CC Cohort nifticus posted this shot of two of the most influential sporty cars of the post-war era. The Mustang brought affordable sporty style to the masses, and the Z-car brought genuine sports car performance, an OHC six, independent suspension and a whole new look, also at an affordable price. Which one had the bigger and more lasting influence?
Although the Mustang’s influence in creating the whole pony car segment can not be understated, there’s also no question that today’s Mustang is actually a lot more like the gen1 Z than the gen1 Mustang. OHC six cylinder engines, independent suspension all-round, and genuine sports car performance. And although it’s subjective, the looks of the current Mustang actually owes more to the Z car than the original Mustang. What thinks you?
Wow, striking how similar the Mustang looks to a Z! It’s got the same hips, proportions and windsheild!
I guess I should have answered the question though. Well I would have to say that the mustang has been more influential from an existential standpoint, it’s still going strong after all these years, but on the other hand, no one is copying the mustang anymore, and the fact that the mustang looks like a modern Z says to me that the Z is still influencing car design all these years later.
It DOES look like a 1st gen 240Z. I guess that makes it just a little less ugly to me, but that was my reaction from missing the traditional Mustang styling cues. Ford needs to imitate the 240Z nose more in the next design. I still wish I’d been able to afford one of the remanufactured 240Zs that Datsun was doing years ago.
http://jalopnik.com/what-happened-to-all-the-datsun-240zs-nissan-restored-i-1583370936
The Mustang is still hard to see out of so you won’t be able to spot the cop who’s lurking out of sight when you do your burnout 🙂 I miss cars with good sightlines from the driver’s seat.
I’d say that the Mustang had the greater influence on cars for the next couple of decades, unless you count the destruction of the affordable British sports car industry by the Z. If it took 45 years for the Z to influence the Mustang, that’s not particularly in the Z’s favor.
I would suspect that the first-generation Mazda RX7 helped the Z car quite a bit in the “destruction of the affordable British sports car”.
The Mustang definitely had more of an influence on car design AND marketing.
After noting how successful the Mustang was, stylists quickly embraced the “long hood, short deck” look for pretty much every car….until “cab forward” (tried to?) push it to the side.
Also, with the Mustang, car marketing FINALLY embraced the idea that selling cars that were attractive to young people (usually) resulted in cars attractive to young AND old. The car companies finally realized their customers didn’t want stodgy/conservative if they were given a choice.
To paraphrase Bunkie Knudsen when he set out to transform Pontiac in the late 1950’s into GM’s excitement division, “you can sell an old man a young man’s car, but never a young man an old man’s car”.
As for the influence of the Mustang and the Z? Both were transformative vehicles, but the Mustang spawned a whole new market category that is still very much with us today. The Mustang sold in the millions and the Z car, as good as it was, remained pretty much a niche vehicle.
As much as I like the Z car (and early 510) I have to lean toward the Mustang. It is an icon; the Z is really not.
Not starting with a Falcon has changed the Mustang, cant say I’m a fan of the newer models pre 70 are the ones I like.
On the other hand, the 240Z was one of, if not the first car to make Japanese cars acceptable to mainstream Americans.
The Mustang is finally catching on in Britain, as it’s seriously back-ordered there right now. Contrary to Ford’s expectations, most buyers are opting for the tax-penalized Modular V8 instead of the Ecoboost four. If you want to play Steve McQueen, the latter just won’t do.
The cars differ in that the Mustang sold the appearance of performance, while the Z sold actual performance. The Z was fitted out as a proper sports car, two seats, four speed manual transmission, high performance OHC engine, rack and pinion steering, four wheel independent suspension, disc brakes in front with finned alloy drums in the rear, much better chassis dynamics, all standard. The Mustang sold a sporty 2+2 body style that came with no performance hardware standard. Everything could be upgraded quite a bit with optional equipment, engine tranny, suspension etc. Still the basic structure of the Mustang was inferior as a sporting machine. Both cars were built to a price, the Mustang more than the Z. Though the Z was found wanting in comparison to more expensive imported sports cars such as Porsche, and Jaguar but was out classing MGs , Triumphs, Fiats and the like. Both cars really had different markets in mind and the Detroit product had to sell in very high numbers to be viable. I would say the Mustang had more influence on the auto market as a whole, appealing to the young and the young at heart. Exposing many buyers to the possibility of having a performance car. The Z was a much more niche vehicle. The Z was always more expensive than the Mustang as it is even today. It is to Ford’s credit that they have improved the Mustang over the years into a genuine performance car. The Z is iconic because it proved that the Japanese manufacturers could build an outstanding world class performance car at a much better price point.
Over here in Europe, American cars are rare, but almost everybody has heard of the Mustang, especially if they have at least a little interest in cars. Many people would recognize a Mustang if they saw one on the street. And if a conversation comes to US cars, the Mustang is the usually first model people think about (along with classic Cadillacs of course).
The Z on the other hand… I think the vast majority of people (at least over here) have no idea what it is if you mentioned the name to them, nor would they recognize it if they saw one.
Speaking for myself (and I’m interested in cars), I know next to nothing about it it nor do I find it particularly exciting. Just another Asian sporty-looking car, I guess (shrughs)…
The 1966 French hit romantic film “Un Homme et une Femme,” which co-starred a Mustang (complete with yellow headlights), might’ve had something to do with that, in addition to journalistic PR.
Even though i had a 74 260Z ; which i liked a lot, and a 75 Mustang (ok it was a II but still in the same theme as the original; especially with the older non-smog engine I put in) the original Mustang definitely had more influence.
It started the whole pony car movement with how many followers?: Camaro, Firebird, Barracuda, Javelin, Capri, Cougar, Celica, Challenger, AMX, etc.
The Z car, on the other hand, was a copy of the Jaguar XKE; so one could say the modern Mustang has a lot of XKE influence; I also see a lot of Aston Martin DB7/Vantage in the new Mustang or maybe they are coping each other; so it all comes back to the original 64 mustang and 1958 XKE.
The Mustang had greater overall influence, as it defined an entirely new class of automobile. (Full disclosure: I’ve owned multiple Mustangs.)
But to be fair, both had influence, just in different circles. The Fairlady/240Z proved something that eluded the British and Italians: That a grand touring car could be reliable, affordable AND fun to drive. And to this day, such a formula lives on in the Mazda MX5/Miata. As much as I liked my numerous Nissans, I feel they lost their way when they made them heavier and more luxurious.
Concur with tmt and buzzdog. No mustang would have meant no camaro or firebird and all that means. I think more than the GTO started the muscle car era. I remember living through it and the mustang was there virtually from the start.
Question is, would the Mustang have happened without the Corvair Monza? Isn’t that what started the small sporty car trend with all the other American brands competing by putting bucket seats, consoles, sporty wheels, and more powerful engines in their small cars that were originally intended only as low-buck economy cars? And Ford realized that a separate model with its own bodywork, interior, and image would carry it off way better than a Falcon Futura or Sprint?
Yep, Monza helped spark the Barracuda and the Mustang. The original Barracuda is closest to Monza’s concept (not hiding it’s Valiant roots.) Where Ford was genius was in reskinning the Falcon completely and marketing the whole package away from it’s economy roots.
“… today’s Mustang is actually a lot more like the gen1 Z than the gen1 Mustang.”
I think it’s a coincidence. They seem to have been aiming for a 68 Shelby. At least that’s what I think of when I see the new Mustangs.
I also think the resemblance is coincidental. My assumption is that the design team was told to give the new car a perceptible family resemblance to other current Ford products while also maintaining key Mustang ‘heritage design cues’ (or similar buzzwords to that effect).
If that was the case, I think the designers hit their marks very precisely, which is both good and bad. The design does what it was probably supposed to do, but it feels much too calculated to be particularly exciting or novel. I will grant that it’s preferable to some of Ford’s past ‘heritage’ designs (e.g., last-to-date Thunderbird), which often left me muttering, “Okay, I see where you were going with that, but no.”
Ford management no longer dares to “re-imagine” the Mustang, the way they did with the 1979 Fox Mustang. The horse in the grille, the triple taillights, the dual-cowl dash are now set in stone. Porsche has the same problem with the 911.
Mustang, without a doubt. What car produced today was in production in 1964? If any are, same configuration and market segment (accounting for inflation)? Mustang has always been RWD, 2-door, compact and affordable.The Z spawned Toyota’s Celica and Supra, but none of those lasted nearly as long.
Influence is really the question. Small, cheap and stylish did not really exist in the post-WWII mass market until the Mustang. Enough said.
I can only think of mainline trucks as existing in 1964 to today that are the same configuration today, and having the same name(s); Ford F-Series, Chevrolet Suburban!
The Chevy Corvette is still in production, still a 2 seater, still fiberglass.
A lot has changed between the 1964 models and the 2015 models though.
Corvette, you are right.
Mustang without a doubt. Granted I’m biased, as my Pop had a yellow ’65 Mustang which is part of our family lore. They got the car a year before they had me, and I was too young to actually remember it. But boy did my parents love that car, and will always talk about how special and enjoyable it was. Also, thanks to the back seat, it combined sporting intent with reasonably practicality, making it a perfect family runabout. It was an affordable, “classless” (aspired to by affluent and non-affluent alike), fun car that really was able to be many things to many people.
I do like the Z-car, but it is indicative of what I think they Japanese manufacturers do particularly well: make a better copy. There is nothing especially original about the Z, it’s just that it combined all the right sports car elements into a well-styled, well-priced package and made sure everything actually consistently worked, which was something that seemed to elude the Europeans at the time. It was definitely a key player in the smaller, more specific sports car niche, but was rather late to that party in reality. Granted, it spawned many other copies (mostly Asian), but was just not groundbreaking in the same way as the Mustang.
As for the current Mustang, I really wish I liked it more. It’s nice enough, but somehow seems sanitized to make it more “global” and in the process it’s lost some of that uniquely American charm. Oddly, I never see 370Zs on the road (granted I’m in the Chicago area, so not prime sports car territory, but still you see plenty of Porsches and even Subaru BRZ/Scion FR-S here), so I think that the Z-car has lost much of its mass appeal.
Besides the 240Z, I think the current Mustang had borrowed some design cues from a show-car named Mustang III http://themustangsource.com/little-known-and-stolen-mustang-iii-concept-heading-to-auction-11953/
Mustang and Z-car
Two very different kinds of cars.
First of all, I realize this article is inspired by a photo of the two old cars parked next to each other…but that is not really the mustang we should be looking at when comparing it to the current mustang. What we need is a pic of a 67 fastback with period correct GT style wheels.
The Z-car was an improved (perfected?) sports car of the British GT variety. In British terminology, a “GT” was a traditional British roadster type 2seat sports car fitted with a permanent non-removable fastback style roof. So a GT is actually a modification to make the car a little more practical and thus could be argued it is in fact less sporting than the non-GT car. The Datsun Z was EXACTLY this British GT car only better. Call it an uber-GT.
In American terminology, “GT” was simply an option package that improved power and/or handling.
The mustang is generally considered to be a completely new type of American car. People tend to think of it as a sub-category of muscle car.
I disagree.
I argue that the Studebaker Avanti was the first domestic of the type and possibly the Studebaker Golden Hawk. Also, I disagree with the notion that a pony car is a type of muscle car. I argue that it is midway between a sports car and a muscle car. A muscle car is one that is suitable for the quarter mile drag but becomes a fish out of water if forced to do curves and braking.
Probably the second most famous pony car ever, after the Mustang, is the Pontiac Trans Am. This car is named after a race in which pony cars excelled and competed against each other.
The Trans-Am race series was invented by the SCCA which stands for:
SPORTS CAR CLUB OF AMERICA.
I rest my case.
At first the Mustang is a “pony car”, without a big V8. By 1967, when the Camaro and Firebird arrive, a performance version of the Mustang is available. The Firebird offers the GTO 400 CID engine as an option.
I believe it was David E, Davis of Car&Driver that wrote in a column back in the seventy’s that a Gran Tourer (Gran Turismo) should; Carry two people, and there luggage at high speed, safely to there weekend retreat. There are many uses of the term.
I have not heard of that British definition of GT, but the origin of the term is Italian, of course; and for once Wikipedia has a pretty good definition and article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_tourer
This is a 1964 Lotus Elan GT.
You can google “Lotus Elan” to see what a non-GT looks like. Pics of the regular non-GT Elan are prolific on the internet. The GT version is quite rare.
The Datzun Z is an improved and affordable and practical and reliable version of the Elan GT. There is some Jaguar influence as well especially the inline six motor and the recessed headlights.
BTW, the Mazda Miata is an improved modernized copy of the non-GT version of the Lotus Elan. The Lotus Elan was a helluva car. I believe I have stated multiple time in the past on CC that I always thought Mazda screwed up by not paterning the Miata on the Elan+2 version of the Lotus Elan.
Here’s some other British GT-style cars for you to google if you are interested:
AC Frua coupe (GT version of the AC Cobra)
Jensen Healey GT
Marcos Mantula
MGB GT
I made the same case for the Avanti presaging the Mustang a few days ago. Of course the Avanti’s much-higher price necessitated by the limited-production fiberglass body (and its manufactuer’s precarious financial position) meant it could never sell anything like Mustang numbers even in the best of circumstances, but the two cars are nonetheless conceptionally nearly identical. Low-slung 2+2 (2+3?) sporty coupes with long hoods, short rear decks, and available V8 engines built on the platforms of mundane compact Falcons or Larks.
And yes, likewise the Golden Hawk beat the four-seater T-bird to market with the same type of car too.
Trans Am, amusingly enough, was originally technically a sedan racing series, although I think the rules under which it was run basically classified anything with four seats as a sedan.
I’ve never really bought the argument that either the Studebaker Hawks (GT, Silver, Golden, or what have you) or Avanti was a pony car, if only because they really weren’t priced that way. The central part of the pony car ethos was that they were affordable enough that people could potentially buy one as an alternative to a compact sedan — a six-cylinder Mustang wasn’t significantly more expensive than a Falcon Futura and probably ended up luring a lot of potential Falcon customers (as evidenced by Ford’s decision to dump most of the sporty U.S. Falcons soon after the Mustang arrived). The Hawks and Avanti had obvious mechanical similarities to the later pony cars, but Studebaker priced them like a Corvette, which is part of why they didn’t sell very well.
Tough question. The Mustang created a broad mainstream domestic category with many imitators and shone very brightly for 5 or 6 years before settling back into niche status. The Z was a successful imitation and played a not insignificant part in legitimising the output of an entire nation.
From today’s perspective, the Z. I still see its influence everywhere. Not so with the Mustang.
It would be difficult to really quantify but my guess would be the Mustang was more influential in terms of inspiring Ford’s competition to ape it because it clearly was on to something new and appealing to a wide market. It does have a design continuity over such a long period that not many other models can match. The original Z was an excellent interpretation of the GT and in my opinion most important it was a great value. I’m not sure the same can be said for what is currently called a Z. Seems a bit of a stretch to even compare them from an influential point of view…
I think definitely the mustang for two reasons:
1) it created the sporty/personal car market single handedly
2) I think it indirectly helped create the 240z. granted they were two very different cars but like even today there always are those who want the next step up and the mustang showed Nissan if they could combine the british sports car appeal with the American sporty/personal car reliability they would have a winner.and they did!
The Z always came off to me as cheap Jaguar E type copy. The Mustang was a true original.
I always liked early Z’s and there used to be plenty of them here in Australia (where have they all gone?). I do think the original Mustang Fastback was the inspiration for the new one, not the Z.
The Z probably influenced sports car design, though I cannot actually recall any specific cars that copied it (other readers probably can) but that first Mustang coupe influenced everything from sporty coupes to family sedans for decades.
The long bonnet short boot design first seen in the Mustang changed everything. Cab forward aside, have a look at every car – especially sedans with performance or prestige ambitions – and you see this Mustang design principle. Look at every current Mercedes, BMW and Audi four door sedan for example – all have them emphasise long front and short rear decks.
Mustang did not invent the long hood short trunk concept. If you want a small car with a large engine to handle very well in a road race, you must figure out how to get the weight of the engine off the front wheels. You can move the engine behind the driver to accomplish this. But this requires a completely different drivetrain. An easier way to accomplish this goal while still using the same drivetrain is to simply shift the engine rearwards a foot or two. This will shift the center of gravity rearwards and lighten the weight on the front wheels. However, now the cabin area must be shifted rearwards also.
TADA…a long hood short trunk design.
Here is a 1955 BMW503
You can take the long hood, short rear end configuration a lot further back than that. It’s been used for sports and racing cars since almost the beginning of automotive time. No need to show examples from the ’50s.
I was kinda trying to stick to 2+2 hardtop examples with 2 doors and fully functioning glass windows. The first long hood example that came to my mind was an MG T series Midget but I discarded that one because it isn’t a 2+2 hardtop. Then I thought of various Duesenbergs but discarded them for the same reason.
But since we are on the subject, what *is* the earliest AMERICAN example of a long hood short trunk vehicle of the 2door, steel roof, fully enclosed, 2+2 variety? And the earliest that isn’t American?
Looks like the hardtop 2door coupe with a back seat was at one time called a “Victoria Coupe”
1932 Duesenberg Victoria Coupe
1931 Cord Victoria Coupe
1955 Aston Martin DB4 Mk II
The current ‘Stang influenced by the Z? That’s a BOLD statement, and if you were in a room full of pony freaks, I can imagine more than a few ruffled feathers. But that doesn’t mean youre off base at all. No doubt both cars are very influential. Over in Japan, Im sure the Z’s pull can be felt on JDM sportcars. There are PLENTY of them that we never saw over here. So me being an American, Im going to treat this as it applies here…
Considering the perception of American cars vs Japanese, I think the Mustang is a car whose image comes to mind (along with the ’57 Chevy) as being the ‘all American automobile’. I mean, how many songs have been written about those very 2 vehicles? To the Baby Boomers, they probably lean for the ’57 but for us Generation Xers and the Millenials that DO care about cars, the Mustang is still an aspirational car. I mean, carving the corners in a Mustang…maybe a droptop, on Pacific Coast Hwy with the sun shining and your lady looking gorgeous….that’s a fantasy that few people I know would turn down.
As to the Z, I think it definitely spawned a wave of Japanese sportscars which had a lighter, quicker handling demeanor than traditional American muscle. But those have come, gone, come again, faded away etc. Again, when it comes to personifying the ‘typical’ Japanese car that would probably be the Accord, Corolla, or Camry. Those cars’ image being humble understated stability and reliability personify the respective marques perfectly.
The Mustang clearly. The first 240Z owes it’s birth to the Mustang.
The Mustang directly influence the Toyota Celica. Toyota took the Falcon-based Mustang formula and applied it to the Corona/Carina to make the Celica. The later Celica “Liftback” even had triple-segment tail lights.
While that is very true and I was going to mention it also I decided to not expand the the topic beyond Datsun. Mustang influenced many.
The last real Mustangs in my eyes were the 2004s. Cool looking cars with decent powered 6s or 8s, based on humble underpinnings and consequently genuinely cheap to buy and own. I’d say the Mustang has definitely shifted away from all of that for better or worse, not sure If I’d agree with it channeling the Z, though I definitely see it(literally). I think the Mustang is rapidly approaching legacy model status, ala the Corvette, the worst it sells the higher the price, and then the higher the tech to back it up.
As for the most influential, the Mustang hands down. That formula of a sporty imaged car on a pedestrian chassis was a global phenomena, one still in use today. Really the Crossover is pretty much the same formula as the Mustang, just in a very different form under a very different mission. They’re both heavy adaptations of an existing platform in the end
I think they stopped in 69, Matt, and have been stuck in 1971 mode since. The Fox bodied ones got back to the original concept, but seemed to owe nothing in terms of original Mustang until the re-style in the early 90s [IIRC].
As a previous poster said the originals were affordable alternatives to an ordinary compact car. What’s offered today is a near intermediate size [like the 71], too wide, too heavy, over styled and over priced. From broad appeal to niche.
Most influential, yes. Mustang vs Z an apple to an orange and competitors in only the broadest sense.
I’m a huge traditionalist, with the ’69 my favorite Mustang design, but I have to say the new model is absolutely gorgeous. And there is no doubt what car it is.
The 2005 was a huge leap over the Fox, but it seemed to lose it’s compactness. The 2015 seems smaller visually, and much more taunt. I love it.
Interesting thread .
I think it depends on your age more or less .
I’m old and remember the 1964 – 1/2 Mustang when new , I wasn’t impressed at the time but I now see it was a real game changer and I think they’re good little stylish economy cars .
The Z – Car in it’s day was also a seriously fun car so I imagine those who were young when it came out , will see the Mustang as some old car , nice but nothing special as the early Mustangs didn’t handle well and most were 6 cylinder slushbox equipped , any first generation Z – Car could run rings around the average stock Mustang .
Both , IMO are very good cars indeed .
-Nate
This new Shelby “GT EcoBoost” copied the paint scheme of the 1971 East African Safari’s winning #11 240Z …
The pulled back headlights of the new Mustang does evoke the “sugar scoop” headlights of the classic Z. The EcoBoost Mustang has a 2.3L DOHC turbo inline 4, vs. the 2.4L SOHC inline 6. With more than 2x the horsepower, but 1.5x the weight.
1971 240Z: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Datsun_Fairlady_240Z_001.JPG
2016 Shelby GT: http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=41613&d=1442101770
Black plastic surrounding the taillights:
http://www.zcarblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/BM111212-037-e1355360231593-1.jpg
Black plastic surrounding the taillights:
http://themustangsource.com/forums/attachments/f806/149547d1386223697-2015-mustang-images-2015mustang4.jpg
“the looks of the current Mustang actually owes more to the Z car than the original Mustang.”
The current Mustang resembles the old Z car more than the current Nissan 370Z does. It’s more than skin-deep too: The current Mustang has MacPherson strut front suspension, just like the classic 240Z. The current 370Z has double A-arm front suspension, ironically just like the 1965 Mustang.
It even extends to the interior. The current Mustang has triple circular vents in the middle of the dash … while the triple circular gauge in the middle is one of the Z’s iconic signatures. The Mustang’s optional Performance package replaces the center circular vent with two circular gauges.
Ford has done a much better job with the Mustang legacy than Nissan has with the Z’s. I don’t see how a 240Z enthusiast could bring much enthusiasm to the cartoonish 370Z.
Yes, the Mustang. I say that as someone who has owned over 40 cars and still have a very fond spot for my 1976 JDM Fairlady Z with the 2 Litre version of the SOHC L six. The first Z was more sports car than GT – mine had a 5 spd manual and manual steering – it was a superb sports car.
The Mustang, hands down the most influence on designs which followed.