The Big Mustang. The Fat Mustang. The Bloatstang. This final iteration of Lee Iacocca’s brainchild was never really loved in its youth. How do I know? I was one of the many people (although on the young end) who thought of the original Mustang much as many thought about The Beatles – by late in their runs, each had kind of lost the plot about what had brought them to success in the first place.
But where the individual members of the Beatles (well, at least most of them) went on to be productive musicians, the 1973 Mustang was the end of its line, replaced by a Pinto-derived 4 cylinder subcompact pony car fit for the era of malaise. Later Mustangs would have their charms, particularly in the Fox-body era. And early Mustangs, of course, never went out of style but became the darlings of the Cars & Coffee guys.
These “big” Mustangs, however, sort of lived in an in-between. Those that survived the hard latter end of the “ordinary used car” years, anyway. And survival was a trick, given the way these Mustangs rusted like about everything Ford built in the early 1970’s. As they aged they had a certain retro appeal, but that was mostly the fastbacks with the big stripes or big engines. What we seldom saw as these cars started to find some love were the ordinary ones. Like this example.
Is there a 1973 Mustang that tries harder to channel the successful vibe of the first Mustangs than this car? Painted a shade not too unlike Ford’s classic Rangoon Red of the 1960’s and with no stripes or graphics, this Mustang tries hard to hit that “just right” note that the early cars almost couldn’t miss. A red convertible with upgraded wheels and a white interior was a classic combination when the Mustang made its debut, and this car wears the look proudly. The tan convertible top is a curious choice – black or white would have really completed that mid-60’s look. But I understand those who don’t like the appearance of black and don’t want to try keeping a white one clean.
This, of course, was not the Mustang Ford was trying to sell us in 1973. That year, it was all about the Mach 1, with its stripe packages and NACA-style air ducts in the hood and optional big-inch engines.
Or the Grande’, which took us down the road with all of the luxury features that Ford would become famous for later in the decade. A plain-Jane Mustang convertible, even one painted in the unimaginatively-named “Bright Red”, was not the kind of thing that the 70’s are remembered for. Now, however, I find it more appealing than the other kinds of Mustang that stole all of the thunder of the day.
I shot this car quite a few years ago, and remember a few minutes later when an elderly woman came out of the grocery store and got into this car. It was not hard to imagine that she had bought this 1973 model to replace her ’65 model when she heard that the convertible was about to be discontinued. This car had the look of a low mile original, or at least one that had received extremely devoted care through the years. Which was why I stopped to take the photos. Because I have myself undergone some early 1970’s Mustang rehab.
When this series came out, I was about 12 years old, and while I liked the stance and attitude of the Mach 1 fastbacks, the “regular” Mustang didn’t do much for me. I thought the Barracuda or Challenger was better looking (if a guy wanted a super-sized pony car, anyhow) and found these Mustangs to be too much of a mediocre thing. But now? Call me a fan. I like the styling, and find that the convertible comes off better than the notchback with its overdone sail panels (though it lacks the attitude of the SportsRoof). And though I am not usually a fan of old red cars, it is hard to fault red as the choice for a Mustang convertible.
This car and the early 1970’s were made for each other. That was the era of “more is more”. Those years from 1971-73 seem, at least to me, to mark the zenith of that period that most refer to as “The 70’s”. It was a time when clothing and home fashions were at their wildest. We were still in Viet Nam and the Arab Oil Embargo had not yet become a thing. The Oil Embargo came in October of 1973 and then, just like a party that had gone on too long, things seemed to come to an end. They certainly did for the Mustang.
Based on my one man survey, I am not alone in seeing more value in one of these cars and their time than I might have a decade (or three) ago. It seems like things from the 1970’s have more cultural cred than they did in the past and this car is one of the better examples of that time that more and more nostalgia-seekers want to revisit. To the extent that it matters, a quick perusal of some of the collector car and auction sites indicates that these Mustangs have been seeing a trend of more listings and higher values. Personally, I have never been a very good predictor of what is or is not generally popular, so some of this data tells me that I might be right this time.
This particular car, however, does not appear to be someone’s trendy new discovery. Rather, it has the look of a car owned by someone who appreciated it all along. For a car that was not universally loved, it is good to see an example that WAS loved by the one person who mattered – its owner. And now, all these years later, I think she has plenty of company.
Related CC reading:
Curbside Classic: 1973 Mustang – No Apologies Necessary
Curbside Musings: 1973 Mustang Convertible – At A Canter
1973 Mustang RustRoof Flatback – I Ride An Old Paint
1973 Ford Mustang Convertible – Motorized Malpractice Or Just What The Doctor Ordered?
That’s a pretty good-sized puddle under the left-front. It may be old, but…
That’s the first thing I noticed too!
Looks like coolant too, and that is underneath where the coolant tank is in Mustangs
Not an ugly car, but…not a good car either. I always liked Mustangs, except the Mustang II, and I finally bought a modern one, a 2020 Ecobooat. It’s a whole universe apart from those early Falcon derived ones for sure.
I never really liked the later “big” Mustangs, in fact when the firdt Mustangs came out and sold like hotcakes, I actually wasn’t super keen on buying one. I had it’s “parent” a late production (August) 1964 Falcon with the 260 ci V8 and the fully synchronised 3 speed with column shifter and Factory AC. What changed this was a trip with a friend to Virginia international Race track. We both came back wanting something different, Larry bought a used Triumph TR250, a one year model replaced by the TR6. I was at a local machine/speed shop talking to the owner about some upgrades to the Falcon engine and he pointed to an engine sitting on the shop floor and told me the car it came from was for sale. Engine was a black 289 Ford with Corba powered by Ford valve covers, an aluminum high rise intake with a strange LeMans bfuel bowl Holley four barrel. I went to the little used car lot and looked at the car, a 1966 Shelby GT350, red and at that time had “Little Cobra” painted on both sides as the owner had been drag racing it at the local strip. I did verify it was a Shelby by the VIN number.
I left a deposit on the car, went home and cashed in the savings bonds I had been purchasing since elementary school. I was 24 years old and single in 1970. I kept that car until 1981 when I needed the money due to having 3 kids, and my father selling the shop we owned, leaving me un-employed.
True, they were ‘bloated’ compared to the earlier generation Mustangs, but are still far better looking and more desirable than the 1974-’78 Pinto-based replacement.
JP, I loved this hot take. Like you, I appreciate this generation much, much more than I used to, and I like its overdone nature. I actually like the lack of stripes and scoops on this one as this convertible seems the purest essence of what the stylists were going for, non-matching top notwithstanding.
I like your theory about the owner having purchased this convertible to replace an early one, given that ’73 would be the last year for the foreseeable future. My money’s on it that this is partially why this one had survived in such fine form through whenever you had shot it.
A beautiful, seventies-tastic find and great writeup.
I’m a fan of this shape in vert; fastback was way too fast and notch too arch. Anyone able to help with why that front end managed to avoid the mandated bumpers for 1973?
I recall that there was a legal exemption for cars (possibly only models of low production) that were in their final year or two of a production cycle. The Barracuda, Challenger, Imperial and AMC Javelin are others I can think of that avoided the bad bumpers in 73, with a few of them skating by in 74 too.
The Mustang didn’t avoid the mandated front bumper; the 1973 model was 193.8 inches long, and the 1971 model was 189.5.
Interesting. I wish all cars in the US had been able to assimilate this new mandate that well.
That is correct. That ’73 front bumper is a high density elastomeric polymer that was able to absorb a 5-mph impact on its own that didn’t make it look like a sore added-on heavy chrome afterthought which most all other ’73 cars used. The main complaint at the time was an impact would have left noticeable damage to the paint (which the car in the article has on the driver’s side) where an ugly chrome bumper with the energy absorbing shocks behind would not show any sign of impact.
I’ve never been a fan of this generation but this example looks pretty good. The ad copy makes interesting reading 50+ years later. The 1973 ad that mentions the independent front suspension? Yeah, I guess that’s noteworthy if you’re finally upgrading from your 1948 Ford. Or your 1933 Chevy.
Nice find and a great write up on a car that really does exemplify the landscape of early 1970s America. I agree that the convertible has none of the awkwardness of the notchback and is the most pleasing shape of this generation of Mustangs. As for the SportsRoof, a ride in a not especially well-preserved Mach 1 back in the early ‘80s cured me of any desire to ever own one: bloated, loose-jointed, and uncomfortable, with that skyward-pointing backlite, combined with an overwhelming odor of stale cigarette smoke, making the black interior a dark and forboding place.
What I really would have wanted from the 1973 FoMoCo lineup was a Cougar XR-7 convertible, in blue with a white top and interior. That car has just a little bit more “extra” than this Mustang, perfectly in keeping with the early ‘70s theme.
Kudos to the owner for keeping this old girl alive as a daily driver. I drove a ’71 during a summer work gig back in the day and have to say it was the antithesis to my Mustang devotion. I was very fond of the ’69-70, but the ’71-’73 was too bloated for my liking. I’m one of the few who was excited by the arrival of the II; I feel it took the Mustang back to its small car roots. Of course the Fox was a huge improvement, and the complete reboot in ’05 better yet.
Great find, and wonderful perspective!
My sentiments about these are very similar to yours. I was briefly wowed by the flatback, but the day I first laid eyes on the new 1970 Camaro, the Mustang suddenly looked grotesque in comparison. I agree that the convertible works best for these.
Bought my basic ‘73 Mustang convertible new…medium green metallic over black; 6 cylinder w/3-on-the-floor and no power options; radio, whitewalls, & trim rings were about it. Loved the look, but it was definitely not as easy to pilot as my Mom’s similarly equipped ‘65! You are correct about the rusting issue…mine started within two years. Kept it for five years, though, until wrestling two car seats into it made it impractical!
I had a 73 Grande’ with 351Q-4V. It had every option but power windows. I put (1980s) modern 225/60/14 tires on it, gas shocks (it had the heavy duty suspension) and it was a real sleeper. I took the iron intake off of it and replaced with a Weiand alum one. Also got a Holly spread bore instead of the Motorcraft 4150. It ran better in town (the 4V 351 has huge intakes) with the smaller primaries. It had the Traction Lok 2.75 rear end so it was not quick off the line but once the secondaries opened fully it pulled really hard to way up over 100 and still cruised quietly on the freeway.
I loved that car.
1969 – 73. Big and bloated. When I first saw the first spy photos of the small 1974 Mustang II. I became a fan. Everybody seems to critize it but Ford sold something like 385000. Today they barely sell 50,000.Maybe today is the malaise years!
Another one of Bunkie Knudsen’s bloated, failed attempts to make a Ford look like a Pontiac, LOL! The T-Bird got the “Bunkie Beak”, to look like a Grand Prix, and the Mustang morphed into a Firebird! Most of these were eaten away to nothing by the dreaded “tin worm”, so clean examples are hard to find today. The good news is that because these are so disdained by Mustang devotees, they can be had for relatively short money, and performance parts are plentiful and relatively cheap. Built for only two (2) model years, 1972-73, they were the meat in the sandwich that got eaten by the earlier 1968-71 models (Bullitt Mustangs) and outnumbered by the Mustang II (1974-78, a.k.a. “Malaise Mustangs”).
Ford’s 1973 engines were the very definition of malaise. Beginning in 1970, each successive year got worse. Drivability suffered along with power. A redeeming feature of any ’73 Mustang engine was that at least it made more power than anything available in Mustang II that replaced it. If you like the big Mustang, the earlier year the better the powertrain.
Cut three or four inches from the front overhang and it looks decent
I am only noticing this now, that the ugliest detail of these cars is the giant “cliff” over the tail light panel, carried over from the 1970 fastback and its “outtasite” spoiler. How much better it would have looked with big tail lights.
SoCal’s climate means there are more auto survivors around than just about anywhere. In the last couple of weeks I’ve seen at least three 65-66 Mustangs on the road. One aspect that stands out today is just how tiny they were and they look even more so in modern traffic due to how huge cars are getting again. The 67s were a bit bigger and looked even more so due to the styling. I can see why Ford believed this iteration needed to be larger but IIRC the interior was not very spacious. They were decent cars, I had friends who had them and at least two with the Cougar version. No question the convertible version looks best. What a great find.
I’ve always liked 1971-73 convertibles and sportsroofs, but buying a pony car in the 1970s would have been an impossible decision for me. I like the Mach 1 a lot, but I also like the Camaro, Firebird, and Challenger, and the ‘Cuda and Javelin to a lesser extent. Heck, I have a Challenger, a Mustang, and a Firebird, so how do you choose just one?
Everyone speaks of bloat when it comes to the ’71 to ’73 Mustangs, but please consider the picture(s) below.
Throwing my own generation (Gen 5 – S197) under the bus for the moment, you can clearly see that that the “Retro” ‘Stang is MUCH bigger than the “Bloat” ‘Stang next to which it is parked.
Edit… I just realized that the Shelby is likely a ’68, so bad comparison, but you still get the idea. Having seen my own Mustang parked next to a ’71 at a Cars Coffee, I can honestly say my car looked a lot bigger. Maybe I’m wrong here…
Ok, this picture is very small, but the same generational comparison.
A 2012 Mustang as compared to a 1972 Mustang. They’re both even in the same “Grabber Blue” color…
Had one.
Nope.
Seriously front heavy, claustrophobic interior, rear end control was a joke, creaked like a buckboard, poor gas mileage and rustier than most Fords of this era.
There’s a real reason why Iacocca created the Mustang II – THIS!
Looks like it is bleeding a bunch of coolant. Hope she made it home…
I still remember the disappointment in seeing a 71 Sportsroof at the downtown Ford dealer in September, 1970.
My buddies and I had started grade 10 and were doing the usual checking out the new cars thing one Saturday. The new Mustang looked quite overweight compared to the outgoing 1970 models. You could hardly see out the back window of the Sportsroof and the styling of the squarish coupe and convertible just didn’t work for me.
I was never a fan of Mustang styling, and Ford styling in general, but I really hated the look of this era of Mustang. I didn’t love the first generation’s looks, but I didn’t mind it. I thought the Camaro was vastly better looking, especially the second generation. In the modern era, I really hate the 2010+ Camaro’s looks, and don’t mind the Mustang’s. As it was in the old days, the Challenger(not counting the Mitsubishi import) has always been better looking. IMHO, the peak of car styling was about 1968 to 1972. The Charger, Roadrunner, 442, Chevelle, GTO, Super Bee, Cuda, Challenger, etc, were all pretty great.
I think they’re ok. As mentioned Better than the Mustang II, IMO, By a longshot.
Little, (ok, a lot of) “curbrash” on that wheel close up. Were the other 3 all chafed up from the curbs? Was that the best of the 4? (the worst?)
Friend of mine had a 71 (fastback) w a 302 back in the 80’s. It seemed nice enough. (and he wasn’t even a tennis player).