Prior to this sighting, it had been a long time since I had seen a classic, early first-generation Mustang parked on the street like this, exposed to the elements of Midwestern winter. While it is true that these cars are relatively plentiful as old cars go, it is still a classic Mustang, and inherently desirable for that. Covered or enclosed parking in Chicago can still be pretty expensive, though, depending on the area. If I was moving to Chicago from another state, had money for only one car, and had to choose between street-parking my prized ’66 Mustang or trading it for something else, I’d probably be like the owner of this example.
It has been brought up in the CC community in posts and comments how this first Mustang’s styling cues have been recycled often, with varying degrees of success. The beefed-up ’67s were shown some love last year, and I feel the current generation (introduced for 2015) is a gorgeous piece of rolling sculpture. I’ll also give a nod to the still-fresh 2005 through early-’09 generation which, to my eyes, represents the best combination of modern technology (save for the live rear-axle) and cleanly-styled, vintage Mustang flavor. The “favorite Mustang” conversation could go on for days.
What I realize, though, in reading many of the comments regarding the direction of the current Mustang’s styling is that there hasn’t been any truly all-new design language or groundbreaking reinterpretation of what “Ford Mustang” is supposed to mean perhaps since Jack Telnack’s new-for-’79 model. I acknowledge that the team of stylists responsible for each generation of Mustang had been given the (very) formidable task of creating something new while incorporating old themes. I think that with most redesigns, they had done a commendable job over the years, given these parameters.
For me, though, Mr. Telnack’s clean-sheet stylistic approach with the Fox-body at the very least yielded a design that while not exactly breathtaking like the original, was certainly modern, elegant, and very much in the spirit of the first cars. The handsome notchback was an outstanding return to form. Visually, the new ’79 was a much more low-key and perhaps “intelligent”-looking choice than its GM F-Body rivals which I concede were, by then, in their tenth year of production. Before any Camaro or Firebird fans call for the revocation of my CC card, I’d just like to remind readers that I still really like and would want a nice, late second-generation Camaro. My point is that it was to the third-generation Mustang’s advantage that its new looks weren’t overly dripping with machismo. In its initial form(s), the Fox-stang seemed athletic and admirably quiet about it.
Since ’94, we’ve been treated to a succession of Mustangs with tri-bar taillamp clusters, side-scallops (except for the most recent generation), and for many of those years, a wide-mouthed grille with a chrome pony in it – all elements which harken back to the first cars. The Mustang’s basic look and proportions have resonated with buyers in the United States for over fifty years – so much so that with the exception of the aforementioned Fox-body, it has never strayed too far from its well-established look.
What’s familiar can be comfortable, but the sense of novelty and genuine excitement that I imagine the original cars generated has long-since evaporated. Admittedly, no idea can be completely new more than once, and that time for the original “Ponycar” was about a decade before I was born. Still, I’d love to see a daring, new-style Mustang that is as much a departure from the current car as the 1970 Chevrolet Camaro was compared with the preceding model. (Sadly, the ’69 Camaro’s styling themes also appear to be stuck on repeat, though the ’16 model is still a good-looking car in my eyes.)
Like our subject ’66, trapped in an embankment of February’s ice, slush, and snow, I’m fairly certain the cues we have all come to associate with the Mustang aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. I’m not saying this is awful by any means, as I love the current car – in both fastback and convertible form. The early Mustangs came to define a new market segment (even if the Plymouth Barracuda beat it to market by sixteen days). I still lament, though, that it has been since all the way back in the fall of ’93 that I’ve laid eyes for the first time on a new-generation Mustang and gasped with some of the amazement and excitement that I imagine my mom and her fellow Baby Boomers did in the 1960’s. Who knows? It could still happen again.
Ravenswood, Chicago, Illinois.
Saturday, February 12, 2011.
Related reading:
- From Paul Niedermeyer: Cohort Outtake/QOTD: Mustang and Z-Car – Two Of The Most Influential Sporty Cars Meet; Which One Had The Greater Influence?; and
- Mustang Salute Finale CC: 1967 Mustang 2+2 Fastback – The Beginning Of The End Of The True Pony Car;
- From RetroJerry: COAL: 1979 Mustang Turbo – The “Old” “All New” Mustang;
- From Dave Skinner: Curbside Classic: 1974 Mustang Mach 1 – The Soul Survivor;
Given how prodigiously the first gen cars seem to rust, this picture makes me cringe – although any car that old may have been rebuilt several times over. (Especially as the owner of a 1967 model I am familiar with the rust monster.)
Same here. I bought a second hand ’67 in 1977 that looked really good, but I never looked underneath. I had to have frame rust repaired behind the passenger’s front wheel. When I replaced it with a new Phoenix in 1980, the next guy drove it another 4 or 5 years.
I always figured that if you lived in the right part of the country you could become a specialist in Floor Pan Replacements for 1st gen Mustangs.
We have a resto shop in Indy called the RRR Mustang Ranch that does pretty much nothing but Mustangs. I suspect that he has done a lot of floor pans and everything else below the door handles.
Unfortunately, you’ve got to look at the majority of the market for the current pony cars: Aging Boomers who are in the final years of deluding themselves that they’re still in high school, fit, sexy and ready to raise all sorts of hell. Which, of course, the vast majority of that population is not, but favorite illusions die hard.
To keep the illusion going, you’ve got to drive a car from the old days. And while ownership of a genuine 1970 Camaro, Mustang or Challenger would be wonderful; there’s this little matter of having to either wrench it on your own or find a mechanic who specializes in such cars (and isn’t determined to send his daughter to Harvard with every repair job that comes in). And parts are either found thru mail-order specialty businesses or breaker yards. Not exactly convenient when you have car trouble on Sunday afternoon and need to get to work on Monday.
So you go to the next best thing: A modern car that slavishly recreates that high school classic, or at least does thru the rose-colored glasses the purchaser is invariably wearing. And what do we end up with? A Challenger that’s a beautiful copy of the original, but needs to be dropped back to 3/4ths scale. A Camaro that seems to have permanently fixated itself on the 1969 model – but designed by a bored 10th grader sitting in the back of the classroom while teacher drones on and on. And a Mustang who’s last chance to sport completely original design language died in the foolish decision to try to switch the platform to front wheel drive.
I often wonder what would have happened had Ford taken what eventually became the Probe and kept it rear wheel drive on an updated Fox platform. At that point in time the customer base wasn’t demanding that the Mustang be a constant re-do of classic design elements, they were only horrified at the thought of FWD not being a real Mustang.
I have a feeling that the RWD “Probe” would have allowed the Mustang to develop like a Corvette: A car with a definite lineage and attitude of what is the proper car, without having to look so slavishly like the previous model.
And if you’re noting some bias here, yes I absolutely loathe the current generation (or is that two generations?) of Camaro, admire the Challenger but its too damned big (I can appreciate an exact copy more than a badly done “we’re not copying” copy), and am losing interest in the Mustang as it tries to evolve without having the courage to evolve.
You make a good point about the ages of those who remember cars like this Mustang back to when it was new. Sometimes we assume that values for the car will go up indefinitely, but if it is really an arc that will come back down to earth as these people die, than we should be near or past the peak for a car from 1966.
If this is true, the good news is that there is no harm done actually enjoying and using a plentiful classic like a 66 Mustang.
Cultures do exhibit certain patterns, & I have the impression that Americans don’t want to grow up, which explains a lot of things one sees & hears in our culture, even among retirees now. Remember hearing about one’s “Inner Child?” I think it stems from Pelagius’s or Rousseau’s idea that children are innocent. It certainly is convenient for corporate marketing.
Sometimes outsiders have clearer observations than natives. Back in the ’80s, I remember a satirical British columnist in Punch, ostensibly correcting stereotypes about “Beastly Foreigners,” saying, “Americans are quite astonishingly childlike.”
Oh, how that saying captures it for many, maybe not most Americans.
However, by the same token, but flipped to the other side: the British are often too ADULT for their own good.
This is a well-thought-out and accurate assessment.
For better or worse, cars like the Kia Soul or the Honda Fit are more in line with a modern day equivalent of the original Mustang. Vehicles like the Soul and Fit are what millennials are drawn to, rather than impractical space-inefficient coupes with zero luggage or cargo capacity, average economy and questionable traction in bad weather.
All of that notwithstanding, I agree with the spirit of Joseph’s lamentations. I miss coupes too. It’s been a good number of years since a new 2 door car showed up on the scene that piqued my interest. The truth, be it sad or otherwise, is that today a car needs to suit as many needs and as many foreseeable future needs as possible for it to make sense, and most folks in the market for a vehicle evocative of the “carefree fun cars” we all knew and loved back-in-the-day are buying them with their pension proceeds because, well…they can, and few of the rest of us can justify it. So, whether we like it or not it seems the only “fun, carefree, just-because” kind of cars we’re likely to see anymore are those that represent a re-visitation of another decade or those that are so exclusive and expensive that few of us can afford to daydream about them.
PS: Joseph Dennis, while this post lacks some of the fun throwback pop culture nods that some of yours have drawn me in with lately, the photography is great as always. There’s almost a “signature style” emerging in your cover shots and camera angles. It’s somehow both brooding and hopeful at the same time.
Speaking as a Millennial, The Fit and Soul are not the cars I’m drawn to, rather the space inefficient coupes you describe are more my taste. In fact, I actually would buy something along the modern retro muscle car, rather than cars like the Fit. The Challenger appeals to me very much in that regard.
The only reason millennials are “drawn” to cars like the Fit, is because they’re the only things we can afford to buy new. Between the ridiculously high expenses of college, the high insurance premiums for other class of cars for people my age, and the limited job opportunities we’re presented, even with college degrees, we’re severely handicapped in our purchasing choices and can only afford to buy used or buy the cheapest new cars on the lot, unless of course mommy and daddy are loaded and happy to pony up the cash for whatever new car you desire. I would love to have a Challenger to replace my Eldorado, but considering how high the insurance premiums would be for the V8, the fact I’m unemployed, and the fact that even used ones are 20k plus, its going to have to be a while unless I get lucky or win the lottery.
+1
As a Millennial I just sought out something older and subsequently more affordable that I actually liked. That’s what most millennials drawn to any car do. This also fuels the utterly false “millenials are not be interested in cars” trope – we’re not interested in more debt!
Gen Xer myself but it seems like there’s a lot of conflation of “I don’t want to buy a new car right now and take out yet another loan, this one on a depreciating asset” and/or “I want to live someplace where I don’t need to use a car every single time I go somewhere other than my own yard” with “I don’t want to have anything to do with cars, ever”. The first two mindsets are common, the last seems to exist mainly among NYC-based lifestyle writers.
There has always been a market for cleverly engineered usefulness, slow-but-fun cars, and “I want a car that works for me, not I for it!”
There’s also always been a market for something just a little bit flashier – full-size hardtops from the “Low-Priced Three” in the ’50s, base ponycars in the ’60s, the lower-end personal luxury in the ’70s and small CUVs today. I’m not sure where I fall in that camp – the Honda Fit appeals to me more than an HR-V; the former seems to have been designed to be the best tool for the job, the latter so obviously to appeal to a demographic. Less car for more money. I can’t honestly say if I’d have felt the same about Falcon vs. Mustang if I had been around back then. Maybe, maybe not.
BTW, it seems every teenager I know either wants to learn to drive stick or already has!
Very true assessment as far as I can tell. I’m late-Gen X myself (1980 model) but have a lot of friends within the millenial generation, and with one notable exception, it’s not “millenials hate cars” but more that other priorities have to take precedence. Personally “I want to live someplace where I don’t need to use a car every single time I go somewhere other than my own yard” has been a metric in my last two residences, and I’ve been a car guy all my life. One of the reasons I don’t have a garage was a tradeoff due to the desire to live in an at least somewhat walkable neighborhood.
And even the guy who loudly proclaimed to everyone how proud he was to not own a car (until he was forced to get one due to a job move) was pretty interested in my Volvo 780.
Syke, thoughtful counterpoints and insights like yours are why I love writing for CC. In fact, I’m wondering how a “CC Alternate Reality: RWD 1988 Ford Probe” post would read. I agree that while the FWD Probe wasn’t the correct answer for continuing the “Mustang” legacy (and admittedly, hindsight is 20/20), it’s styling – as you’ve pointed out – was probably the last attempt to define a Mustang by different styling cues than what we had been accustomed to.
To Garry M’s point below and MTN’s point above, cars just have so much safety equipment these days, that there will never be another truly fun, inexpensive, good-looking runabout like the original Mustang. Which is sad. I was checking out prices on a 2005 convertible on my lunch break, and it seems prices have now fallen to where one might actually make sense – if only I could find a place to garage it. 🙂
@MTN: Thank you for the kind words regarding my pictures.
Syke, how many Boomers owned new cars in H.S? And by that I mean ‘real’ people, not those with rich parents? I graduated in ’92. Sure there were some brand new 5.0s and Firebird Formulas, driven by the rich kids…and within 6 months, most of those were wrecked. The lucky ones had old school cars, some of which were muscle cars. The REALLY lucky ones got cool cars bought in tired condition and restored as father and son/daughter projects…some of which were really sharp. In the late 80s and early 90s, many of these cars were VERY attainable. Mustangs, especially so. As I noted down below, some of the modern ponies and really clean classics are Boomer-owned. But I see a LOT of both driven by X’ers and Millenials. Even if you go talk to drivers of fart-canned Civics, some of them are import enthusiasts..which is ok. But many are just having fun with what they can afford right now, while they have their eye on classics. Old school American muscle is timeless. It appeals to all walks of life.
Not many. At my high school (class of ’68) the student parking lot was about 50 cars (senior class was approximately 250), and most of them were driving whatever the parents had at home. I got to take the family ’67 Camaro RS to school twice, the last two days of my senior year. Otherwise I was on the bus.
I probably should have said that the Boomers nowadays are attempting to live up to the life they wished (or thought, for the more delusional) they had back in high school. Cars were around, but nothing like I was seeing in school parking lots in the 80’s or 90’s.
I’m guessing the real target for these neo-pony cars are the tail-end boomers who were in high-school in the 1970s. Sixties muscle was dirt-cheap and undesirable then and many kids picked up a Boss Mustang or a GTO Judge.
Originally, many muscle cars were sold to guys who got a bonus for being honorably discharged from the Vietnam war. So not high school, but a very young demographic.
I’m only a few years older than you MR74, and I’d disagree about how attainable these old pony/muscle cars were. By 1990, a 1966 Mustang would have either been a total heap or would have already been restored. I knew several kids whose dad owned nice 1960s muscle cars and they were garage queens. You didn’t see these cars on the street or in the HS parkinglot, unless it was the prom or something.
The teenager sweetspot back then was early Fox-body Mustangs. Buy a cheap V6 model, replace the engine with a junkyard 5.0, and you were good to go. That and old Monte Carlos, which in my hood were considered “muscle cars”.
Nicely said. The Mustang’s design cues do seem to be preserved in amber. Golden handcuffs due to the eternal popularity of the car.
Syke’s points are interesting as well. The Mustang has clearly kept its basic proportions and many of its design cues current and marketable. Will these proportions and details still resonate with younger buyers? An interesting question – is there such a thing as an “objectively good” design that every generation will recognize as attractive? Or is design ultimately cyclical so that once the boomers are no longer buying in sufficient numbers, the “Mustang Look” will disappear. I don’t know the answer.
Whether or not it will resonate with younger buyers really is the prime question. Back in the 90’s and probably all the way into the 2005 generation, V6 Mustangs seemed to be a popular “first new car” purchase given the numbers of younger folks, more women than men, that could be seen driving them. And the V8 models attracted quite a few young guys, even if they had to stretch financially to get into one. Not high school kids (except for those with rich parents) but people in their early to mid 20’s who might have traded up from their college beater. But since the financial crisis, even given the recovery, those types of Mustang buyers seem to be less common. The new one is a fabulous machine and less overtly “retro” than were the previous two generations, but most people I see driving them have appeared mid 30’s and up.
Having rebuilt a rusty ’65 myself, I can recognize a situation that is fraught with peril. I hope the owner came to his/her senses soon after this picture was taken. Probably two salty winters will push one of these over the edge.
Syke, that was a pretty accurate commentary on the state of the current ponycars. I, too, was disappointed that the new Mustang wasn’t more stylistically daring. Ford may have the last laugh, however, because they seem to be selling well.
Although I was raised GM, I purchased a low miles 66 coupe (43K) with a 6 and Cruise-O-Matic. My first order of business was to use a hammer to confirm condition of the torque boxes. Thankfully they were solid and the body showed only a dime sized hole in the passenger quarter. Once cleaned up this car drove like a sweetheart and was a pleasure to look at any angle.
Part of the problem with many iconic models of cars on the market is “fans” who insist “their” car should incorporate certain features/design cues and designers who are cowed by the fans or corporate management (usually the latter) to do anything but keep refining the same old design.
Consider the car, laughingly called Mini. Since they originally were produced with center mounted instrument pods, each new model retains that center pod….but makes it bigger and bigger.
Fans of the Mustang, and to a lesser extent the Corvette, insist on certain design cues….or it’s not a Mustang (or Corvette).
Personally, I like the newest Mustang though it looks huge. The part I don’t care for is the dashboard….that was modeled on 60s Mustang dashboards a bit too slavishly.
“…the third-generation Mustang’s advantage that its new looks weren’t overly dripping with machismo.”
I think this was a big reason for the appeal of the original. It could be a mild-mannered secretary’s car or, with the right accouterments, a bad-ass hot rod. The problem with more recent Mustang designs is that they answer only to the bad-ass end of the spectrum. I don’t find any of them appealing; when I look at them what I mostly see is desperation.
That could be due to the collapse of the moderately-priced (and performing) sport-coupe market typified by the 4-cyl Celica & Prelude. Nowadays, even Britons are shunning the more tax-friendly 4-cyl Mustang & prefer the expensive, tire-burning V8, contrary to Ford’s expectations.
BTW, secretaries have been largely replaced by “admins,” whom I assume are more highly-paid.
Good point—there are few ordinary coupes available to be rodded out. Which leads me to wonder, what was the last 4-door to be successfully transformed from a bland sedan into a convincing hot rod in recent decades? I don’t mean simply performance-wise, but image/styling-wise. Maybe the ’94-96 Impala SS, featured a few days ago here on CC.
WRX
Lancer EVO, although its look is now a little long in the tooth, as they haven’t changed the Lancer since 2008. The current one more or less looks like my wife’s 2009…
The Gen F HSV GTS (with the LSA s/c 6.2) really picked up sales and with all the latest gizmos reportedly had a lot of European performance car owners trading. The basic Commodore is pretty athletic to start with, but pretty mild-mannered in base trim.
Impala SS (RWD), Marauder, WRX, Lancer EVO, G8 (though we never got the “bland” version in the US so that may or may not count).
Stretching the definition of “bland” by a lot, the CTS-V is one heck of a transformation from “comptetent luxury/sports sedan” to “fire-breathing factory hot rod”.
I agree with what you say and Syke’s comments. I’ve been a Mustang fan since 1964. I briefly owned a bench seat 66 Notchback (right car, wrong time) and some Fox body cars including an 84 convertible still in my possession.
When the 79 model came out it was a big sales success coming off the previous Pinto based car. I had to have one and bought a Cobra with turbo and TRX suspension. The early Fox cars sold so well because of their appeal to a number of customer types. Its design was right for the times as it still had some traditional styling cues.
Yes, die-hard Mustang enthusiasts helped keep the Mustang RWD when the Probe was on the Horizon. The flood of letters to Ford and in Mustang publications saved us from what could have been a FWD disaster.
Going with retro cues in 2005 was a bit cheezy but understand how the SN95 and New Edge models were slightly off the mark in execution never mind being based on a modified Fox platform. I own a 2003 V6 coupe and its nice, but of course a GT would be a little more fun. But I don’t need the V8.
So for the 50th anniversary car the Mustang design team was feeling the pressure as noted in the book; Mustang 2015 and in a new video now on Netflix documenting the development of the 2015 model. The book is okay, the video documentary really shows the sweat, angst and amount of work that goes into developing such an iconic model. They did a good job, but I’m disappointed in the size of the Mustang. It needs to shrink as the new Camaro has done. Certainly not easy these days with the amount of safety equipment needed to meet regs. I drove a GT for a week last summer and enjoyed myself, but felt the car is still aimed too much at those people who want to drag race or put in some track time.
I wouldn’t call the Probe a disaster…I owned one and it was without question a better car than my previous Mustangs. But it probably wouldn’t still be around today in that form.
Agreed, Phil – my ’94 Probe was a better car than my ’88 Mustang 2.3L, so no, it was hardly a disaster.
Garry, great insight, and I’ll need to check out the book you referenced. I also agree that the size of the 2015 Mustang is slightly off-putting. I’m sure Ford buyers rejoiced when the Mustang got most substantial with the ’79 redesign, but I’m sure more than a few groaned when it was apparent the ’15 was bigger, again.
I do really like the ’15, though – a buddy I met up with in Flint last summer had rented a *V6* and that car had so much power when he floored it. It was crazy.
Perhaps not the best choice of words. Agreed the Probe was a well executed car, but as a Mustang, no because the Probe was a different car for a different type of buyer.
I, too, cringe when I see vehicles like this out in inclement weather, as I am well aware of their rust history. This part of the Upper Midwest hasn’t had much snow this year, but there have been enough sleet / freezing rain occurrences that the salt trucks have been kept busy. Some days the streets are just white.
Picking up my daughter from her high school a few weeks ago on one of these “white street” days I saw this…
Yup. I was driving the Miata pretty regularly into January (before we had any snow/salt) but it has stayed indoors since. There is still a shit-ton of salt on the pavement around here, and we need a good hard rain or two to wash it off. Then the fun cars can come out and play.
I’ve actually been driving the Dirty Dart on some dry, warmer days. A few teaspoons of dry salt aren’t going to make anything worse there. The nicer cars stay in until the roads get a good washing.
I remember when the 1994 ‘Stang came out with that ‘It is what it was’ tagline…I laughed my ass off! A chrome horsey badge, 3 lenses and some hokey side vents attempting to tie that blob into the classic ’60s era car was beyond ridiculous. The Fox car looked nothing like the originals either…but it was clean, stylish and right for the times. Granted the BlobStang was definitely right for its time as well but this was an era where everything was touchy-feely. As a result, most cars came out looking not like machines forged from metal, but the fetus of the whales we were always being told we should save…remember that?
Even in gearhead-challenged West TN, Mustangs of any vintage were very desireable. And yet, you could score one of the 60s vintage ones fairly reasonable…they were old cars, but not THAT old. A pristine 289 powered notch wouldn’t set you back much more than $5-7K in the early 90s. Foxes were also the thing to have, if more modern cars were your bag.
Ive noticed the clichés about how the modern ponies are all for aging Boomers. Sure, that set has embraced them. But I notice just as many, if not more are piloted by GenXers and older Millenials. My Boomer parents didn’t have new cars in H.S, although they did after graduating and landing a decent job. When I was in H.S, muscle cars and their lesser variants were very attainable. So to those of us between 30 and 50-ish, the current ponies’ retro looks are very much relevant. I definitely remember when the ’05 Mustang came out and how ‘right’ that car looked. Still does.
I certainly don’t mind the retro themes the muscle cars stick to, as long as they can stand on their own compared to the original. The Challenger may be a carbon copy of the original, but it still looks great in the modern context in which its made. I used to hate the Camaro next to the 67-69 models (I always hated the 1970 restyle myself), but they have grown on me somewhat, and I can at least respect some of the cues. The Mustang on the other hand, is just stuck in the past, and that’s not an indictment of the people who made the car, but rather the car itself. In my opinion, the Mustang has become a cliché, the all American icon of the automotive world that’s still coveted. But it’s also become stale and boring, the Mustang doesn’t elicit any excitement anymore because it’s become so ingrained in our culture, we can’t change it to radically lest we destroy the image. So we have to keep up the idea of what it’s “supposed” to be, and it can never evolve, so its stuck to repeating the first gen for god knows how long.
Of course, this is just the perspective of a jaded individual, the Mustang has become trite and tired in my eyes. Not helped by the constant nostalgic waxing and the near unanimous praise that nearly all of the generations get. Ironically enough, I find the lesser known and less iconic muscle and pony cars of the 60s, your GTOs, 442s, GSXs, and Barracudas, invariably more interesting and exciting than the dime a dozen and over glorified icons of days past. Really, the only Mustang I’ve been able to like, is the controversial Clydesdale 71 Mach 1s, and that’s only because its so invariably different than from what came before or after.
I have to disagree with many here that say the retro look of the last two generations of Mustang are disappointing, but my opinion is biased as my handle here and choice of car would indicate. When the concept car came out, and I saw one at an auto show, I was happy that the Mustang, actually looked like a Mustang again. While yes, the interior is over the top retro on my 2007 (it screams 1967), it is still a very nice car and makes an excellent daily driver.
Personally, like many here, I REALLY miss coupes. You used to be able to get a coupe in any size. Quite frankly, although I love my Mustang, I prefer a T-Bird sized ‘personal luxury car’, but that segment is now gone, unless you can afford a Bentley. So what are we left with at Ford if you want a rear wheel drive coupe? You guessed it.
There has been some modernization. There are many Mustang enthusiasts that scoffed almost as loudly as they did with the FWD ‘Probe’ idea, that kept that stupid Live Rear Axle alive WAY past its usefulness… That’s the one complaint I have about my car. After driving independent rear suspension T-Birds for many years, having a rear suspension that bounces when you go around a curve on a rough road sucks… but you get used to it. Thankfully, the new 2015-16 car has IRS, and I am looking forward to how that feels if I can ever afford to buy one.
To the last point some were making about the rust monster or tin worm… I love the colorful terms here ;o)… Here’s how you avoid it…. Wash the car immediately after the snow is over and you put the car away. I live in Maryland where the paranoia over snow is such that at the first sign of flurries, they are treating the roads here. It’s frustrating if you like your car kept clean. But in all the years I have been driving here, and in all my father’s years before me, neither one of us has ever had a car rust. EVER. Even the 73 LTD, which from what I understand was the decade where everyone here says cars rusted after three years, the car still looked good into the early eighties.
It really is possible to use a car as a daily driver and have it look like a garage queen, even if you have never had a garage… With just about 163,000 miles, I present a very recent picture of my 2007 Mustang… with yes, no rust even though its now working on its 9th winter, out in the cold…
Here’s a shot taken between the twin snowstorms of 2010 known around here as “Snowmageddon”. It was a four day window to get the car clean after one storm (and yes, I was driving around in the salt) and the second storm that hit…
One more pic and I’ll get off my soapbox… (and thanks in advance for humoring me, guys ;o)… This shot was taken on November 24, 2015… 8 years after the car was put in service… So yes, you can keep a daily driver nice, even in the elements…
We get a lot of salt here in Indiana too, even though I live in the southern part where we get a lot less snow than the northern parts of the state do. I live on a four way stop in our town which a lot of people pass through every day. I hear a lot of jokes from people about me being the guy who is always washing his car. Of course my cars usually look nice and shiny and over the years I have had very few rust problems. In fact, I am going to be washing mine and my wife’s cars this afternoon.
Funny you should mention that, Rick… I’m on my way outside to wash my cars as well. We have a nice stretch of weather ahead, and the past few days of torrential rains have washed the salt away… Finally! ;o)
Great minds think alike. LOL
We also had the rains, which we sent your way and they did a good job of cleaning the streets. However, our town also uses a lot of sand too. That makes for a lot of dust. It also makes it dangerous for riding my motorcycle. It is going to sit in the garage until they start running the street sweeper, probably next week.
We are going to meet our daughter and her family for dinner in a town 25 miles away. It will be interesting to see how much dust collects on the back bumper top. I am sure you know what I mean.
Two bodystyles is the biggest thing I dislike about the Retro stangs, and 94-04 to lesser extent(they’re sort of a notchback fastback). As much of a point there can be made about the throwback details being gospel to it’s detriment, I think the utter lack of options is worse, consolidating all upgrades essentially to the GT package.
I always liked the notchback Mustangs in this 64-68 period, almost equally as much as the fastback and vastly more than the vert. The Fox generation I outright prefer the notch to the hatch as well. But pretty much the only choice for a Mustang is a vert, which are no fun with high beltlines, and a fastback, which just sully the specialness of the old ones.
Plus my biggest gripe with the retro styling is it looks like a 67 was shrunken down to Micro Machine scale, and then scaled back up to 1:1 keeping the distorted proportions of the initial shrink. The 94-04s at least had a proper aspect ratio in their proportions, the dash to axle improved with the 05 but it’s side profile reminds me more of a slammed and chopped Explorer SUV than it does a Mustang. The throwbacks on top of it like round headlights and three tier taillights just look like rush jobs, both come off as too soft and cute, Mustangs used to look aggressive from the back, the newer ones(05+) look like they’re smiling at me
how does he keep this from getting vandalized/sideswiped/stolen etc.
I hate to see cars like this parked on the street.
Interesting about all this talk about generations and what is desirable at what point in time. Some of my forum members take issue with me saying that the car collecting baby boomers have reach apogee and now it is downhill with us and our cars. I don’t see further appreciation of cars form the 60’s and 70’s much into the future. Have had two people I know at 59 and 60 die from sudden heart attacks in supposedly a generation that tried to be healthy. They had no cars to all of a sudden hit the market but one day many will.
Another person I know, with 12 cars and some high end Mopars, was told by his financial advisor that he needs to start thinking about thinning out the herd before what may come. He was livid but the advisor is right. Then today Time Magazine arrives with an appropriate cover story which you should all read. Paul should have seen it and what it means for the future of cars.
As for the Mustang above I would think it’s biggest threat on the street is not the weather but a tow truck in the dead of night making off with the car.
I had a co worker who bought a nice 66 Mustang on Ebay and had it shipped to Montreal. She had a mechanic get it road worthy and then proceeded to drive it year round in our winter salt slush and snow. She was old enough to remember when cars rusted out in 6-7 years but genuinely seemed to have no clue that she was going to destroy her Mustang. “I had it treated with rustproofing oil, it will be fine.”
2nd Year all the bondo starts cracking off the car and brown rust stains start appearing all over. Last I spoke to her she was really upset that all the quotes she was getting for repairing the rust and repainting the car were around $9000-$10000.
Sheesh…that must have been painful to watch. What a waste.
Sounds like it wasn’t that nice a Mustang after all…
I wonder if the subject car has had a repaint with attention paid to all the usual rust traps? If so I would be a lot more comfortable parking it outside than if it was still original.
Yep, I am a Boomer and have heard people try to analyze why people drive Pony cars since I bought my first used ’67 Mustang in 1971. I even have friends who are surprised that I still drive that kind of car. I currently own a ’66 coupe and a ’09 coupe and have owned various Mustangs and other coupes most of my driving life. I am not trying to relive some kind of teenage fantasy, going through some kind of midlife crisis or making up for some kind of perceived inadequacy. There are some of us who drive what we like, enjoy doing it and really don’t care what others think.
Exactly. My 03 coupe is the right size for driving around the city and a nice highway car. Fox body cars I’ve had over the years were a step up from compact cars I didn’t want to drive in an urban environment. The 84 convertible will be a summer car I can enjoy with the grandchildren.
I also get that ” well, what are you going to drive in winter?” business from people. I just tell them I am careful where I go and if need be, put some weight in the trunk to help out. Given my history with these, I am fully aware of the limitations of Mustangs, but don’t care. I used to drive small pickups on my job and they were lousy in snow , too unless you put weight in the back.
I have told friends that I will drive this type of car as long as I can crawl into it.
Incidentally, the ’03 coupe I had before the ’09 was by far the best car I have ever owned. I ran up 228K miles in 5 years with almost no repairs. I sold it to a nice family for their high school kid and he drove it all through college and then his brother used it for a couple of years. They still have it with 280K miles on it, but the engine is about shot. They also think it is a great car and has given them good service. That is one of the few cars I have owned that I would like to have back if I had a place for it.
My 66 Coupe in the dead of winter out west. I have about 4 layers of covers on it. I’ve “stored” it like this for about 20 years now and it comes out just fine in the spring. Wish I had a bigger toy box for my cars.