Ford was hot on new trends during the sixties. The Falcon, T-Bird, Continental, Mustang and LTD all plowed new ground in their respective categories. and although Ford didn’t exactly instigate the Great Fastback Epoch, it sure embraced it with a vengeance. No other company adopted the swoopy back so quickly and so comprehensively; every size Ford sprouted a fastback, from the little Pinto and Maverick to the great big Galaxie 500 XL. It’s almost surprising there wasn’t a fastback Lincoln. Of course, Ford was trying to make the most of its Le Mans racing successes with its very fastback GTs, more blatantly with the 1969 Mustang than the rest. But looks can be deceiving.
Before we get to that, let’s take in the source of the Mach 1′s styling inspiration. The 1966 Ford GT40 was as spectacularly successful on the track as it was in its ability to convey the essence of GT racing of the time: just the bare minimum to still be nominally usable on the street; the last of its kind that could say that. Raw, lean and exuding pure power and speed, a classic that Ford eventually couldn’t resist recreating.
The 1969 Mustang had a new body for 1969, although it rode on the same platform as its 19667-1968 predecessor. That car, as defined by the Bullitt-mobile, has become an icon itself, although in 1969 that was hardly yet foreseeable. Times were changing quickly then, and Ford wanted to keep the Mustang fresh and hot.
What arrived was clearly more extravagant than the relatively restrained ’67-’68. The Mustang was now obviously edging towards the excess that made its 1971 successor a Deadly Sin. Let’s just say you’re not quite as likely to find a Mach 1 on the streets of Paris as you are a ’67 fastback. The ’69′s bulges, scoops and other cues were clearly about showing off the muscles as much as putting them to good use, and that’s where the mach 1 really stumbles, or plows.
This is a car I have some personal experience with, but I’ll save that for the next chapter of the Auto-Biography. Let’s just say I actually got paid to drive Mach 1s as a seventeen year old, both the 1970 and 1971 versions. Ever since I wrote about that some years ago, I wondered if my memories of the Mach 1′s excessive under steer was colored by time and my sporadic bouts of Ford negativity. But I just happen to have some validation: a Car and Driver test of the brand new 1969 Mach1, with a 428 Cobra Jet, no less.
The very first paragraph ends with a pretty dismal preview: “The pieces are there-most of them anyway-but the sum is far short of the parts”. The one part that wasn’t far short was that new more expressive Mustang front end. By extending it four inches further ahead of the front wheels, the Mustang’s intrinsic lousy weight distribution went even further the wrong direction: 59.3% on the front wheels. That’s typical nowadays; for front wheel drive cars.
With a very torquey 428 CID (7 L) v8 underrated at 335 (gross) hp, the Mach I was hindered bot in straight line acceleration as well as in the curves. On the drag strip, holding back a bit in first gear to avoid totally melting the F70 -14 Polyglas tires yielded a modest 14.3 seconds and 100 mph. The Cobra Jet was Ford’s hottest street engine at the time, and a fairly remarkable working over of the generally dismal FE-engine. I remember being rather surprised at what Ford was able to wring out of that old anchor. The fact that it developed its peak power at 5200 rpm makes its general preferences known.
But trying to make the Mustang go any direction but straight was where the real problems arose; “the front tires howl and smoke and absolutely refuse to go in the direction they’re pointed”. And this is with the “competition handling package”. The rear axle’s sudden unwanted movements in the wrong directions didn’t help to round out a dismal picture. The Mustang, like all the pony cars, were meant to have small blocks, but the 351 I drove was hardly much better. These were essentially cheap and crude cars with more power than they knew what to do with.
The Mustang’s decline starting in 1969 included the interior. Granted, this one is not exactly a fair representative, but the general direction towards bulkier, deeper, darker and murkier interiors just increased the bad vibes from feeling lost in its cheap black bowels. Outward visibility was well on its way to wretched, which the 1971 model fully attained.
The 1971 was the the Mustang’s nadir; the ’69-’70 was the clear slide in that direction. I tried hard to be impressed by the 1969 Mach 1′s very showy looks and persona, but the harder the Mustang seemed to try, the less I liked it. It amazed me how much it had changed from its original fresh and tight package, especially the 2+2. You know something’s wrong when a seventeen year-old has shifted his affection to the four year-old version; that’s a lifetime then. And forty years later, nothing’s changed to warm me up to the Mach 1.
I never understood where Ford was going with this version. The early Mustangs were designed to appeal to pretty much everyone in one way or another, and these, well, I have no idea. Someone gave me a large diecast model of one of these a few years ago, it sits on top of my bookshelf, collecting dust. I see it up there and still scratch my head, it (the real car) seemed like a such a waste of resources…
I could not agree more.
When I was a teenager, a weird kid at church who had really old parents started driving a very nicely restored ’66 fastback. Turns out old parents sometimes have the money and time to restore cool classic cars with their sons. At the time, it didn’t look right to me, but as I grew up it was the later models that began to look wrong to me.
A Mustang is about fun and cheap thrills. The bigger and fatter they get, even if they look “tough,” the less fun they are. I think this is why the ’65 looks so much better than the ’69 or ’71, and why a ’90 LX 5.0 notch is so much more desireable than a ’90 GT.
I can vouch for the Mustang’s bad handling as I drove a ’68 for a while and the rear was always looking for a reason to break loose in the curves. I was never comfortable with it. Does anyone know how well the ’69 Boss 302 handled in normal off the track conditions?
I guess thats why the 69-71 Mustangs can be bought for a song, while the 66-67 cost as much as new ones, especially the fastbacks! But I do love the Bullitt Mustang.
I must confess that I do like the 1969 models, although I agree that they were a step down from the handsome, trim 1965-68 Mustangs. Even the regular coupes look attractive. The mother of my friend drove a metallic green 1969 Grande coupe with a black vinyl roof and fake wire wheel covers, and that car was quite handsome for the time.
And while the interior of this car does seem darker and more cramped than the interiors of earlier versions, the 1969 Mustang still had the best interior of all the ponycars, in my opinion, in terms of materials and build quality.
Unfortunately, Ford and every other manufacturer but GM forgot what had made the original Mustang so attractive in the first place – its handy size, low price and clean styling. Ford wasn’t alone in turning its trim pony into a Clydesdale – the 1970 Barracuda and Challenger were enlarged to allow everything from the slant six to the Hemi to fit under the hood, while the AMC Javelin sprouted silly wheel arches and took on a more bloated look for 1971.
The ponycars got caught up in the performance race of the late 1960s. A Ford insider noted that the Mustang was supposed to be “boss,” and that meant bigger engines, which meant a bigger car in general. The original GTO and Mustang appealed to two different markets, but there was some serious overlap of these cars by the late 1960s.
It’s interesting, in retrospect, how much the all-new 1970 Camaro and Firebird went against the grain of the times in terms of size, styling and emphasis on balanced performance, and were so much better for it.
My father owns a 1967 289V8 powered Mustang Convertible. His lottery fantasy? Restore the ’67 to showroom/concurs condition, then go buy one of the first year fastbacks to hot rod.
Paul! Paul! Paul! You break my heart… since I own the only 1970 Mustang sold in Canada still on the (dry, unsalted) road today (as I claim).
Fair enough, I’ll take the point regarding the utter lack of anything resembling handling. Image and production of sinister noises is the gold standard here.
But given the “muscle car” direction of the late ’60s style, I always thought that the ’69-’70 – in fastback form anyway – achieved a great balance between the lithe ’64 1/2 original and the steroid-enhanced full-sized machines of the day. This is the little palfrey maturing into a mighty war charger. Before degenerating into a fat, lazy mare. Then they shoot horses (see: Mustang II).
The Mustang was still on its original 106″ wheelbase and with a small-block was still WAY better the most American cars. Consumer Reports even had good things to say about the build quality!
Final point: I agree the ’69 has some over-the-top features – the scoop, the overdone delicate tail-lights, the cross-eyed four headlamps, that GOD-DAMN off-center grill emblem.
Which just proves how nicely cleaned up the 1970 design is! (The fender scoops are non-functional, but nicely proportioned and tastefully echoed in the turn indicators on the current Mustang’s light-cluster)
My ax is now ground.
(Thanks! I’ve been hoping for this one for a while!)
P.S. Now the “grande” hard-top edition with the vinyl roof – THAT was an ugly mule!
My friend’s mother drove a 1969 Grande – metallic green with a black vinyl roof and wire wheel covers. I thought it was a sharp car then, and wouldn’t mind having one today, to be honest. It was a convincing “mini-Thunderbird,” and was, in many ways, closer to the spirit of the original Mustang than the Boss versions. People forget that most early Mustangs were ordered as “secretary specials.” They were very popular with women, which is a big reason as to why sales were so brisk.
My first car, and first Mustang, was a 1969 Grande. It was more comfy and slushy than muscle, but I wish I still had it today. My second Mustang was another ’69 with a 351 Windsor.. I REALLY wish I still had that one.
Back in HS, my best friend had one of these– it was the mid 80s but the car was in very good nick. It was red w/ black int. with the Coors beer can under the hood (why?? no f’ing clue). Loved that nasty beast.
At that point, the 65-68 fastbacks looked wrong– especially the base models. But as my sensibilities have evolved it is clear that the Mach 1 is the ‘wrong’ one. The simplicity and relative sveltness of the original models make it a sexier proposition in my eyes.
Alas, i purchased my 90 7 UP 5.0 LX conv. thinking of the Bullitt pony and it has served me well for almost 254k miles….. but for the past few years as I find myself firmly entrenched in middle age, my thoughts turn to locating a relative cheap 66-67 2+2 for my weekends.
(well, a boy can dream, right? )
The Mustang’s decline in styling and handling was tragic, and this car is truly hideous compared to the ’65-66. But if I somehow did obtain one I think it would be best presented in gray primer or flat black, with black steelies and dog dish caps, lowered a tasteful 2-3″ all around. It would be pretty acceptable like that…
I’ve owned three Mustangs–a ’65, an ’81, and a (choke) ’74 Mustang II, and I tend to agree with the commentary. The bigger they got, the less happy they were–kind of like people. For my money, the best of the early cars were the ’67-’68s–still lightweight, very nicely styled, with lots of incremental improvements over the first cars. The ’69s grew a little too much.
However, not everybody feels that way. A friend of mine still has the ’70 Boss 302 that he drove in high school–he graduated in ’78. He also has his brother’s ’69 Mach I, both in excellent condition.
Years ago I was scanning the used-car ads in the New Orleans newspaper and saw an ad for a ’67 GT 390 fastback for $500. The sad part is, I had the money. Now, if I can only finish this time machine I’ve been working on….
This article jarred another memory for me…remember the opening credits of the early episodes of The Mary Tyler Moore Show? She was shown driving a 1970 Mustang Coupe. In later seasons, she owned a 1972 or 1973 Mustang, and was shown washing it in the opening credits.
As a 10-11 yr old kid in 1969-70, I remember very well a society-wide concensus that 3 things just weren’t what they used to be: Elvis, the Beatles, and the Mustang.
Although they weren’t horrible, I never liked these as well as the 65-68. Everything about the cars was starting go get a little puffy. The interiors seemed to me to be of lower quality materials than before, but part of that may have been safety related. The dash pads and armrests would routinely split open in multiple places. I also recall the dashboards as being inordinantly high.
In all, the cars just lacked that certain something that had made the original stand out. The lines on the 69-70 certainly aren’t bad. But I would take an earlier generation (67-68 is my favorite) in a heartbeat. I don’t think I am alone, judging from the collector market.
As I look at these pictures, I suddenly hear the sound of this car’s front suspension. Do any of you old-timers remember the unique little squeak-squawk that these cars made as the suspensions aged? If you didn’t grease them every month the cars would kind of giggle at you as you drove. This was something unique to the Falcon/Fairlane/Mustang front ends of that era. This is one attribute of those cars that I do not miss.
You’re bringing back more memories here…my grandmother’s black 1962 Falcon sedan had that same front-suspension squeak!
That same pissedoff canary is still there in OZ falcons now
All had essentially the same basic suspension layout, with minor variations…
I remember drag racing my friend Matt’s blue ’69 351Windsor Mach 1; my drag car was my step-mom’s ’72 Sky Blue with white-vinyl-top 318 Plymouth Scamp. This would be about 1977. I had my avatar Courier, but I believe my folks used the Courier for a weekend of wood gathering/beachcombing, I can’t remember. Anyway, I had the 318 Scamp (what a sleeper!). The Scamp got the jump on the Mach 1 and I was watching him disappear in the “ladies’ car” rear view mirror hitting about 100 at the Coleman School overpass (Irwin Street, San Rafael, 4th, 5th, Mission Street, 101 North on-ramp).
Don’t remember Matt ever bragging about handling. Mach 1′s of this vintage were good for looking (and sounding) mean; they did great burnouts; otherwise, as a “performance” car, they were weak shit.
Gotta love those V8 A bodies! A friend had a 73 Duster with a 318 and a 3 speed stick on the floor. That car was FAST. It was a lot more fun to drive than my 71 Scamp with the slant 6.
I had a 70 318 Demon. I would call it peppy but it was certainly no match for a 351 Windsor Mustang……now a Demon with the 340, that would give the 351 a run for its money.
The Demon’s first year was 1971. And while a stock 318 wouldn’t be likely to beat a 351W Mustang, adding a 4bbl, dual exhaust, the right gears and driver would make the race quite a bit closer.
With the exception of the 428CJ and Cleveland-series 351 engines, everyone knew Fords were stones.
It may have been a 71. I think it was the first year they were made, we bought it used from a friend of the family for my wife. Other than the color (bright Mopar yellow with black stripes) I liked the car very much. When our first kid came along we traded it in on a brand new Citation……big mistake. That was truly an awful car.
As for your assertion that “everyone knew Fords were stones” I can assure you that there are a lot of people that disagree with that point of view…I’ll leave it at that.
You know that the aftermarket is now based on the 351 W, not the C right? 400-500 HP is easy.
Even the “boat anchor” 390 FE, with proper breathing (it’s shortcoming) by Edelbrock has rewritten that history.
The chronic squeak-squawk came from the upper control-arm bushings, which were not rubber-isolated but solid metal with a thick o-ring to hold in the grease. They looked like pipe plugs, and you screwed them into the control arm just like you would a pipe plug. When the grease worked its way out, it was literally metal-on-metal, hence the squeak. Then you pumped them up with grease again, which would lessen–not eliminate–the squeak.
Ford used the tower front suspension under the whole Falcon/Fairlane/Mustang/Maverick/Granada family, until 1980. Only in 1975 did they finally replace the solid-metal bushing with a rubber-isolated one, for the “luxurious” Granada.
The whole setup was simple to the point of being crude. On the other hand, it was extremely easy to work on and required no special tools. It would also last forever. I restored a ’65 Mustang in the late ’80s, and the only thing I changed in the front end was the bushings, which I could have skipped because, once disassembled, the old ones looked fine, o-rings and all.
In my friend’s garage sits a 67 fastback, and a 70 Boss 429. The difference between these two is like night and day. The 67 seems light and peppy compared to the drag-strip ready 70 with its stock fat tires, massive engine, loud (unmuffled) exhaust, heavy clutch, bloated body panels and engine bay bracing to prevent body warping. The Boss 429 may be good for a white-knuckled drive down a straight quarter mile, but its a bitch to drive in traffic. Its much more pleasant being in a 67, in my opinion: at least you can hear yourself think. I think Ford lost their way with the post 67 bloated Mustangs, but I know plenty of motorheads who think otherwise.
I was just standing at my office’s front door, waiting for my lunch to heat up and watching traffic go by, and I saw a girl pass in a ’64-’65 white Falcon convertible, top down, long brown hair flowing in the breeze, in excellent shape (both). Looked like a ’60′s Ford commercial–in color.
Which brings me to a thought I had after typing my earlier entry and looking again at the subject car–this isn’t my favorite Mustang, but if somebody offered me a fair deal on one in this condition, I’d look for my checkbook. Easy to work on and find parts for, I’d drop in a small block and redo the interior and paint it metallic blue. Then I could cruise past people’s offices and they would envy ME.
IDK, the ’69 Mach 1 is an over-styled Mustang muscle car. It’s also probably my favorite classic Mustang because of that.
The 428CJ finally made the Mustang competitive on the dragstrip without spending Shelby money and it also made the 428ci not suck.
End of the American Ford performance era as far as I was concerned at the time. If you wanted to go fast in an F badge you bought an AUSSIE car and the OZ 2door looked better the local muscle car scene boomed with better looking and better performing cars than what came from the US though they nearly all used US powertrains they went way better with some local talent in them GTHO phase 3 meant fastest Ford built and fastest 4door on planet, yet Chrysler built a 6 that could beat it to 100 mph. Holden reworked an innocent looking Opel sedan that came with a 1900cc 4and fitted a choice of 2 6s and 2 V8s it went like rocket in SLR 5000 trim 5L V8 and went like an Opel wiyh a 4 banger in it if you went for the poverty pack. Chrysler eventually shoehorned its Hemi 6 range into the European 180 cars omg tyre smoke at any speed the 1 I had could cruise at 100mph, American cars in this era have no appeal performance wise and styling wise ,,,,,surely you jest.
Well, even the Bathurst cars didn’t have big block engines, although highly tuned homologation specials like Phase III and Phase IV GTHOs were probably more powerful than the comparable American Boss 351 Mustang. The Bathurst Specials had impressive top speeds, but also much taller gearing than the typical American Supercar; the Phase III had a 3.25 axle, the abortive Phase IV a 3.00.
The Australian market stuck it out for a few more years than Detroit did, but muscle cars in Oz pretty much died out by the late seventies for basically the same reason they had in the U.S. — cost and cost of insurance.
GTHO was factory speed limittedthe only part noone has today
OZZY V8 factory race cars were built right thru the 80s with Brock prepped Commodores Ford gave V8s away for a few years but had to bring it back in the 90s to compete.with Holden which kept its 5L option, Ford were racing UK Sierras not Falcons
I really like these, although I would like to see a 1968 vs a 1970 up close. (I was 3 and 5 at the time). I like the look of the beefier mustangs, as I find the 1964 one a little girly. I like when they beefed up – to a point. I like my 2011 Mustang alot. Very fun to drive.
I always thought my distaste for the 69′ styling was just me… Interesting that many of you share my strong preference for the 65-68s… Also I agree the 1970 styling was a big improvement over the 1969. I could never understand why the 2005 aped the 1969 and not the 68 or 70… That said, they are all preferable to the horrible 71-78 Mustangs.
I still miss the 89 GT Convertible I traded for a 99 Dodge sedan, what was I thinking? I suppose I wanted a quieter, newer car with working AC. Still, I miss the fun of a convertible with oomph on the right sunny days.
As a 5 year old when the Mustang was new, I wonder if all those convertible 65s were what ignited the car bug inside me. I can Still remember it was Peggy Appel who drove down my street in a 65 British racing green one. Muffy Bruett had the yellow one & I was smitten with both of them. The cars that is. For some reason this reminds me of the first ride I remember in a convertible, it was a neighbor boy’s 1965 Black Impala and The Beach Boys “Do It Again” was blaring as I remember that wonderful day. I am sure it was a 409 he roared down the boulevard in. Thank you John Benton if you are out there.
The transition from the 1968 to 1969 Mustang, like the 1969 to 1970 Barracuda/Challenger, is a great example of one of the few times GM was able to read a market correctly when they took a much more conservative route with the 1969 to 1970 Camaro/Firebird. GM’s restained change, as opposed to the over-the-top Ford/Chrysler competition stuffing mega-inch motors into their cars, proved to be the right formula as that version of the GM f-body lasted all the way until 1981 when everyone else’s ponycar either fell by the wayside or moved up or down in the market.
It’s also worth noting how Iacocca’s Pinto-based Mustang II in 1974, although it’s now looked down upon as one of the lamest versions of the Mustang, had perfect timing as Ford sold a lot of them.
Lidp was out of touch with reality by 68 Mustangs got heavier and progressivly slower as he bulked them up same with Fords whole range OMG look at the Cougar Muscle coupe to aircraft carrier in few easy steps .GM had it right and the Camaro based Holden range was an excellent example the went ok subject to wallet restraint stopped and steered well and were tough for bad roads/hard use but US cars got worse with each model rubbish like Vega etc not helping
First of all, I have never really been a Mustang fan – although when our elementary school gym teacher, who lived at the top of my street, bought a 1964½ Mustang – ubiquitous mist-green, same color interior, T-handle auto shifter without console, it turned my head! I had never seen anything like the Mustang and for those who weren’t around back then, it really did turn the automotive world upside-down! When I met my wife, she had a 1970 Mustang convertible. Kind of a root-beer reddish-brown color with black top and interior. 302 auto. She scared the living daylights out of me in that car one evening – her and a friend were up front and I rode in the back. Top was down, and when a light turned green, she floored it! My cheeks were gripping the seat for dear life, as this was on a city street! Well, to this day she swears she didn’t go over 50, but my half-dead brain remembers 80! Of course, we still laugh at that one! Summer, 1975.
We sold the Mustang when she quit work in June, 1979 when our son was about due. It was about shot, anyway, by that time and we had no money to fix it up, as the rust bug was really taking its toll and it was time for it to go to a good home. It did. I believe the next owner did restore it.
Ironically, this same lady, before I met her while still in the service, also owned a 1964 yellow Chevy Impala convertible! Difference between mine and hers was that mine was an SS, hers wasn’t. My top was black and hers was white. 34 years later, we still love our convertibles!
“Murilee” tapped out what may be the best quote I have ever seen regarding late 60s muscle cars over at TTAC today.
“The muscle cars of the late 1960s were essentially marketing creations— “, he goes on but this part really struck me.
I remember my dad and his buddies all bench racing their former toys. And as cool as it was to hear the stories even he admits the cars really weren’t that great.
They had power but no means to control it, stopping was a nail biting experience for sure and you wound up with the craziest weight biases on tires that wouldn’t wouldn’t be safe on a utility tractor today..
However those cars are my brand of crazy and I wouldn’t hesitate to own any one of them today.
Eh, to answer the question “where were they going with this” one simply has to look at the front end. The car under review has been pretty much run down and neglected cosmetically, but the point was that if you saw this rapidly coming at you in the r/w mirror of your old 4-door or a station wagon that you got out of the way. Also, the interior gets slammed a lot, but the “deep” and “dark” bowels is simply the essence of the American muscle car. Just take the 21st century Challenger, you get into that thing and all of a sudden you’re in this (man-) cave, even the windshield is a narrow gunslit. It’s an experience, it’s getting to feel badass, people who like spacious interiors and glasshouse visibility will never “get” this. Technical shortcomings (which as Paul rightly observes in this Mustang there are aplenty) aside, these are cars that were really conceived (not to be confused with “designed,” plenty of shortcomings on the execution end), again, CONCEIVED with the Driver in mind. And not just any driver, but one who wanted to steer from the deep dark mancave of a sheet metal beast. This Mustang and its predecessor styling wise are like heavy metal versus pop music. That Driver for whom this car was conceived didn’t give a hoot about the rear visibility, remember he was supposed to be the Driver… meaning he pretty much should just be able to use his side and main r/w mirrors to know who’s to his left and to his right, and not need to turn his head and have to verify this information through the C-pillar.
Now, how many folks were such a Driver? Intuitive, instinctive, born with a steering wheel in hands? And how many found this instead to be plain uncomfortable and disturbing? And did the car furthermore really satisfy the rare Driver who was just-that-good and knew how to get every ounce of fun out of anything with four wheels that moved? Did the car live up to its badass hulky firebreathing intimidator image by delivering on the promise of extreme driving enjoyment? Those are the questions that I think we all know the answer to, and it’s the same answer for all of them.
Hardly.
But as far as the styling goes, before one slams this car just remember – it’s not for the glasshouse folk. Its predecessor, the classic Mustang was in its essense a cute car. Too cute, in fact. You look at that car, and it’s too reserved, too small, too much glass, too little sheet metal, too cute, “here I am, like me,” too little attitude. It just wasn’t badass enough for those who wanted to ride a hulky beast while blasting Led Zeppelin through their rolled down gunslit windows.
In Europe they could never in a million years understand this. There exterior extremes get saved for the supercars that only film stars can afford. In America, it was for everyone. Did they fall short on the susbtance part of it, to go along with the image? Hell yes, at Ford, at least for this early stretch of the 70s, they fell short a lot. But eventually there came along the Fox body, and Ford has never looked back since. This car was a demo attempt at being badass. They failed, badly. I understand the intention, and I still wouldn’t own one. But I love looking at it, b/c to me it reminds of what they eventually got right.
I agree with some aspects of the style, especially with vance Torino on the issue of the side scoops – there was a reason Larry Shinoda deleted these from the Boss 302. Was there a better looking TransAm racecar though? Of course they cheated on these too – doing a pie cut to gradually lower the front guards by 2″ at the front end, for less wind resistance on the race track.
Mind you any criticism of the fastback body style on these cars is insignificant compared to the coupe versions – hideous. I wonder if this model was designed as a fastback first as opposed to the earlier models, the 65 fastback is clearly an afterthought.
My most vivid memory of the 1969 Sportsback was the fact that the redesigned hood stuck out farther than the marginal blade bumper. I had to have the hood replaced twice before graduating from high school, due to excess acceleration and marginal brakes.