It was the day of the annual Chicago Marathon when I happened upon our featured convertible. I had completely forgotten that the race was happening that day, but the hoards of people at the CTA Red Line Addison station that Sunday morning gave me an immediate clue that something was up. It didn’t take me that long to piece it together. Besides a brief stint in playing tennis during my freshman year of high school, running was the other sport at which I might have excelled if I had given it half a chance and believed in and applied myself. As a tall, thin teenager, I had enjoyed and done well in the various track activities in my high school gym class.
I was never going to be the biggest, baddest dude, and as an ectomorph, putting on any muscle has always taken me extra effort. I eventually came to see my body type as an asset and not a liability, but as it relates to the marathon, it occurred to me that it must take enormous mental strength within the runner, never mind the physical training, diet, sleep, and various other factors leading up to this event. Mentally, it sometimes takes me significant effort to begin the actual process of writing one of these essays, not knowing exactly what I want to say or how long I want the piece to be. That’s all so minor compared to the runner’s preparation. They’ve made a huge commitment not only to start, but for many of them, to also see it through. To go the distance.
It’s mind-blowing to me that a car like the Ford Mustang has just entered its sixty-second model year of production in a span that has remained completely unbroken. Not even the Chevrolet Corvette can claim this feat, having sat out the ’83 model year while production of the C4 was ramping up. I have to wonder if: a.) there are any of the product planners of the original Mustang program still alive; and b.) if they could have predicted back then that one day the ‘Stang, if personified, would live to be eligible to collect Social Security benefits.
Framing this a different way within the context of running a marathon, the Mustang started strong out of the gate, found its rhythm, hit a few rough patches, soldiered on, and emerged victorious as the last one standing in what had been quite a vast field over the years. And it’s not even done running. I will weep big tears if and when it is announced that the traditional ponycar format of the Mustang will be discontinued.
The SN-95 (or fourth-generation) Mustang almost exactly bisects this model’s entire run so far, having been introduced for the ’94 model year. As I was snapping these photos of this black ’98, the owner returned. She and I had a brief conversation before each of us headed toward our respective destinations. Neither one of us could believe in the moment that ’98 was as long ago as it was. She and her husband had paid cash for it when it was about thirteen years old, if I recall our conversation correctly. It’s the base model with the 3.8 liter V6 with 150 horsepower. At first I had thought it was a GT, but the front fenders have ponies and not the engine callouts on them. By ’98, even the base Mustang could be had with a rear spoiler and these dressy wheels.
As I’ve written elsewhere here at CC, I was in college when the SN-95 had made its debut, and I was instantly smitten. I was driving my own ’88 Mustang LX hatchback at the time and pined for the day when one of these then-new steeds would be within my price range on the used car market. According to a license plate search, this car was even built in Dearborn! It doesn’t get more Ford than that.
The only not-positive thing I remember about these Mustangs was the significant deficit in power and performance in the top-tier models in comparison to the competition from General Motors. Even for ’98, five model years into this generation’s run, the Chevrolet Camaro Z28 boasted a 15-horsepower advantage with its 320-hp 5.7 liter V8 and the Pontiac Firebird Trans Am’s (completely different) 5.7 liter V8 also sported 320 hp. This was against the 305 hp 4.6L V8 in the Mustang Cobra, which in fixed-rood form carried a base price that was 28% more expensive than the Chevy ($26,400 vs. $20,470). The Trans Am started at $25,975. A garden-variety Mustang GT coupe started at $19,970 and made do with a 225-hp version of the 4.6L.
It seems to me that a 95-horse deficit would have been a tough sell for a Ford salesman pushing the GT against the Camaro Z28. For all of these differences and price, power, performance, and potential, the sales race wasn’t even close for ’98: 149,100 Mustangs total against 54,000 Camaros and 33,300 Firebirds. There’s one more subjective measure, though, that’s the elephant in the room. The Mustang’s interior and cargo area were significantly more usable and livable than those of the GM F-bodies. Even a short ride in the front seat of the Camaro, with its huge and obtrusive catalytic converter hump in the front footwell, drove me absolutely bonkers. My knees seemed like they were almost in my face. In my mind and at that time, the Camaro had just effectively become a one-seater. No, thank you.
I do genuinely like all three cars, and I think the styling of the fourth-generation Camaro is still drop-dead gorgeous, especially in its earlier model years. With that said and being admittedly a highly subjective assessment, the concurrent Mustang also rang rings around its rear-drive ponycar competition in personality and affability. Standing across the street from it when I had left the Addison station, it was clear that roughly thirty-years on, this Mustang still had unmistakable presence and inimitable style, identifiable as nothing else but what it is.
Some Mustangs over the years have had less of this je ne sais quoi, admittedly. For example, I wouldn’t want to show a member of Generation Z a picture of a 1983 Mustang L notchback with the vegetable-slicer hubcaps and ask them to identify the make and model of what they were looking at. I’m pretty certain that what some of them might say would hurt both my feelings and the Mustang’s, and nobody wants that.
What I will say is that six decades is a long time to be in the game, much like 26.2 miles (or 42.2 kilometers) is a long way to run. But here we are at the end of 2025 with a new, 2026 Mustang available for purchase. It may no longer be the inexpensive compact sporty car for any budget, but the Mustang has certainly gone the distance… and then some.
Lakeview, Chicago, Illinois.
Sunday, October 12, 2025.
I have always liked these, and found them fresh after so many years of the Fox body cars. I seriously considered making a home for one of these back when they were still reasonably plentiful at maybe a decade or more old, but I never found the right one. But then my requirements were tight – it had to be a convertible, a V8, a stick, and a clean original (as opposed to a modded or thrashed out car). Even though this one would not have made my cut back in the day, it is a great car to look at, and a quick chat with a happy owner is always a plus.
JP, I agree that an enthusiastic conversation with another car person about his or her car only adds great things to the experience.
On my Great Michigan Adventure 2025 road trip from this past August, I was in greater Detroit when a car that checks all the boxes you described above pulled up next to me in traffic with a “for sale” sign (“serious inquiries only”) and what looked like a very affordable price tag.
If that “serious only” thing wasn’t on the sign, I might have flagged down the driver. How fun, though, would have been to end up with one of my dream cars (and dump my rental at a Michigan office) during that trip!
6 decades is quite an accomplishment! I recall sitting in one on the “Magic Skyway” at the 1964 World’s Fair. Maybe it was that early exposure, but I have always thought that the convertible Mustangs are more attractive than their hardtop versions. This on you’ve found is definitely a sharp car.
Jeff, I will agree that in most iterations, most body styles of Mustang have lent themselves nicely to convertible versions. I even think the Mustang II-based, targa-roofed Sportiva II concept car was good-looking.
These seem to have improved tremendously since 1998. At that time, I respected them but didn’t really like them. Now the like has grown.
These are also robust cars. A family member’s stepson had, consecutively, two different ’98 V6 Mustangs. He wrecked both. After the second wreck two were made into one, which he drove for a while before wrecking that one. It was overhauled and he drove it more. Not sure what happened to it, but given his track record, I likely know…
Jason, the one you described (the Frankenstang) sounds like a modern-day equivalent of Eleanor from the original “Gone In Sixty Seconds”! I hope his lives a while longer than we might assume.
I have to admit; this is my Least favorite body style of the ‘newer’ Mustangs. Just based on looks alone.
(I’ll also admit, I’m more of a Chevy guy). I rode in the back seat of a 94 (4 times) when they 1st came out, and damn if it ain’t cramped back there. Barely beats walking, (but beat it none the less).
But, as I always say, I’d still own one (convertible 5.0) if the price was right. (As long as I don’t have to sit in the back ‘seat’).
Also, I wouldn’t care so much about the 6 cyl version ‘power wise’, but it can just NEVER sound as good as a V8.
If you think this Ford barely beats walking, wait until you see what I have queued up for 11/25.
EDIT: Terry, I just reread your comment and I see that what you were saying was that riding in the back of one of these barely beats walking. I don’t think I’ve ridden in the back of an SN-95 convertible, and thus can’t say how uncomfortable I’d be, but I hear you. I can imagine it doesn’t have a Chrysler Sebring-amount of room back there.
I still hope you tune back in on 11/25 because as you’ve said you’re a Chevy guy, I’m sure you’ll have thoughts on my featured Ford.
It’s amazing to think about how many generations have grown up with Mustangs being just a staple of life – not only has it survived for six decades, but it’s maintained its position as one of the most well-recognized car models, even among non-car people.
I wasn’t terribly fond of this Mustang generation when it debuted, and even now, I prefer the generations before and after. But I love seeing examples of these that are still on the roads. I’m glad you got to chat with this car’s driver!
Regarding running, about 20 years ago or so I figured I’d give it a try, and I planned to go for a run every morning. I hated it. Even though I enjoy walking, that didn’t translate into an appreciation for running at all. I gave it up after a few weeks. Lots of respect, though, to folks who can run a marathon – it’s something I find hard to comprehend.
I have never not liked these. I’m fact, I’m pretty sure I have a poster-sized fold out of a ’94 convertible in storage somewhere. That poster adorned my college dorm walls for probably two whole years.
Running is a nonstarter for me, and has been for years. I can still sprint to make trains and buses, etc., but the ol’ knees just aren’t what they used to be. Just looking at the marathon made me want to take a bottle of Advil.
“.. it’s maintained its position as one of the most well-recognized car models, even among non-car people.”
And that’s the kind of publicity mere money can’t buy. All the more so because it’s not a truck (Suburban) nor a sports car (Corvette), but something agruably more mainstream. Even in countries where it wasn’t officially sold (until recently), we still know the name.
I love that it seems like the Mustang had almost immediately become a universally recognized symbol. That’s part of what made it special, even as I read about it today.
There’s at least one SN95 in my neighborhood, and quite a few around town, while Fox-body Mustangs have almost disappeared here. I don’t know if it s just age, or if there is something about these that will make them last longer … perhaps by not getting wrecked or hot-rodded, rather than any intrinsic quality. I have rented at least one of this generation, and the one I remember was a convertible, but other than leaving the top down while parked, only to be reminded that it does rain in New England in summer, it wasn’t a particularly memorable car to drive.
I have the same observations, and what really stands out to me is most of the ones I see in varying states of condition have little to no visible rust. Ford really seemed to nail corrosion protection in them, better than their successors (by contrast the “retro” 05-09s I’m seeing lately seem to be living up to the term “rustang”).
But they’re also cheap to maintain, mechanically very simple and easy to work on and because they were in production so long and have so much interchange critical wear parts are cheap and abundant
I will say this about the base cars – being equipped with a V6 that was much, much more powerful than the 2.3L four-cylinder in the last of the base Fox-bodies made them that much more appealing all-around. Not everyone could afford to purchase and insure the V8-equipped GTs.
What a lot of people don’t know or remember existed during this generation was the Mustang GTS, essentially a continuation of the more stripped down “LX 5.0” package on the Foxbodies. It was basically a base V6 Mustang with these V8, most didn’t have cruise or power windows even, and I could be mistaken but I believe they cost a good amount less than a GT too
Personally what I never liked about the V6 in this period was that they weren’t really much more economical than the V8s(I’d actually confidently say the 4.6 ones were imperceptible) and the power difference by todays perspective is almost comical that the GTs were considered by insurers these highly risky death machines at 215 horsepower.
The GTS was offered only very briefly: My 1996 Edmunds new car guide said it was available for only six months during MY1995 and had been dropped by the start of 1996.
As for the insurance, that also reflected the people who drove them (and how) and the people who stole them, since they were popular targets for thieves. A couple years earlier, Chevrolet had added the Pass-Key ignition lockout system to the Camaro and Corvette to try to bring down insurance rates.
Matt, I do remember the GTS – but only after having been reminded about it in recent years. I liked that Ford had tried (briefly) to bring back the bare-bones, V8 Mustang. I also like your point about the relatively small difference between the fuel economy of the 6 and the 8, but that difference was only slightly wider between the 4 and the 8! At least in mostly highway driving. I was embarrassed to find this out in later adulthood.
And Aaron, I had also forgotten about when these cars were popular enough with thieves for these theft-control devices to be a consideration.
Yeah, I think an insurance agent who saw one of these cars usually envisioned it having one of three fates: wrapped around a telephone pole, burned out in an empty lot, or stripped in some chop shop. The V-8 cars were statistically more likely to end up those ways, and insurance companies had databases full of claims frequency and actuarial risk assessment data. So, when faced with one of these cars, especially in the hands of a buyer under 30, insurance agents would look it up and sort of mutter, “Oh, dear me.”
First time ever going to the Syracuse nationals car show with my buddy who’s a regular attendee. Goes for the day and its a four hour ride each way. With 7k cars in attendance its a minute event… I spotted a Pacific green 96 gt convertible for sale.. Actually realized I had previously seen it on marketplace for sale but being hours away I did not followup. Now here I was with the car in front of me. I had sold my 63 s22 comet convertible two months prior but had picked up a 70 Avanti ll I had at home… My buddy kept bugging me to call on the gt. I finally did and met up with the owner and after some discussion and negotiation from $6k asking to $4500 purchase we agreed on. The seller met us in albany two days later, a two hour run for each of us, and finalized the deal and I drove it home on his plates and I added it on my hagerty policy.. Have had it since july, took care of some deferred maintainance and just loving it.. the a anti needed more than I wanted to invest so the moved along to Rochester NY. At least I can say I owned one.. I just turned 74 in October and thanking God I’m still enjoying my hobby/passion playing cars
Enjoyed this, Tom! Your ’96 in that Pacific Green is so great in that its color is so period correct. And it sounds like you got it for a great price. I’d be smiling every time I drove it. Thankfulness for the win!
Wouldn’t the ’94-2004 Mustang be the 5th generation?
1st Gen: ’64-’70.
2nd Gen: ’71-73.
3rd Gen: 74-78.
4th Gen: 79-93.
5th Gen: 94-2004.
6th Gen: 2005- ?
7th Gen: ?
The ’94-98 Mustangs were really lost. Even the Cobra 4.6L DOHC V8 was really lame.
The ’99+ Mustang got the 4.6L V8 2V engine updated, which resulted in much more power and a much better 5 speed manual.
The 99+ Mustangs got edgier styling which looked way better than the earlier cars when lowered and larger tires/wheels.
The 2003 Cobra with the super charged 4.6L DOHC engine at 390HP and a 6 speed manual was/is a great car.
I’ve always heard the 71-73s grouped into first generation, anfterall under the expansive skin they are basically the same.
Gen numbering was never really a thing in Mustang circles apart from the first, it goes:
First generation: 64-1/2-73
Mustang II:74-78
Foxbody: 79-93
SN95: 94-98
New Edge: 99-04
S197: 05-14
S550: 2015-2022
S650: 2023-present
I actually think the 94-98 actually benefits even more from lowering and nicer wheels. They’re really not bad looking IMO they just kind of all look the same and sold a lot so they’re a little boring. The performance is disappointing too as you mentioned, to a lot of people they’ve kind of wound up just above Mustang IIs in desirability
I could definitely be wrong about Mustang generations..
I would have thought the 71-73 Mustangs to be totally different than the 64-70 Mustangs.
Bigger, longer, wider, completely different roof line..
The 99-04 Mustangs were very similar to the 94-98 Mustangs. Other than the sheet metal and minor differences, they were identical. Even the roof is identical.
I would not say they were a different generation.
I agree that there isn’t much logic to it, same with the S550 being a different generation from S560 as it too is mostly a sheetmetal change on the same platform but those seem to be the culturally accepted groupings
The 69-70s had about as many changes as the 71-73s had in reality, but like the 71-73s it’s all based on the same basic chassis as the 65s, all the dimensional changes are just external sheetmetal protruding from the old platform, you can see it in the thickness of the doors when open or under the hood with the massive gap between the grille and radiator
These are the Mustang generations I also think of, though I wonder if the 2010 (?) refresh should count as a “0.5” generation since the sheet metal was pretty significantly revised.
About the 1971 – ’73, I think it should also be it’s own thing or at least a “0.5”, given its one-inch-longer wheelbase than what had come before.
Honestly, I wonder if there was more or less differentiation between the original ’65 Mustang and the ’71, versus between some of the permutations of the Chrysler K-cars. I mean, just look at the E-body cars as compared to the original Reliant and Aries. The J-body and G-body cars also got their own platform designations, but were also heavily K-based, much like the original Mustang was on the Falcon platform. I dunno.
Great catch!
Have always been a Mustang fan, starting as a little kid with their introduction and seeing the Mustang kiddie pushcarts at the ’64 World’s Fair all the through the dark and brighter days. My favorite years are ’68-69, early Fox body, and the 2005 revamp. I even respect the Mustang II for what it was in that moment in time.
Once I get a few things sorted out with the Saab I’m going to sell it and hopefully graduate to a GT convertible of the ’10-’14 vintage. With an automatic……
Thanks, Dave! It’s great to hear another Mustang fan show appreciation for the early Foxes (I love the ’79) and also the MII, however that’s qualified. I remain a big fan of the 2005 – still such a true, modern interpretation of the original styling cues.
I think that most Mustang Fans consider the first gen to run from 1964 1/2 to 1973, as they all shared the basic platform. Initially I was lukewarm about the SN95, and I had bought a new 2007, as I really liked the retro styling. Years later I would buy my ’96 GT convertible. I settled for that because I couldn’t find the right late Fox Body GT. Over time I really came to like my ’96. It certainly was a worthy successor to the early models. I kept mine for 14 years and replaced it with my current 2006 GT convertible. The ’96’s were considered to be the weak sister of the period, compared to the regular Camaro and their own, later Cobra variations. The New Edge models were a bit more crisply styled, and had substantial increases in power, terminating in the appropriately named Terminator Cobra. I found the performance of my humble GT to be satisfactory and the fuel economy of the SOHC 4.6 engine to be quite good. I still miss that ’96. I’m not very focused on overly high performance cars anymore.
Jose, in reading your comment and a few of the others, I think I may be in the minority in preferring the styling of the original SN-95 over the ’99 refresh. I feel like the ’99 perhaps didn’t go far enough to differentiate it from what had come before it, at the same time losing much of the organic flavor of the original car. I like the ’99, but I think I might prefer a Mustang II Mach I if given the choice between the two.
A shame about the power deficit of the SN-95 against the GM F-bodies. I think this might have poisoned some people against them from the start.
I actually like this generation of Mustangs, better now then when they were new. There were just so many of them and I prefer to drive something less seen so I have generally preferred Camaro’s. That is why I enjoy my 5fth gen. 2011 Camaro 2LT that I bought new and it looks less cluttered like the original Camaro concept (2008?). Regarding the featured Mustang, it takes nerve to park top down on an urban city street. I have owned a number of convertibles starting in the early 1970s, and back-in-the-day never hesitated to leave the top down when parking. Would not do that today unless parking my 60s convertible, top down, when running into PetSmart to pick up cat litter. I live in a heavily wooded neighborhood, and my backyard faces the backyard of another home divided by a deep ravine creek. From my deck I can glimpse part of their driveway and for years there sat a Mustang convertible of this vintage, left outdoors & never moved, for years. An upper middle class home with a separate two story large garage and they leave this Mustang convertible outdoors for years. Off course they don’t park any of their expensive newer SUV’s in that garage either. Don’t get me started on people who have garages and leave their cars outside. Even when at my last address where I lived in a high-rise with underground parking I used a car cover on both my cars. Sorry I digress. Only a few weeks ago that beautiful Mustang was gone. Hopefully they sold it to a young person who will enjoy it. Did they leave it parked in their driveway for many years because it belonged so someone in their family, deceased, and couldn’t part with it? My imagination runs wild why an upper middle-class family would leave a Mustang convertible to rot outdoors for years.
Forget running! I need to walk more. I am 74 and have one brother age 77. When we were both in our 30s, I danced and went to a gym, he did nothing. Now in our 70s, I do nothing and he runs Marathons! For the last few years he has won every marathon he has entered in the age +75 group. My brother and I only talk on the phone about twice a year so I was surprised when he contacted me requesting I check out hotels in my city. Apparently there is a 10K race in my city next April and he wants to run. I said say at my home. No. The stuff he does before a long race includes diet, rest, meditation, etc. I will do everything I can do to help him run a race.
Funny that my brother sent me a picture of his winning a race at age 77, in his age group. I have not seen my brother in almost 20 years (but we talk). He is lean, grayed haired with a long pony tail. The funny is back in the late 1960s & early 70s I was the hippy with long hair and brother was a straight laced corporate auto designer.
“Funny that my brother sent me a picture of his winning a race at age 77, in his age group. I have not seen my brother in almost 20 years (but we talk). He is lean, grayed haired with a long pony tail. The funny is back in the late 1960s & early 70s I was the hippy with long hair and brother was a straight laced corporate auto designer.”
I knew someone who was a rowdy kid, back in San Diego, in the early 70’s. Father was a career Navy Chief dating back to the Asiatic Fleet 1938 off China. Well this kid did enlist in the Navy and became a SWO and attained the rank of Captain before retiring after 22 years. Expert in propulsion and damage control. Short hair and mustache. Afterwards, when retired, no mustache but early gray hair and a long pony tail. Reconnecting, by accident, around 2012 we would have in depth conversations about the Navy. However, passed away too early at 60.
Your brother’s story is inspiring. And walking is plenty good for us. I hope and aim to be mobile and taking my neighborhood walks as long as I can.
And I hope that Mustang went to a good home and appreciative owner.
Seeing any Mustang between 1979-2004 on my roads, in Contra Costa County is very rare nowadays. In fact saw a 94-04, I can’t tell which, just last week making it the first this year.
I feel like maybe I’m spoiled by living near a college campus, but I feel like doing so has perhaps granted me visual access to more of these kinds of Mustangs than would otherwise be the case.
To be clear, there aren’t a ton of them running around, but I have seen a few. There’s a ’99 New Edge convertible I may have to photograph and feature here some time.
Every now and then I came across a word I’ve never heard in lo these many years. Today’s word was ‘endomorph’. Googling it (so much easier nowadays than getting up to consult the dictionary), I find it’s the opposite of my body type. That fits how I pictured you, Joseph!
These Mustangs. I’ve never seen one of this generation, though I have no doubt there are some around in my country. It seemed strange at the time that a company as technically conservative would make the move to OHC V8s, especially while keeping a live axle rear end. If it had been me in product planning, I’d have gone the other way and introduced IRS first. I had to smile at your comment about the Camaro being a one-seater; I’d read about the intrusive hump back in the day, but didn’t realize it was as bad as all that. What’s that? Endomorph: right, yeah. Your photo of the parade implies long legs and arms, and they have to go somewhere. I still wonder how GM thought taking a chunk of the passenger’s footroom was okay.
I’ve only built one SN-95. A bit earlier than the one you saw, though I forget the year. Still has that Mustang mystique, to me.
“Endo-” and “ecto-” are two different prefixes – I’m the latter and not the former. With that said, and given the relative indifference shown to this generation in the comments, I wonder what the export take rate is for them – especially in Oceania, where there are plenty of other V8-powered vehicles of interest for petrol heads!
I love the color of your scale model in what looks to be the same Pacific Green of Tom Wasney’s example above. It is so beautifully ’90s and takes me right back!
Whoops! I immediately identified myself as the opposite body type to you and typed the wrong word! Must’ve had it on the brain, or I wasn’t properly awake yet (also a possibility). Sorry about that.
As to the Mustang, I chose the colour because it looked just right in a magazine photo. It’s not really Pacific Green, but it’s close enough for me.
I have a major soft spot for this car as it is not far off from the 96-98 I sat in in the Chicago Auto Show which was the first Mustang I ever had been in. I wish I could remember the color but it was definitely a V6(it had these wheels) and was a convertible. I really loved and still love the 96 taillight revision, to me it’s one of the best rear ends in Mustang’s long run. A lot of people prefer the horizontal ones of the 94-95 for design purity but they just look weird to me, where these vertical ones look more Mustang like as well as cleaner and more cohesive to the lines.
This generation is a tough one to love, I think only bested by the Mustang II and Mach E in the world of controversial Mustangs. The powerplants definitely leave much to be desired, the styling is most definitely very much of its time and as a blessing and a curse consequence of them being decent sellers they exposed ALOT of people to them and to them at best people find them boring and at worse find them crappy. I myself struggle with that, I simultaneously find massive childhood nostalgia in these Mustangs but my adult experiences with them are pretty meh. My Cougar is directly from the same era and though it is not exactly a desirable generation of that nameplate it’s got so much more going for it in engineering, handling, and comfort with similar powertrains and identical switchgear. I kept that car for 20 years this year, I’m not sure I’d have done that had I bought one of the couple SN95s I almost did back then….
….BUT on the other hand that’s kind of what I appreciate about Mustangs, the name is oddly magical, there’s a look that somehow transcends drastic generational changes the SN95 had without going retro, and in a way I see these 94-98 SN95s as the last honest Mustangs for the everyman. Yeah the 3.8 is the same as the one in the Taurus, yeah 4.6 is the same as that of the Crown Vic…. so was the 6 and V8s of 1965. That’s kind of the point, it’s not a real sports car, it just looks like one using common line parts to keep it a good value. Modern Mustangs(that is to frustratingly have to say the coupes) by contrast are by 90s standards basically true sports cars, well into Corvette territory, but I think something of the Mustang magic has truly been lost in that transition and their current sales ultimately reflect it.
The 71-73 generation though almost universally unloved today by practical car fans as well as performance oriented enthusiasts alike casts a long shadow into the current era of Mustang, where the impractical fastback is king, big power is its selling point and a hefty price tag to match is its identity. The. Mustang II was an over correction to those bloated Mustangs, completely forgetting the performance oriented buyers, but the way I see it was the Foxbody gradually repaired the balance and these SN95s perfected the balance.
I like a lot of the points you make here. In fact, I hadn’t quite made the connection between the bunker-like 1971 -’73 Mustangs and the current crop, but yes – absolutely, I see it.
I was also very pleased with the 1996 taillamps lens revision. It seemed like a course correction. I did like the original ’94 look, but the horizontal bars seemed a little Probe-esque – and while I liked second Probe, we already had one of those.
I’ll also be thinking about your idea that the SN-95 was the last Mustang generation aimed at the average consumer. I wonder if that might still be the 2005 generation, but like I said, I liked the points you made.