The difference between a base Mustang and a high-trim fastback was pretty minimal in its original incarnation (’65-’66). But that gap widened with new iteration. And it was something of a canyon in the ’71-’73 years. Maybe it was because the Mach 1 was so extravagant, and that rather worked with its flatback and endless hood. But the base coupe was kind of sad, and not just because this one is really pathetic. It just didn’t have the spunk that every Mustang once had.
Well, that and maybe we were all just getting tired of the whole thing.
A base Mustang with original (dull) wheelcovers and shackles. Ah, the good old days. Jack the ass end up and you’re stylin’. Never mind the skinny little tires, and the now wheezy 302 V8, if it doesn’t have the 250 six.
Somebody’s dream got ugly along the the way.
I can’t say anything a whole lot nicer about this Falcon either. For some reason, these ’66 – ’69 versions in the four door body really didn’t work for me. I much prefer the ’60 – ’63, which had such a light, airy feel instead of the dull, heaviness of this. Maybe I’m prejudiced because one of my middle-school friends’ parents traded their ’61 Valiant for a ’66 Falcon four door. Yes, it was quieter, smoother and just new, but I missed the airy cabin of the Valiant and the slightly mechanical thrum of its slant six.
1967 was the nadir for Falcon sales; all of 64k found sad and desperate buyers. That’s down from 474k in ’61. The ’66 did a bit better, but was still down from the ’65, despite being new. It was of course the fault of the Mustang; who would want a Falcon when a base Mustang was just a few bucks more? The Falcon cannibalized sales from the big Fords, the Fairlane from both the Falcon and big Fords, and the Mustang from all of them. Ford’s market share in 1967 (21.4%) was well below what it had been in 1961 (23.7%).