(note: this was originally misidentified by the Cohort poster as a Grandé, and I didn’t check that. Apparently it’s just a plain Mustang coupe. I’ve amended the title and text.) Cohort poster L Seddon has found the anti-1969 Mustang, on a street on Northern England, no less. By that I mean: if you Google “1969 Mustang”, all you get is pictures of endless Mach 1s and Bosses, or their clones. Except for two convertibles, I had to scroll down quite a ways to finally hit a coupe.
Of course that makes this very original-looking coupe perfect CC fodder, especially so if it’s a six (it’s a 302, according to L. Seddon). Instead of an exciting muscle-bulging mach 1, it’s just an increasingly dull and chubbier Mustang.
The Mustang’s interior had increasingly lost its cheery quality of the original.
The sad reality is that there was a very good reason the Mach 1 fastback got all the attention: we were all bored to tears by Mustang coupes by 1959, and the new front end wasn’t enough to make it interesting. The ’69 Camaro, although also just a warmed-over ’67-’68, really was more attractive.
That fake air vent is simply atrocious. It neither fits properly nor works aesthetically.
The painful reality is that the original Mustang, although it was fresh and new in 1964, wasn’t truly a groundbreaking design at the time; in fact it had some decidedly conservative elements that hearkened back to older Thunderbirds and Continentals. By 1969, puffing it up some just wasn’t cutting it.
In the sixties, we were excited about truly new and novel things, like the Marzal.
Chevrolet picked up on that and gave us a pony car version in 1970. Now that’s more like it…Meanwhile, the Mustang coupe just got uglier and fatter, like a pathetic overdone charade of its former self.
Maybe some of you have something more upbeat to add to my rather dismal words. I wasn’t exactly too cheerful in my CC on the ’69 Mach 1 either.
I feel that the first Mustang is a classic victim of its own success. In the beginning it was a cheap, sexy car for the young. As time went on, customers demanded more comfort and luxury. As a result, in the late 60s and early 70s the mustang became its own parody, I bet the average age of buyers increased significantly. A bit like a rock musician who is the idol of the youth only to become an obnoxious singer for middle-aged men a few years later. Ford has probably forgotten about the ’64 Mustang’s keynote, plus they produced it for far too long without much change.
Today many look at the Mustang II with pity, but in fact it was a return to the roots. Inexpensive car for young people, but in 70’s reality has changed a lot (fuel crisis etc.) and today when we compare first (early) and second mustang, almost everyone will choose the original…
I’m in with you on the II. Derided as it has been, it was a radical different direction for the Mustang (personally as a Mustang fan I found the ’71-’73 hideous), and sold greatly. For that moment in time, Ford hit a homerun. Of course the ’79 Fox body was a huge improvement.
The featured Mustang is a pretty car, and I’m sure held it’s own for those who preferred Fords over Mercurys (Cougar). The Cougar was pretty bloated by this time.
As kids we were cheering Mom and Dad on to replace Dad’s ’61 Newport with a ’70 Mustang (whatever car they chose would be all of our ‘drivers license vehicle’ eventually); alas reality kicked in and they bought a ’70 Torino 4 door sedan to supplant our ’66 Ford wagon.
I liked these notchbacks (without the vinyl) better than the original, particularly from the rear, but I don’t remember that ugly side scoop. In the early 70’s, an older boy would drive his girlfriend home 6 houses up when I was riding my bike home. His was that Ford olive green of the period, not very glossy but a big improvement over pale blue. My older sister told me later it was Jerry Ford’s son, and he dumped her when his dad became VP in order to play the greatly expanded field. The gf’s family had a ’55 Olds which wasn’t nearly as handsome as our ’56 4 door hardtop. Steve Ford was handsome enough to get on a soap opera.
This was a year or two after “Remember the Titans” took place at their HS. The star defensive player driving drunk from the awards dinner and paralyzing himself (in a new Camaro) made a big impression at the time, before MADD existed. Unlike the movie, that happened right after they won the state championship in a shutout.
Even though this Brummy Brougham were snapped at the absolute peak of summer in’t North and the brick terrace surrounds are so glorious as to inspire, like, poetry, I can’t help you in your dismalities, though my reasons are perhaps a bit obtuse.
Those bloody hubcaps!
Ford fitted them to the ’69 Fairmonts here, and I immediately developed an urge to steal every one of them (and all this at the age of just one). Stupid, ugly, sticking out, pursed-looking, gutter-scraping starfish bin lids of horror, I had no idea other markets were thus afflicted. I always just assumed some local designer had exceeded his authority, and it all got a bit late to scrap.
So you see, I can’t assist with contributions like reasoned analysis of the car until those, those THINGS have been stolen and my blood pressure comes back down.
Which, as it happens, should be easy, as here in summer in the VERY far south today it’s been a charming grey and cold-windy 61F. No wonder I find even some Northerner’s hubcaps a downer…
Yep Fairmont hubcaps are ugly and are on this briuhamstang too, then Japanese car makers took that wheeltrim style to absurd extremes and for a long time. I among other like the bare black steelie look when they are removed or fall off.
Ford was fond of fake “mag wheel” style covers in the late ’60s. They sold moderately well as an upgrade, and I agree they generally weren’t very attractive. This 1968 full-size brochure page shows the standard cover, and two optional covers….
” gutter-scraping starfish bin lids of horror” Comment of the day!
What was the first car to have a built-in cupholder? Those above have to be aftermarket. We had a plastic tray with cupholders that fit over the transmission hump in our ’68 Buick, but I don’t think it was stable or deep enough to use for drinks when driving.
The 65-68 Mustang looked good in every body style, but the 69-70 really only looked good as a fastback, while it was merely OK as a notch or convertible. And it is true – Ford interiors got really drab, cheap and plasticky by 1969-70, and the Mustang was one of the worst.
As for the Grande’ thing, I see it as Ford following its longtime pattern of stomping all over Mercury’s territory on the rare occasions when Mercury would actually cultivate a little niche. The sad thing is that the Mustang Grande (with the right color, trim and wheels) was almost a better looking car than the 69-70 Cougar.
One of my College Roommates had a 69 Mustang Grande in around 1977-79. His was trimmed nicer than this one. Here is an interior shot from old car brochures and is more in line with what I remember his to be. http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Ford_%20Mustang/1969_Ford_Mustang/1969%20Ford%20Mustang%20Brochure/1969%20Ford%20Mustang-10.html I think subect car is a base Mustang with the Vinyl roof covering.
In 1969 my mother’s sister, then in her late 40s-early 50s bought her 3rd Mustang, a Grande. Previously, she had owned a 66 and a 68, like the 69 they were dark green with a black vinyl roof. I wasn’t old enough to drive until the 69 arrived, but rides in the 66 and 68 told me that the design was maturing. The 65-66 were like exuberant teenagers, the 67-68 were the reasonably mature mid-twenties man or woman, while the 69-70 model was the person in their early-mid 30s. The 71-73 model would be the late 30s-mid 40s with the formerly somewhat athletic model getting a bit sedentary.
To drive, yes the 69 Grande was a mini-Thunderbird in that the idling engine was barely audible and the interior TRIED quite hard to look upmarket, but not quite getting there with it’s plain steering wheel and obviously fake planks of woodgrained plastic. It was also a bit daunting to pilot with that extra long hood. On the move, bumps were barely felt, and rarely heard…until the car got old enough to develop the inevitable Ford suspension squeaks.
This Mustang was replaced in 1970-71 by a Ford Galaxie 500 2 door hardtop that my aunt quickly grew to hate and rarely drove. What happened? The Grande was totaled in an accident with a large Army truck, sideswiped I believe. Luckily, no one was inside.
BTW, I currently own an 06 Mustang because it’s a nice, low mileage example, and because I like it’s quasi-67/68 Mustang styling.
Funny that you say “Mini-Thunderbird” here…. That’s exactly why I bought my 2007 V6 Premium, Howard. It’s pretty much a copy of my ’88 T-Bird LX, right down to the (non) color combination (although my ‘Bird had the 5.0L V8 ;o).
Having had several T-Birds, needless to say it was my favorite Ford for years. After almost a decade with a ’97 Grand Prix GTP, I wanted to go back to Ford.
The Mustang was the only RWD, 2 door personal coupe that Ford produced.
This is why I am RetroStang Rick, and not T-Bird Rick here on CC. (Note: I wasn’t a big fan of the Retro T-Birds, but they were all over before 2008 when I bought my Mustang anyway.)
I seem to recall this was the first porky Mustang ? .
It looks O.K. to my old eyes now but I’d not have wanted one when new and not now either .
-Nate
The 71-73 Mustang Sportsroof in profile reminds me much more of the Marzal than the 70 Camaro, the 70 Camaro in profile reminds me more of a 67-68 Mustang fastback funny enough.
Not to turn this into a Ford vs. Chevy match but I’d still pick a Mustang for styling and interior in 1969, I agree that the coupe is stodgier than the *one* closed bodystyle the Camaro came in but with vinyl tops being all the rage at least the Grande one is well executed compared to the Camaro’s odd toupee top. And really is the 69 Camaro interior anything to write home about with its forward angled cliff of a dashboard round gauges in square holes? I don’t care what materials were used, the Mustang’s double hump dashboard looks like a Mustang dashboard(or at least evokes something as cool as the C2 Corvette), the Camaro dashboard looks like what you’d see in a late 70s Chrysler R body. Ho hum.
This is not a Grande, it’s a plain coupe. Not only is it missing the Grande script on the C-Pillar, but that black interior (if it’s actually to this example) lacks the molded door panels with courtesy lights, 3-spoke Rim-Blow wheel, and fake teak accents on the dash and door. Also, the seats should be Hopsack cloth, not vinyl. The closest one could get to a vinyl Grande would be to order the Interior Decor Group.
The Decor Group.
I need to stop assuming that the Cohort posters are correctly identifying their finds. My bad…
So if the subject car was a ’70 Mustang, it would be an MTM version…
(I think you all call this a “Secretary Special”?)
My first thought when looking at the coupe featured in the post was “School Teacher.”
Good catch, the Mach 1 shared a lot of the Grande interior features, including the extra sprayed on sound deadening on the floors. Big improvement in the cheeriness department with the wood grain coves and molded door panels
It looks like the “Mustang” badge added to the center of the dash is from a Mustang II, judging by the font. These aren’t necessarily my cuppa (give me a same-year Javelin over this), but if it was mine, I would cherish and take care of it. As the owner seems to be doing.
Speaking as the one-time owner of a 1970 Mustang Grande, I take offense to Mr. Niedermeyer’s comments on the notchback ‘stangs of that era. My Mustang was British Racing Green; light brown vinyl (and black-and-light-brown houndstooth cloth). Had just the hubcaps – no fancy discs, but they looked right. Next to my ’92 Alfa Romeo Spider Veloce, it was the best-looking car I’ve ever owned. Unfortunately, six months after I got it, I was drafted and my parents, who had paid for it, gave it to my Lutheran pastor brother-in-law who drove it for seven or eight years and then sold it to a kid who proclaimed he would restore it. Last I saw it, it had 123,000 miles on its 351 4-V Cleveland with C-6 automatic (last auto I’ve driven). I’d kill to have it back . . .
British racing green on a Mustang. I do believe it was a Ivy Green Poly of either the medium or dark variety.
This is an auction on BaT that’s fixing to end soon. What a great color!
I have to disagree, I find that this is an improvement on the original. I prefer the forward canted front end, and the forward cant of the roof. The front end is good, I never liked the ’65-’66 little snout, but I like the ’70 a bit more. This has the distinction of being the only classic Mustang with four headlamps. The tail lamp panel is better formed than the original, and I prefer this to the dished ’67 -’68 models. The next year the tail lamps were back to three element castings. I also like the raised upper line of the rear quarters. The interior did get a bit grimmer, almost all American cars got rid of all the chrome and went to padded plastic surfaces for crash protection. It was stretched out a bit on the outside with no increase in size inside. That fake side vent was the worst ever!
Compared to the ’70 Camaro/Firebird it does come up a bit short in the va va voom department. I hate to make comparisons to females, but the Mustang was next door’s all American blonde cheerleader and the Camaro was the intriguing raven haired Italian exchange student.
There’s a reason that the ’67 Fastback Mustang became iconic as the Bullitt movie car, and the Firebird/Trans Am became iconic from the Smokey and the Bandit movie. Both cars are just gorgeous, the best looking cars of their lineage. The original Eleanor from Gone in 60 Seconds was a ’71-’73 fastback that is only remembered because it was smashed to bits during the movie.
I think that I got my ’70 coupe right.
I don’t really like these. Primarily I think because of the galloping bloat which seemed to infect much of the US industry as a whole back in the latter sixties.
I’d like it more if it was the handy size of the original. While it’s not a bad design, and has some nice details (and some inexcusably klutzy ones, like those backward-pointing ‘scoops’), I prefer the trim lines and taut surfaces of the original.
All things considered I think this is still a fairly attractive car. But I guess it’s all in what you compare it to. Put it up against something like the Bullitt Mustang, and you could hardly call this ’69 coupe the belle of the ball. But park it next to, say, a ’90s Toyota Echo—or even worse, a new Toyota CH-R—and suddenly this ol’ ‘Stang is Sophia Loren.
Mustang goes blah? Baaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaa! (Breathe breathe breathe) baaaahahahahahahaha!