accelleration, handling and youthful balls to the wall stupidity I was able to beat everything on our "road course". The course covered about 60 miles of the twistiest low access back roads in southern New Jersey. The competition included various 750cc Hondas including a super sport, Triumph 650 and 750cc, a rotary powered Susuki and several other Sportsters. The only bike that was faster was a BMW R90S. And it was only faster on the long straights. It was a heck of a lot faster.
The straight pipes really releases a bunch of HP. As for the noise it wasn't that bad. In town if you ran one gear higher than normal the engine would only fire about twice every block. I drove right pass numerous police cars without and problems. When you really got on the gas it was quite loud. One friend said it reminded him of a big block Chevy with open pipes? Cruising was not loud either. The trade off for a little noise during hard accelleration to gain a bunck of HP was more than worth it.
After seeing the improvement on the Harley I put a header on my TR6. It didn't have any where near the same affect.
 
Story I heard was McQueen was rather upset by the directors choice to add all the "blips" on the upshifts. Especially when all his racing buddies were ribbing him about it, just like the opening question to this post.
If you watch the movie close you'll notice that almost all of the "secondary" cars are 67 Fords. Mainly the Galaxie/ Fairlane styles. I always get a kick out of that as my 2nd car was a '67 Galaxie fastback.
My vote is that they used the Mustang because Ford made them a good offer to "star" thier cars. I doubt it had much to do with which car was faster.
 
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, the Charger was a unibody car as well

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, you are correct sir, I was mistaken. Thanks /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
Back
Top