Modern Art Monday: Did Pure Vision Design just build the greatest Mustang ever?

pure vision designs 1966 ford mustang

On first glance, the 1966 Ford Mustang shown above appears to be a fairly standard machine with a few upgrades to the exterior. The Martini livery is tastefully done and the driving lamps are perhaps a love-it or hate-it touch. That chin spoiler looks great, however, and the car has a wonderful stance to it as it rolls down the road.

There’s more here, however… a lot more.

This Mustang has been built by the team at Pure Vision Design, and the car is clearly a stunner as you take in more of the photos (posted after the jump). It’s another in a string of stunners actually, as Pure Vision Design seems to consistently churn out amazing works of automotive art. These aren’t just lookers though, as the often hide hideously powerful hearts. Such is the case with this ’66… and the heart here might just make it one of the most amazing Mustang builds on the planet.

pure vision designs 1966 ford mustang rear

Pure Vision Design is calling it a Martini Racing T-5R. That alphanumeric designation is a nod to the brand of early Mustang shipped off to Germany. We won’t quibble with the naming though, because the mighty mill employed here is a blend of pure American and British Motorsports history. There’s no over-sized big block but rather the same style Ford four-cam V8 engine that used by Jim Clark in his Lotus 38. The very same car that won the Indianapolis 500 in 1965.

pure vision designs 1966 ford mustang engine

It’s a 250 cubic-inch unit that’s been pushed out to 291 cubic inches, and it produces 426 horsepower and 362 pound-feet of torque. This truly beautiful engine is paired with a four-speed manual gearbox courtesy of C & R Performance. Originally created for NASCAR use, this transmission was eventually banned due to weight. No, it’s not too heavy… it only weighs 63 pounds. In fact the car as a whole weighs in at just 2,900 pounds. Pair that engine and curb weight with the up-to-date brakes and suspension and you’re left with a classic Ford Mustang that’s ready to absolutely devour any road or track you place before it.

Of course, a build like this doesn’t come about cheaply. This ‘Stang falls into the If You Have To Ask category of can I afford it. No… you can’t and we can’t, and that’s a shame because it’s a road-going work of art. In fact, it might just be one of the best custom Mustangs we’ve ever seen. Anyone can slap a massive V8 between the fenders of a classic Mustang, add in some Shelby bits and call it a day. What Pure Vision Design have done instead is create something different and something very special.

Pay attention Tuner-ville, this is how it’s done.

[Source: MustangsDaily | Images used courtesy of Drew Phillips Photography*]

*hence why the images are amazing… there’s more of them at the MustangsDaily link too, so head over there for more information and photos


    1. I'm not too sure about the Martini Racing colors which were first used in 1971……I'd hoped they had a bit more imagination in color scheme dept.

    1. Exactly. The upsizing was far enough for performance but not too far, fortunately.

  1. Ordinarily I can't skip past Mustang posts fast enough but I'm glad I stopped to read this one. I need elucidating on that mill: I get that it's a 4 cam but it looks for all the world like a flat-8, opposed cylinders. The V is really wide and the intakes appear to breathe down the center of the heads which I know isn't what's happening here. Could someone clarify?

    1. if you have herd of f1 bck in th 70s you will have heard the name cosworth. the engine itself is a engineering feat, its two rs1800 ford escort blocks welded together to make a v8. yes the DFV (or duckworth for victory) 4 cam was a legendary ford f1 engine winning 4 f1 titles (i think?)

      1. Sorry dude, that is a myth. The engine was new from the ground up. Certainly Costin took a lot from the 1600 twinks and the BDA/G etc series. Butthe whole design was new – take a look at the journal webs and the details that made it so stiff.
        I was a sub con on the casting side

    2. Yes the intke ports do pass down between the camboxes. The idea goes back to BMW hemiheads of the late thirties, and the 1954 Mercedes GP cars.

  2. <img src="; width="600">
    The engine was originally a reverse flow head, with the intake being drawn through the center of the head between the cams and the exhaust coming out into the valley. This left plenty of real estate along the sides of the engine so they could mount the suspension closer to the engine to have longer suspension arms while maintaining overall width. This also made the exhaust easy to route, as they just ran both banks together into a bundle of snakes at the center and then out the back. This made for an extremely wide head, which is why the outside cams look opposed even though this is a 90 degree V8. It looks to me like they somehow reversed the heads to make the exhaust come out of the bottom of the heads like a standard V8.

    1. Also, if I'm recalling correctly, the 4-cam, Indy engine was developed, in house, by Ford. Lotus had nothing to do with its development.
      Having said that, the engine choice may be…no… IS the best part of this crazypants automobile.

      1. Yup it was pure Ford. Lotus made the chassis. I don't think Cosworth involved either. They do not talk about this engine
        But I would love to know how they got the exhuasts to exit underneath. Swap side for the heads? Which means they were designed symetrically.

  3. I guess I'll be the dissenter here – I absolutely love the powerplant, drivetrain, and the craftsmanship; everything else isn't pushing buttons for me. The front fascia looks a bit home-built for a car of this caliber and I'm just not sold on some of the other bits. The Martini stripes look great though. Just my opinion!

  4. Love it almost entirely. The engine choice is brilliant, wish there was video of it driving. I can only imagine how it sounds…
    I was completely sold until I saw the AutoMeter gauges. I can't understand why they would put so much effort into building the period image of the car and then not put Stewart Warner gauges in the car. Its blasphemous! (Also, they wasted a perfectly good opportunity for engine turning the gauge panel)
    <img src="; width="700">

  5. Steve Strope and his crew are brilliant. This car is just one example. I had the pleasure of a long conversation with him back in 2002, right before his Duster hit the magazines. He was gracious, interesting and full of ideas he spouted off during our talk.
    @fej: I can't quibble over the gauges as I prefer the black face of these, but I can't stand engine-turned panels around gauges./

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

The maximum upload file size: 64 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here