(first posted 1/9/2013) Everybody has an opinion about pre-1974 Mustangs. The first four (well, four and a half) years are almost universally loved. There is also a small but dedicated fan club for the super-sized 1971-73 version, which some prefer for its aggressive early-1970s swagger. These two camps have debated for years, although neither side is likely to convert the other. Then there is the 1969-70 version: the middle-child of Mustangs. It seems to be nobody’s favorite.
Few cars had as successful a run as the original Mustang. From its mid-1964 introduction through the 1966 models, it broke the car market wide open and set one sales record after another. Likewise, few cars have had as successful a second act as the 1967-68 version. The second generation (or was it version 1.5) was plainly a facelift of the original, but many consider it even better looking. This series kept the magic going, adding a big 390 V8–and also a starring role in one of the definitive car chase movies of all time, Bullitt.
However, four model years with little significant change was an eternity for an American car in the mid-1960s. It was the decade of “more”, and the ’69 Mustang gave us more of everything – more length, more width, more weight and more performance. Although the car still remained on the original 108-inch wheelbase, almost everything else was bigger and more aggressive. Inside, the sunny, spacious interior of the original was giving way to a more of a spelunker’s theme, with its higher dash and seat backs making the interior quite cave-like.
It is plain that the stylists were doing everything in their power to maintain the styling cues and proportions that had made earlier Mustangs so popular. But can any of us say that if this car had come first, the Mustang would have become the runaway success that it was? Some cars simply look right, and they tend to become the breakout hits. It is a much harder job to follow a breakout hit with another car that keeps the magic going: Just look at the 2009 Honda Fit. Or just look at the ’69 Mustang. It is certainly an attractive car, but it is not one of the great ones.
Even at the age of ten, I knew that somehow the 1969 Mustang was a half-step off the pace set by the earlier iterations of America’s most famous pony. Ford may have been pitching it as an improvement, but I wasn’t buying. Maybe it was less the car and more the era itself. The sunny optimism of Camelot that was America in the early 1960s was giving way to a darker time that would eventually morph into the Malaise Era. The arc of John Kennedy to Lyndon Johnson to Richard Nixon seemed to be replicated in the life cycle of the Mustang.
For as many of these as were around at the time and after, I never heard anyone boast about how much better this car was than the earlier Mustang–or that it was so much better than the later one. Everyone who owned one of these seemed to wish their Mustang was a couple of years older or newer. At least Mary Tyler Moore looked happy on TV with her 1970 model.
These Mustangs got a much wider selection of engines than did their older siblings. In addition to the base 200 cid six, a new 250 cid unit was available–all the better to get nurses and secretaries to work on time in their portlier steeds. There were also more V8s. In addition to the 302 and 390 engines from 1968, there was the new 351. Finally, there were a couple of specialty numbers: the nearly 300 horsepower Boss 302 and the fire-breathing Boss 429. With its wide range of power trains, Mustang continued to offer something for nearly everyone.
One major change from the first Mustang was that there were now mulitple models. The Mach I and the Boss models were for the performance set.
The new Grandé gave you a little luxury. It was these specialty models that got most of the advertising promotion in 1969.
By then, there was something that never existed in 1965: just a regular, plain Mustang, as in “oh, you just got a regular Mustang.” Now, the basic Mustangs even came with dog dish hubcaps. How quickly Ford forgot one of the things that made the original Mustang so special – the fact that even a basic six- cylinder 1965 model was never viewed as a cheap car.
The Mustang’s slow loss of air showed up in the sales numbers, which started a slow deflation following 1966’s record sales year of roughly 600,000 units. Although sales had dwindled to about 317,000 by 1968, the 1969 model slipped to just short of 300,000–still quite respectable, but not the phenomenon the Mustang had been earlier in the decade.
I rode in one of these several times, a blue one with a four-speed and (I believe) a 302. It belonged to the family of a friend, and I was always in the back seat as his older brother drove. It was in this car that the older brother proved that the traffic lights that were timed for 30 mph on a major street through Fort Wayne, Indiana, were just as successfully timed for 60 mph. This was the car that proved to me that relatively hot cars and teenage boys do not mix well.
The 1969-70 Mustangs that get all the love today are the hot ones: the Boss 302, the Boss 429 and the Mach I. The garden-variety coupes and convertibles were not seen as frequently as they had been in 1965-68, and they certainly are not seen with much frequency now.
As I write this, it is cold outside and snow covers the ground, so it’s nice to recall the warm day early last summer when I found this little convertible parked outside the bank. Had this been a ’65 or ’66 model, I might have been tempted to keep on driving. Red Mustang convertibles have been done to death, and I am happy to let the red Mustang people go and hang out at their own website. My, my– does winter make me crabby?
Anyhow, because this was one of the much less common ’69s (and because the top was down just for me, apparently) I decided to stop and snap a few pictures. I’m glad I did, because this car seems to be a good, honest, refreshed-but-largely-original Mustang.
Looking over this car, I was reminded of why this model never appealed to me in quite the way that the earlier one did. The interiors of cars of this period were victims of many things–changing tastes, new safety regulations and, probably, some cost-cutting. However, while I would prefer the 1965-68 Mustang, one of this generation would be my second choice. How about you?
Still a good looker but not as nice as the early ones.This seems to be a common thing with American cars get it right and then meddle with it.There was a lot more opposition in 69 the gorgeous AMC Javelin being another good looker that was messed about with.There were some real tyre burners on sale then but to me they lacked the charm of the earlier cars
These were the days of Annual Styling changes, and the public demanded to be entertained by new looks every fall. So, if Ford had kept the same look, people would have said “It’s last years model” and moved on. No one had a Crystal Ball and said “In the future, there will be a big collector market for the ’65, so we should keep it same”.
Also, many other people say ‘Domestic makes get a car right in its last year and cancel it’, as a counter-point.
Speaking of the Javelin, I spotted a vintage Javelin SST promo film with some groovy music on Youtube 🙂 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rf6VBDxoS9E
Thanks for the link Stephane
jpcavanaugh wrote:
> It seems to be nobody’s favorite.
Personally, I think you’ve got your head stuffed. The 1969 model year Mustang was one of the best… the Sportsroof and Mach I cars were magnificent! Even the coupe was more curvaceous and beautiful than the box-like earlier cars. They also had the room under the hood for more potent and powerful engines while the handling was better… in fact, the overall roominess lent to a LOT of things that were better! Give me a 1969 Mach I any day over the 1965 & 1966 fastbacks… though shelby-ized they weren’t bad. The early coupes? Boxes on wheels with pizza cutter tires. For lack of a better term, those were closer to vagina cars than penis cars.
> For as many of these as were around at the time and after, I never heard anyone boast about how much better this car was than the earlier Mustang–or that it was so much better than the later one. Everyone who owned one of these seemed to wish their Mustang was a couple of years older or newer.
Clearly you didn’t grow up in the 1980s like I did nor were you in your 20s in the 1990s like I was. I didn’t know a single guy that would take a 1965-68 coupe over a 1969 coupe with all else being equal. The early coupes were the cars your mother liked because they went out on dates in them with your father and those cars were too slow to be scared of. The car dads all bought the real muscle cars… not the boxes sporting the skinny tires.
> These Mustangs got a much wider selection of engines than did their older siblings. In addition to the base 200 cid six, a new 250 cid unit was available–all the better to get nurses and secretaries to work on time in their portlier steeds. There were also more V8s. In addition to the 302 and 390 engines from 1968, there was the new 351. Finally, there were a couple of specialty numbers: the nearly 300 horsepower Boss 302 and the fire-breathing Boss 429. With its wide range of power trains, Mustang continued to offer something for nearly everyone.
So… are you saying the options were a good or bad thing? You seem to mock the options yet praise then right afterward! As an example, my opinion is that there were too many options and Ford would have done better to dump the 200 inline even though it was a tough and durable engine that was near impossible to kill. They should have also dumped the use of the 3-speed transmissions… for ALL of the FoMoCo cars and trucks. Of course that it my opinion, yours may vary. I’ll stop now because I could go on all day.
> One major change from the first Mustang was that there were now mulitple models. The Mach I and the Boss models were for the performance set.
You seem to be forgetting that there was a coupe, convertible and fastback for every year of the Mustang prior to 1969. What gives? You didn’t like the 289 K-code cars? Not enough speed for you?? The 390 S-code cars weren’t cutting it starting in 1967? Didn’t want to move up to the famed 427 option in 1967 either?? Good heavens… I haven’t even mentioned the Shelby Mustangs yet. Excuse me for being rude.
> The new Grandé gave you a little luxury. It was these specialty models that got most of the advertising promotion in 1969.
I believe you are in error in your assumptions. Based on my experience, the Mustang got a fair share of the Ford advertising dollars. Remember… Ford/Lincoln/Mercury had a slew of cars to advertise and they spread it around all over. I haven’t even gotten to the ever popular and growing F-series trucks yet either. The 1969 F-series with the Ranger package was the most luxurious F-series truck yet… and Ford plugged it heavily.
> By then, there was something that never existed in 1965: just a regular, plain Mustang, as in “oh, you just got a regular Mustang.” Now, the basic Mustangs even came with dog dish hubcaps. How quickly Ford forgot one of the things that made the original Mustang so special – the fact that even a basic six cylinder 1965 model was never viewed as a cheap car.
If all that was your opinion then that’s fine… but it certainly isn’t mine. You act as if buying the car that you want and having all those options is a BAD thing… and it leaves me shaking my head. If you go back over history just to the second world war then you’d be able to see and know that having more options was something that all buyers wanted every single year. That’s why there were so many by the end of the sixties. As for the Mustang now being “just a Mustang” and a “cheap car”… you are seriously dead wrong and have it backwards. The early cars were and continue to be viewed as plain and a cheap car with the least options. Boxes on skinny tires! You want to know something else? Sometimes the dog dish hubcaps are what is called for to finish off the look of a car or truck and nothing else will do. They just freaking rock! See the attached picture I got off a truck club I’m a part of for an example though I doubt you need one.
> The Mustang’s slow loss of air showed up in the sales numbers, which started a slow deflation following 1966’s record sales year of roughly 600,000 units. Although sales had dwindled to about 317,000 by 1968, the 1969 model slipped to just short of 300,000–still quite respectable, but not the phenomenon the Mustang had been earlier in the decade.
For the love of Mike & Ike!!! This is the biggest bunch of horseshite I may have ever read. The 1965 Mustang essentially didn’t have any COMPETITION when it hit the market. By 1969, how many other “pony car” models were on the market by the other manufacturers??? Even Mercury had the Cougar which competed directly with the Mustang. Expecting the Mustang to maintain the sheer volume it sold in units as it did in previous years shows a total lack of thought on your part. Shame, shame jpcavanaugh… we know your name!!! You screwed the pooch with your lack of logic. Take away just the Camaro and the Firebird and see what would have happened to the sales numbers!!
> The 1969-70 Mustangs that get all the love today are the hot ones: the Boss 302, the Boss 429 and the Mach I.
They get the love due to the fact that they look better, are more powerful and are a lot more fun to drive… and that’s after the rarity factor kicks in. Of course the Boss Mustangs are not now nor ever will be owned by pretty much all of us due to the costs and overall value but you never know. Part of the problem with classic cars is the money factor… once investor types found out how much money they could make off the rarer cars back in the mid to late 1980s (especially those investor guys that weren’t even car guys in the first place!), they FUBARed it all up for the average car guy. Their wealth pushed the average Joe like me away from the fastest and rarest cars unless I stumbled upon a deal waiting in the weeds… which did happen to me once. The same thing happened to baseball cards back in the late 1980s too. The only difference between the two is that a lot more folks collect cars as opposed to baseball cards and the market couldn’t be flooded with cars like it was with cards. The reality is that money talks and if you don’t have it then you’re left out in the cold or with what you can actually afford. That’s one of the reasons I got into Ford trucks. There have always been far more of them (going all the way back to 1925 for Ford factory trucks) than Mustangs and you could still pick them up for peanuts even when a run of the mill Mustang had gone from $1000 to $5000 in value between 1985 and 1995.
> The garden-variety coupes and convertibles were not seen as frequently as they had been in 1965-68, and they certainly are not seen with much frequency now.
That all depends on where you are in the country! When I lived on the West coast, there were always classic rides being driven around, including cars built prior to the sixties. On the East coast where I am now, I don’t see much of anything anywhere and it has always been that way since I arrived. Car club folks I know offer various reports based on where they live and the truth is that some parts of the country love vintage automobiles whereas other don’t. Why is that? I have no idea – it just is and I suspect it has always been that way. There is another thing to consider. Many people simply don’t drive their classic cars due to the astronomical gasoline prices we’ve suffered with for over a decade. If the prices fall back down to a buck a gallon or less then we’ll see a jump where the owners bring them back out to play. The jump very well could be a big one too. I’ve already heard out of a number of friends back home that say they’re already driving their classic cars, trucks and even the motorcycles more than they have in a decade. Driving a classic muscle car may be fun… but having to dump $100 or $120 to fill up the tank isn’t. When I was just out of college… gas was a whopping 90 cents a gallon and it stayed that wa at least to the year 2000. It cost me at best $18 to fill up any one of my Mustangs then. I never did that when gas cost four or five times as much – I just stopped driving them! The truth is that I stopped driving them when gas hit $2 a gallon… I couldn’t even stomach that anymore.
> Red Mustang convertibles have been done to death, and I am happy to let the red Mustang people go and hang out at their own website. My, my– does winter make me crabby?
No, it makes you jaded. Part of the problem is that the early red painted convertible has been romanticized to death in American lore. In an attempt to realize a dream or obsession or to fulfill a fantasy… or to perhaps attempt to relive their youth, a lot of people are resorting to having a shop convertiblize a standard coupe with a parts kit thus making a faked convertible that looks just like the real thing. They’re doing it with the 1967 and 1968 Fastbacks too – take a coupe and install the fastback sheet metal parts and viola! You’ve got a fastback. Factory original or correct? Hardly. But nobody cares because they’re not going to shell out for an original due to the astronomical prices. Getting the swap done during a full restoration often costs far less than an original and the car is fully restored. For many people, that’s a no-brainer. They get what they want… and at a far more reasonable price. What kills me is that some of them find out too late that having the car they thought they wanted doesn’t end up being as cool as they thought it ultimately would be. They’re still cars running with nineteen sixties technology. The moral of the story is to be mindful of what you wish for. You might get it!
Here’s something that you may not know. There is a company called Dynacorn that is manufacturing some of the most popular early muscle car bodies overseas and they’re shipping them to America for sale. Don’t believe me? Look them up on the web. They’re licensed by Ford, Chevy and Dodge for certain bodies including the 1969 Camaro and 1969 Mach I plus the early Bronco and I think they’re doing an early seventies Cuda as well as others. What about the 1965 Mustang? I think I saw that they’re doing those too in the coupe and the convertibles but I’d have to look to see for sure, it has been a year or two since I looked at their web pages. So how does it work? You grab a body and build the rest of it out with stock parts or what ever parts you’d like. The bodies are identical to the originals so all the stock parts bolt on. That’s what it has come down to due to scarcity and the cost of originals but I bet some folks are actually relieved. The poorer guy like me can still own a car that looks great and that’s fun to drive and he won’t have to sell off the house to own one.
> Looking over this car, I was reminded of why this model never appealed to me in quite the way that the earlier one did. The interiors of cars of this period were victims of many things–changing tastes, new safety regulations and, probably, some cost-cutting.
I’d say you’re correct about the need for restyling every two years due to competition and the regulations definitely played a part in design. That heavy dash pad in the 1969 Mustang? That was due to the regulations by the feds though the design was by Ford. Padded steering wheel covers are courtesy of the feds too. As for the materials and way that Ford did things in the Mustang, the earlier cars had more cheaply manufactured interiors. While the standard vinyl interiors didn’t change much other than in shape to fit from 1965 to 1969, the 1969 Mustang had options for woven fabrics at the higher end. That just falls into the realm of buying a car to suit your tastes whereas in 1965 you had to take what they gave you.
> However, while I would prefer the 1965-68 Mustang, one of this generation would be my second choice. How about you?
For coupes, give me the 1969 any day over the boxy earlier body styles. Ford fouled up the 1970 model by taking away the dual headlights, changing out the grille and mucking up the tail lights. The 1971 to 1973 coupes are fat ladies that are embarrassing. I do love the 1967 and 1968 fastbacks though I would choose a 1969 Mach I over both of those years. If given the choice of taking a coupe from 1965 to 1966 or a fastback of the same years, I would choose the fastback every single day of the week but twice on Sunday. There is far more you can do with it to increase the cool and fun factors. For convertibles? I’d take the convertible that was worth the most money so I could sell it off in order to get what I really wanted! Specifically, I do like the 1969 body style more than the earlier models… but I’ll admit I’ll grab a great buy so I could resell it to fund my projects. Of course I’ll take anything anyone would want to give me. Who wouldn’t snag a great buy or take a freebie?!?
To sum up, my opinion is that the Mustang changed as it did over time from 1965 to 1973 due to the ever changing tastes of the buyers and due to competition. Yes, regulations by the feds forced the hands of the manufacturers just about every year but those regulations weren’t so bad that they forced total restyling. The bottom line is that the numbers for total Mustang sales fell over time due to the sheer number of models available from ALL of the manufacturers and that’s it. To suggest even for a second that anything else is true only serves to tell me that the person thinking those things needs to sit down and rethink their position. My biggest problem with Ford regarding the Mustang prior to 1974 is that they completely botched the Mustang styling by allowing it to get bigger than the 1969/70 body style and simply because it wasn’t pleasing to the eye. Of course I should point out that doing such a thing was getting to be an ugly tradition not only with Ford but with Chevrolet and Dodge too. All three had a bad habit of taking a car line and allowing it to grow in size over time… until they became boats. Worst yet best example for Ford? The Thunderbird. Getting back to the 1969/70 Mustang, while some would say that such a design was also already too big, I say that is false based on the technology in play at the time and the materials available within a reasonable cost at the time. If you wanted to build a beast then it had to be big enough to handle the most powerful engines while still being able to stick to the road. The 1969 model year essentially fit the bill and it showed on the track and the streets of America.
My goodness, I guess I wasn’t the only one made crabby by winter!
Yeah…
By the end of the second paragraph, I knew for sure that I wouldn’t enjoy this guy’s company at a neighborhood BBQ – you just know that someone who drops clunkers like “vagina cars” is sure to drop more misogynistic gems as the beer starts flowing.
When I got to “into Ford trucks”, it all made sense…
Heh heh, he said give me the ’69 any day!
Curious, isn’t it, how this car is interesting because it missed the mark? You said it yourself — if this had been a ’65, you would have driven right by and there would be no CC this morning.
Let’s pretend for a minute that this isn’t the not-quite-right successor to the 1st-gen Mustang. Is it such a bad car? Is it any more bloated than other sporty, youthful offerings from the day?
It’s a good looking car. I’ll take mine in a notchback.
It occurred to me after writing this that the 69 Mustang and 69 Camaro were probably as evenly matched as they would ever be. Almost every other year before or since, the two cars have had quite divergent personalities.
The 1969 Mustang redesign seems to be the tried-and-true case of “What do we do now?” which was invariably answered with, “We’ll just follow GM!”. It doesn’t hurt that GM’s Bunkie Knudson and Larry Shinoda were now working at Ford, either (although they’re generally blamed for the ’71-’73 ‘aircraft carrier size’ Mustang).
The problem with this thinking is that it took the Mustang away from its core market: low-to-middle tier ‘secretary specials’ that were easy to see out of and drive on a daily basis. The ’69 was the Mustang that really started to diverge from Iacocca’s ‘small, sporty, but still (somewhat) practical’ formula that made the ’64-’66 such a hit, and goes a long way to explain the popular (for the time) Pinto-based Mustang II.
I suspect that the thinking was to move the Mustang upmarket and then fill the bottom end with the Maverick Grabber. That’s similar to what Chrysler did with the Barracuda and Valiant Duster.
As far as I can tell the Maverick is quite literally a shortened, reskinned and heavily decontented 1970 Mustang.
Could be. I have no doubt there were many within all three domestics that had a severe disdain for the ponycars in how they cannibalized sporty 2-door compact sales. There’s no question that Falcon sales suffered for that of the Mustang to the point that the nice looking Falcon hardtop and convertible’s last year was 1965. After that, the Falcon became a stodgy 2 or 4 door sedan. The death-knell for the poor, lamented Corvair was pretty much the introduction of the Camaro, as well.
Conversely, it’s pretty common knowledge that the popularity of the lower profit Plymouth Duster didn’t sit well with the Chrysler execs who had invested so much in developing the E-body Barracuda and Challenger, only to see lackluster sales when consumers quickly discovered that the Duster was just as sporty (and just as fast with the same engines) for much less.
In fact, a good CC topic might be how the domestics tried to balance the compacts versus the compact-based ponycars.
The Australians saw some potential and was on to something with the stodgy Falcon 4-door sedan. With the Falcon GT and GTHO with a 351 Cleveland engine under the hood. The “granny sedan” could be a case of “Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde”. I spotted a video documentairy originally made in 1998 about the Aussie Falcon GT http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWRrNyEuPlE Some of these Falcons got the logo of a “Super Roo” (very inspired from the Dodge Super-Bee) http://www.flickr.com/photos/doctor_keats/2309721942/
Good lord, I drove a couple of Mavericks and a couple of Mustangs back then and believe me they did not feel the same at all. Maverick was just the Falcon for the seventies. Tin box.
I spent some time in a friend’s early 1970 Falcon sedan – 200 6 and 3 speed. Other than the driving position, it very much sounded,felt and drove like the 68 Mustang (also 200 6 and 3 speed) that I owned a bit later. The Maverick always felt a little less substantial than the earlier cars. The only one I ever drove was a 6/auto, so the comparison was off anyway.
Yes. I’ve always thought of the Duster as the closest heir to the Gen-1 Mustang, albeit still without its own front clip. Affordable, sporty – but no sports car – and with a wide range of trim and engine options.
Although I very much doubt Bunkie Knudsen had anything substantive to do with the ’69 Mustang. HFII hired him effective Feb. 6, 1968, which was only about six months before production of the ’69 models began, and Knudsen was gone in September 1969, shortly before the introduction of the 1970 models.
True, but you can bet the bigger ’69 Mustang was right up Bunkie and Shinoda’s alley. Shinoda did, in fact, make enormous changes to what would eventually be the 1969 Boss 302. If not for Shinoda, although the engine/car would have been built, it would have looked and been named something entirely different.
The whole idea of HFII hiring Knudson is rather odd. I mean, what did he expect Knudson to do? Bunkie was an original Wide-Track performance guy, and Shinoda worked mainly with the Corvette, so they were both deeply into the performance side of cars.
HFII’s mercurial side really came to the forefront when, not long after hiring Knudson, he unceremoniously changes his mind and dumps the whole Ford ‘Total Performance’ program (along with Bunkie and Shinoda with it).
Well, the idea of bringing in GM people to run Ford was not a new idea for HFII: Ernie Breech, Lewis Crusoe, Del Harder, Harold Youngren, et al, were all ex-GM guys.
Henry’s issues with Knudsen had little to do with the performance program. According to some accounts, Henry was hoping to get an ambassadorship if LBJ was reelected, but when Johnson decided not to run again, Henry realized that he would be sticking around Dearborn longer than he thought. Beyond that, Knudsen was probably too independent for Henry’s liking (the issue over the design of the Mark IV being a case in point); regardless of who was president, it wasn’t Knudsen’s name on the door.
Iacocca certainly wasn’t happy about HFII brining in Knudson. Although he likely wasn’t an active participant in Knudson’s ouster, he surely didn’t give him much assistance, either. You can bet that Lido was seething when Knudson made ‘his’ car so much larger with the ’71-’73. Iacocca made a point of trumpeting his involvement with the much smaller (and closer to the size of the original) Mustang II.
The more amusing anecdotes on reasons for Knudson’s dismissal revolve around such slights as barging into HFII’s office without knocking. Then, the way he was terminated makes for a good story, too. Someone supposedly called Knudson at home and told him, “Henry says to tell you tomorrow’s going to be a bad day at work…”. Knudson went to work the next day and went about asking people, “Am I fired? Am I fired?”.
I think the 5th photo down subtly says it all – the guy in the ad has his back to the car! Must be nothing interesting about it to look at?
In 1975 when I met the girl who would become my dear wifey in two short years, she drove a 1970 Mustang convertible 302 automatic – with A/C.
The first ride I got in that thing – well – she scared the daylights out of me! She drove it really hard at times because she could – it had power!
We owned the car until 1979 when we were about to have our first child and she quit work. By then, it had 128K miles and was getting a bit tired and the floor boards were gone. We sold it for a grand to a guy who said he was going to restore it. I wonder if he did?
I certainly respect the Mustang for what it meant to the automotive world, but as I am not much of a Ford fan, I wasn’t too fond of the 1970 we had. My favorite Mustangs were the 1967-68 models. The proportions were exactly right.
2nd photo guy has his back to the Mustang too, but he’s got a good reason!
I prefer the 69-70 models to the earlier Mustangs, I think they look better, more aggressive, especially in fastback form. My wife agrees, she finds the earlier cars to be too plain looking. A fastback 69-70, even if it is not a Boss, still holds a lot of value. The earlier Mustangs are not significantly more valuable in the market, and the 71-73 models are terrible, they are worth less across the board.
I think the first gen Mustangs had a magic that couldn’t really be recaptured, they will always be special because they were first. Many people fell in love with that car, and anything that followed wouldn’t measure up. Plus, prices had risen, the market was different, people expected a different car then, I think sales would have been lower no matter what.
I wasn’t around then, so I don’t have any bias towards any particular year, I like every Mustang from 64.5-70. Park a 1965 fastback GT next to a 1970 Boss and I’d take the Boss every time.
The fact that this car wears its original wheelcovers & is not a _____ clone appeals to me. I’m a sucker for cars with original wheelcovers: rally wheels not so much.
The grille ruins it for me on the ’69. the extra two headlights & the rather mundane expanse between those extra headlights never did look right IMO. The barber’s comb pasted to the rear quarters on the coupes & convertibles seemed kind of J.C. Whitneyish and the rectangular clock on the passenger’s side of the dash kind of clashes with the oval gauges on the driver’s side. I don’t dislike this car: it’s just my least favorite interation of the early Mustang.
I’m all about the 1967: it’s been my favorite Mustang ever since I was a child. The concave rear taillamps hooked me at first. I prefer the fastback but I’m very happy to have two ’67 coupes. Unfortunately the blue one is junk & will be used as a parts car to fix the “other” one:
Totally with you on the ’67. My favorite color that year was the midnight blue.
Agree also on the ’67–it’s muscular without having gotten fat. I also have a soft spot for the ’70 though, for some reason.
ITERATION, darn! Time to fire my proofreader….
Jim — I like that dark blue too! My favorite color is that dark forest (“moss”?) green. The blue bomb was originally Ivy Gold (the most common color that year).
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/slideshow/my-dads-curbside-classic-the-one-dollar-1967-mustang-convertible/
Junqueboi, everyone knows how I feel about the 67…
Dan that was a real treat to read! What’s the status on the Mustang? I couldn’t imagine how exhilarating driving a V8 convertible ’67 Mustang would be (both of ours are 6/autos). I’ve always had early 70’s vehicles and previously owned a ’68 Firebird but had never driven a “real” Mustang before.
What a delightful surprise the Mustang was when i got behind the wheel of ours for the first time. It’s so “open & airy”. Despite being devoid of any power assists, the car is so fun and easy to drive. Nothing we have comes close to the feel of our ’67.
My wife, not happy about the purchase actually drove it home the day we bought it. When we arrived home she got out of the car all smiles: “I can’t believe how much I like driving this car!” My wife the non-car person loved it.
Anyway, we’re not “car show” people so I applaud your goal of enjoying your car the way it was intended to be. I hope we can enjoy ours someday.
Sitting in a one car “shed” with a concrete floor in Ohio. This summer I will be driving out, renting a U-haul flatbed car trailer and hauling it all the way back to New Mexico. Then the restoration begins.
My wife is very excited about it (we got married in July 2012.) I finally have reached the point financially where I can slowly restore a “driver” like that Mustang is. And you’re right, a 289 V8 (4brl, not the hairy chested K-code) is pretty satisfying to drive, even with the Cruise-o-matic automatic transmission.
Very few early Mustangs are truly “junk”… good heavens man… you can get practically any part you need to repair them including all the sheet metal! Don’t scrap it – save it or sell it to someone who will! I’d rather see one be stripped for drag racing than be scrapped!
I think the ’67 grille is the prettiest of them all and the special turn-signal hood is icing on the cake! This is the “good” one (believe it or not) the day I towed it home.
Good point about the 69 camaro. Today, the 1969 is considered THE classic camaro, and definitely the second most coveted pony car after the 65-66 mustang. You certainly can’t put the 69 mustang in the same class.
nope.
70 1/2 RS split bumper
I’m with you. I know the 1969 is supposed to be the definitive Camaro, but the 1970 1/2 – for those not in the know, the UAW strike at GM delayed the intro of the new 1970 model – has to be the classic, best-looking Camaro of all time. I include the 1971-73 in with it, too. And, yes, I’m speaking of the split-bumper RS trim models, although I like all the 1970-73 Camaros. Back about 1974, had 2 friends who had 1973 Z-28s. One was red and automatic, the other had the RS split bumpers and was navy blue and 4-speed.
I can’t put the 1969 Mustang in the same class as the Camaro? WATCH ME!
In today’s context when I think 69 Camaro I think of Z28/clones, Yenko/clones and restomods. When I think 65-66 Mustangs I think concourse restorations and parade cars. I’m not sure they share the same demographic, a 69 Mustang fastback is much closer to the appeal 69 Camaros have, and I think a key reason the Camaro is ubiquitous and iconic above the 69 Mustang is because there only had one iconic hardtop bodystyle, while the Mustang had two, one that is common but frumpy and another that is super cool but relatively rare. Also for restomodders Camaros have room for any engine imaginable, Mustang engine compartments are notoriously space constrained.
I am the odd man out. Love the 69 Mustang. Especially the Fastback. Like the 65-66 but for some reason the 67-68 does not do as much for me. Just not as crisp as the 65-66. The 70 I think they ruined with the single headlights and the slits on either side of them.
I agree that the fastbacks were the better looking of these. I also agree that the 4 headlight 69 looked better than the 70. These were also probably Ford’s best version of a performance car to date, no longer having to rely on the iron lump 390 for street cred. But while the hottest versions were definitely hotter than what had come before, I think that the everyday Mustang hardtop lost a lot of its appeal for 1969.
For the 1967, the Shelby version grew on me, mainly due because it’s the featured car in the anime named “Gunsmith Cats” http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_31732-Shelby-GT-500-1967.html
…make that two odd men out. 69 fastback in black, thank you.
Bear with me…It occurred to me once, looking at a ’65, that its secret is that it looks like a handgun, an Army-issue .45. Boxy barrel, boxy grip with front and back almost parallel. Minimal sculpting only visible when you look closely at the edges. The only rounded shapes are purely functional and not very prominent.
I think it’s this compact, forceful, businesslike quality that starts getting lost in the ’69, as bulges and curves pop out, lines start to wiggle, doodads crop up. It’s starting to turn into a filigreed Buffalo Bill revolver, especially the fastback.
Maybe someone who actually knows something about guns can tell us what the ’71 is. (Mustang II is clearly a Hopalong Cassidy pop gun.)
“Maybe someone who actually knows something about guns can tell us what the ’71 is. (Mustang II is clearly a Hopalong Cassidy pop gun.)”
Oh I don’t know. Perhaps some analogy comparing the Mattel Shootin’ Shell six-gun to the Fanner 50. The Shootin’ Shell pistol – whether in original smaller size or the actual full-sized one featured a real revolving cylinder that worked like a real revolver, unlike the Fanner 50 which LOOKED like a six-gun, but it was just a shell that you could waste a roll of caps in a very short time!
I am not that conversant in guns, but your analogy is a good one. Another is that the Mustang almost perfectly replicates the arc of the Beatles.
good takes all!
the 1st stangs DO have the 1911 patina…
Thanks, Zackman. It reminds me of some cap guns I had as a kid that were way too realistic to ever be sold today, unless they were bright orange or something.
Re: Beatles: Ha! I picture four moptops in a ’65. By ’70 they’d all be shaggy and riding in four different cars.
JPC, although I’ve never heard any one else mention it, your analogy to the Beatles is spot on.
I don’t think there is a mustang that doesn’t appeal to me. Favorite was probably the original era with a six or 289 and stick. Second was the 5.0 notchback that the
troopers used in Texas. You can say there were bad ones if you like but in my world they weren’t bad. They were just less good.
I agree with the point you made about the interior of these cars. When they were introduced, I sat in one and felt immediate claustrophobia. Where the inside of my family’s ’68 Mustang was relatively light and airy, with windows that rolled all the way down, the ’69 offered a black vinyl cave. Worst of all was the dual cowl dash panel, which heightened that closed in feeling. To me, 1968 is the last desirable vintage Mustang.
The Mustang saw off most of the opposition a few years later,eventually it saw them all off.Some years were better than others.In 1969 it had a lot of competition there were some great cars around.
In 1974 my Dad shot my dreams all to hell when he wouldn’t let me buy a 1970 Boss 302 that was on a dealer’s lot for $1500. I ended up with a 1974 Cougar from his company’s fleet instead.
Wish I had that Boss 302 today. Worth a bit of money.
Well, yeah, now, but how much would it have been worth after your teenage self was done with it?
Ouch, Richard!
pfsm does raise a valid point though — the Cougar probably saved your life so to speak.
For sure the original ’65-’66 ‘Stang was the best. It was the lightest, simplest (although all 1st gen Mustangs are simple cars), most tautly styled. And the 289 V8, especially in hi-revving FIA world manufacturers championship-winning Hi-Po trim was one of the very best small block motors to come out of Detroit in the 60s.
But the ’69-’70 models gave us the Boss 9 and Boss 2, and the Mach 1. That’s good enough for me… that gaping forward canted maw and sleek fastback profile made it look like it was a wild animal ripping up and devouring the pavement ahead of it. Yeah, inside they were like sitting in a cave, but who cares? They rock! They still look like they’re doing 150 standing still.
Having owned a ’65 Shelby GT350, ’69 Boss 429 and ’70 Boss 302, you can tell where my Mustang love lies. Never cared that much for the ’67-’68 models, but that’s just me.
The 69-70 Mustang is certainly not the looker that the 64-68 Mustangs were, but except for the Shelby’s, the SportsRoof (fastback) versions of the 69-70’s have more collectability than the other years. If I’m spending my hard earned money on one I’ll take a 69 Mach1, big block and 4 speed, in Black Jade with black interior with the interior decor group. Thats my favorite vintage Mustang.
The Detroit method of longer, lower, and wider is on display with the Mustang throughout it’s life. I always liked the look of the 67/68 best of all in hindsight, but in real time, the 69 Mustang Mach 1 was a big winner for Ford. That car could be counted on to be seen in every small town. My home town’s example was a dark metallic green Mach 1 with the 351 engine displacement call out on it’s hood scoop. This was the model that most Americans remember. The Boss 302’s and 428 Cobra Jets were a rare sighting. Like most here, I prefer the 69 front end compared to the 70’s fake front air slots, meant to supply cold air to ? 69/70 were the start of the vibrant colors that made this model run special, in particular the Grabber Blue and Grabber Orange hues that lived on in the most latest models of the Mustang.
Very nice write up from JP. His remark about the rise and fall of The Beatles coinciding with the rise and fall of the Mustang is spot on correct.
I appreciate you bring up the aspect of colors. A car’s color is of significance to me, and I am partial to vibrant colors. AMC, Ford, GM and especially Chrysler offered some great colors for a couple years. For instance Hemi Orange, Plum Crazy and Panther Pink.
This is the first I’ve ever heard of the 69-70s being the middle Mustangs and unloved.
Of course the 65-66 is everyone’s favorite, though I have always preferred the fastback over the coupe or convertible.
Jumping to the 69 I never cared much for the coupe but felt the fastback in Mach 1 trim was probably the second best looking Mustang ever after the 66 fastback. The 69 fastback is the one Toyota copied with their 77 Celica Liftback and the one Ford themselves brought back in 2004.
I greatly preferred the four light 69 over the 70. The lights in the grille always looked like fogs to me. Hated the black gills in the Mary Tyler Moore Mustang. That was the first year they messed with the Mustang face and it was a disaster.
For me the 67-68s were the tweeners. Like all Mustangs they were overshadowed by the original but unlike the 69 never copied by anybody. The concave tail lamps looked introverted to me. Again the fastback looked better than the coupe and was immortalized in the movie Bullitt. Would a 69 fastback in that film have been any less loved? I don’t think so.
I agree that this is the first time an auto writer called the 69-70 as 3rd rate. As I stated in another post. Really? Trying to re-write car history?
These were the at the peak of muscle car mania. The 69 body designs were introduced in fall 1968, so they were locked in place by 1965/66, so there is no way that these Mustangs are ‘malaise era’ at all!
The big 71-73’s are the true bottom of Totem Pole within the run of the “classic” Falcon platform Mustangs, [65-73]. Don’t think 69’s are valuable? Watch Barrett-Jackson auctions and see what 69-70 high po versions sell for.
The first time? Hardly: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1969-mustang-mach-1-sliding-down-the-slippery-fastback-slope/
People’s takes and emotions about Mustangs runs high; so trying to argue their respective pros and cons is fun, but shouldn’t be taken too seriously.
Paul,
Sighting another Curbside review (yours no less! I can’t take THAT seriously) is hardly evidence of universal disdain! C&D in 1969 was not a Muscle Car fan. They preferred the BOSS 302 or 351W. God knows how much they “held back” to get a 14.3 in the quarter. Properly tuned and driven mid/high 13s was doable
I did however know someone who traded a 69 Mach1 428 SCJ 4 speed for a 69 Cougar Eliminator 428 SCJ automatic………the Cougar was consistently faster (automatic, longer wheelbase, better weight distribution).
BTW Paul, that “boat anchor” of Underrated 335 HP was par for a 440 375 HP. For perspective: http://www.freewebs.com/ss454/14miletimes.htm. No the 428CJ wasn’t exotic. It wasn’t a solid lifter 427, or a Hemi, or a Elephant 427 with aluminum heads. But for the $$$ it was in the thick of things.
Look up the sales numbers. Not in a vacuum, compare it to other Pony Cars……all of them. It was now a very crowded market in 1969.
Convertible sales were WAY down, across the board.
Who said anything about “universal disdain”? You think I don’t know every car doesn’t have its fans, especially a 1969 Mustang?
Were not in fifth grade anymore (I hope); different folks are going to have different opinions on any given car, including various shades of gray, not just black and white. I’m not really interested in fighting over the 1/4 mile battles of 1969, or whether CD purposely “held back”.
I drove a 1970 Mach1, so I have my opinions of that experience, which makes them valid, as far as that goes. If you’d like to write a piece extolling your experiences or feelings about the 1969 Mustang, send it on in.
I guess you missed the last line in my previous comment; don’t take me (or cars) too seriously. 🙂
“I’m not really interested in fighting over the 1/4 mile battles of 1969, or whether CD purposely “held back””
Then why post what is arguably the slowest posted time? And use loaded terms like “boat anchor”? Then when challenged, it no longer matters! That seems pretty “5th grader” to me. If as an adult you are trying for Historical Revisionism, good luck. See photo below.
“I guess you missed the last line in my previous comment; don’t take me (or cars) too seriously.”
Not at all Paul, I said “…another Curbside review (yours no less! I can’t take THAT seriously).”
Let me check, this is a car site and a comment section, right? But it shouldn’t be taken too seriously? But if we agree with you then it’s right?
Yes I’ve had experiences with a 69 Mach1, 69 Cougar, 69 GTX, 69 SS 396, 69 Cobra 428CJ, 69 Charger……..and many more! In a million years I would never denigrate anybody who owned or was a fan of any of them. Your singular and highly biased experience is valid only for you.
In 1969 the Mustang was no longer the fad it once was. It had plenty of good competition! Camaro, Firebird, Cougar, Javelin, Barracuda…….but it still stayed atop the Pony Car sales charts.
It just happened to be one of the few magazines from that time I still have. There was no conspiracy to denigrate your beloved.
Why are you so worked up with me over this? I didn’t even write this CC. I just mentioned that its a wee bit silly to pretend like the ’69 Mustang was always everyone’s favorite. Which it’s not. Nor any other car. That’s an indisputable fact that’s really not worth raising metabolisms over.
I was a Journalism major when integrity still mattered.
Before I was “5th grader” now I’m “silly”? You cited your own CC as proof that another “auto writer called the 69-70 as 3rd rate.”
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/03/clarkson-burgess-the-wobble-and-the-chrysler-200/
“Strictly speaking, this website should contain “the truth about cars”, but I believe it should contain “the truth about car writing” as well. Here’s some bona-fide truth for every aspiring writer out there: Money is made in the wobble. What’s the wobble? Why, it’s the measurable gap between the biggest puff piece you’ve ever written and the most hilarious example of automotive character assassination you’ve managed to sneak into print.”
Suggestion… get a life.
“I was a Journalism major when integrity still mattered”
LOLWTF?!GTFO::BRAINZ EXPLODE::
ROTF.
Let me spell it out for you! Paul used to be an Automotive Journalist for “The Truth About Cars”…….a site know for it’s polemics.
If your brain explodes, who would know?
Why do you think I left?
Fortunately, your comments obviously aren’t polemic.
‘stangers are like Harley guys; taint no reason nor rhyme
As a guy whose first bought-new car was a 1970 Mustang and whose first bike was a Harley Sporty, I knew then and know now that the only alternatives that can get you to anything like a similar place were made in the lands that tried to wipe us out in the early 1940s – Germany and Japan. You take your Bimmers and Toyotas and I will happily keep on driving and riding American iron. Both reason and rhyme apply – in fact, I can see no poetry nor logic to preferring a 1970 Toyota to a ‘Stang running a 351 Cleveland – none at all. And while you burn rice or German beer in your two wheeled appliance, I will be waxing poetic in my logically superior rides.
In a way, you are making my point about this generation of Mustang. You and everyone else who really likes these likes the fastbacks – the Mach Is and the Boss cars. If I had found one of them, this CC would have been written differently. But none of these comments refers to the regular Mustang hardtop. I was trying to focus on these more basic versions, which do not bring big bucks and which did not sell as well then and which are not so fondly remembered (for the most part) now.
As for the political analogy, I will stand by my belief that 1969-70 (even 1968-69) was a tipping point to a new era of styles and in the state of the economy. The economy had started a slow retreat in 1966 that was accelerating. Only the inflation from an accommodative Federal Reserve masked the slowing economy (temporarily). Everyone remembers the low gas prices and high horsepower of 1970-71, but nobody remembers that Nixon found it necessary to institute wage and price controls to combat the inflation that his and Johnson’s policies had created. Toss in Vietnam and some race riots, and I don’t think that this period was so sunny.
Fair enough but if we are going to judge a car more from the volume model (i.e. not the fastback) do you still think the 71-73 generation has a larger fan base than the 69-70?
Frankly even when you include the fastback I’m not sure many would agree the 71-73 is more loved.
When it comes to Mustang desirability I think it goes 65-66, 69-70, 67-68 for the fastbacks. Some will say the 69-70 first.
For the coupes 65-66, 67-68, 69-70.
The 71-73 is a different kind of car and does not appeal to the traditional Mustang fan. It therefore cannot be a bookend for a series of Mustangs in my view.
There is a middle, or more forgotten one, but that’s either the 67-68 or the 69-70 depending on how you look at it. I for one have never been able to lump the 65-66s in with the 67-68s and call that the same generation.
It has been my perception that most Mustang fans like the 65-68 the best. I am among this group. I also have perceived that there are some folks (a much smaller number) who are big fans of the 71-73 Bloatstang. I am not among this group, but these folks are certainly out there. In fact, I have seen a fair number of very nice versions of the big hoss in my area, no small thing as bad as these rusted. These are two groups who like two very different cars. The 69-70 falls kind of in the middle. I am not saying that there is nobody who likes this one best – it certainly has its fans. My point was that this car would be an acceptable “Plan B” for lovers of either the early or the late cars, as it has some traits that appeal to both groups.
In the 69-70 car’s defense, the more I have looked at photos, the more I am warming up to the fastback. Understand also that I grew up around these. I knew a few people with 69-70 hardtops, and there was always an unspoken sense that “its nice, but I kind of wish it was a 65-68”, which had always been seen as something special, even as an ordinary used car.
The longer I think about it, this car has always had some controversy about it. Does it measure up to the original or not? Maybe we have just dredged up some of those old arguments.
While the fastback did sell better as a % than past versions the coupe still outsold the others.
(63A) 2door Fastback,
Standard equipment 56,022 produced
(63B) 2door Fastback,
Deluxe equipment 5,958 produced
(63C) 2door Fastback,
Mach 1 equipment 72,458 produced
(65A) 2door Hardtop Coupe,
Standard equipment 118,613 produced
(65B) 2door Hardtop Coupe,
Deluxe equipment 5,210 produced
(65C) 2door Hardtop Coupe,
bench seats 4,131 produced
(65D) 2door Hardtop Coupe,
Deluxe, bench seats 504 produced
(65E) 2door Hardtop Coupe,
Grande equipment 22,182 produced
(76A) Convertible,
Standard equipment 11,307 produced
(76B) Convertible,
Deluxe equipment 3,439 produced
Total 299,824 produced
Special Mustangs (included above)
Boss 302 1,628 produced
Boss 429 859 produced
also includes two Boss Cougars 2
GT Equipment Group 5,396 produced
Mustang with the 390 10,494 produced
Mustangs with 428 CJ 13,193 produced
I actually prefer the more grown up 69-70 Mustang and Cougars.
Who wouldn’t want this base (except for the engine) 69 coupe?
This ’77 doesn’t look too bad in the rear — they really do favor the Mustangs a bit. Celicas were so ugly to me….but I may have to recant because I’ve never seen a non US-spec model before. It looks so much better with the tag below the normal-sized bumper.
The 69 fastback is the one Toyota copied with their 77 Celica Liftback and the one Ford themselves brought back in 2004.
The Celica yes, but the retro Mustang roofline was pretty clearly 65-66 derived, in particular the 66 Shelby GT350 with the glass in place of the vents in the quarters. The fastback slope stops short of the end of the trunk like the 65-66s and the B pillar is directly behind the door glass. The 2015-current model is more along the lines of the 69 fastback roofline, with quarter glass seamless with the door glass and a continuous slope to the taillight panel, along with a an integral ductail spoiler.
“The sunny optimism of Camelot that was America in the early 1960s was giving way to a darker time that would later become known as the Malaise Era.”
I think it is a reach to try to pin 1969 as part of the ‘Malaise era’. I mean really? Seems like CC’s favorite word to throw around.
The year of Woodstock, Moon Landing, and Laugh-In was far, far from the 1974-82 recession. There was no gas crisis in anyones dreams, and HP war was at its peak. BTW, “Camelot” ended in Dallas, 1963.
The “swinging 60’s” that is talked about really started in 1964, Beatles invasion and new Stang, and lasted until 1971-ish.
I agree. There was nothing malaise-ish about 1969, it was the year we landed on the moon!
Umm; the writer said “was giving way….”. Not “had become the Malaise Era”. There’s a big difference. It’s almost universally accepted that the sunny optimism of the sixties was over, thanks to that little war in Vietnam, and a whole lot of other things. And 1969-1970 is most often given as the time of that shift. Of course, a major cultural/historical shift doesn’t make its presence universally known; there’s a lag. And I understand that some folks might want to hang on to the the illusion that those sunny times never really ended until it was way too obvious. When the Malaise hit, there was no denying it. But many of us saw and felt it coming years earlier.
I always thought the “Malaise” era started with the resignation of Nixon. I remember there was a national funk going on and it seem (at the time) that the good ‘ol USA couldn’t do anything right. Carter coined the phrase “national malaise” during his time in office. I believe the malaise had passed by the time of the economic recovery during the first term of Reagan. There has always been comparisons with the cars of the same time frame. By 1974 cars were bloating in size, and performance had been zapped by the unsophisticated emission controls. By about 1982, the manufacturers were having better sucess with engne management through electronics and fuel enjection and performance was on the upswing. Also the bloated designs had gave way to downsized models by the end of the seventies.
+1, I was writing the same thing you were!
I do not disagree that the full-on Malaise era started about 1974, and that the phrase was coined by Carter a few years later. As stated in my reply to Chicagoland, I meant to convey that around 1969 was when we started to see the seeds sprouting that would eventually get us to where we were in 1974. I will go back and clarify that thought.
Actually, Carter didn’t ever use the word “Malaise”. It was the “Crisis of Confidence” speech he gave on July 15, 1979, which initially was very well received and gave him a huge bump in his poll ratings. Initially, it was seen as uplifting. It’s a very prescient speech, worth re-reading. Much of it is still very relevant: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/carter-crisis/
The problem was that shortly afterwards, he sacked his whole cabinet. That made him look desperate, and completely changed the public (and press’) perception of that speech. Suddenly, it was seen as being all doom and gloom, and the press coined the term “Malaise”. It marked the beginning of the end for Carter.
Its amazing how perceptions of a speech can change so suddenly. But one thing is clear: talking about the negative aspects of the country is very risky business. Carter almost made it work, but then he shot himself in the foot with the cabinet resignations. It made it seem like he was incapable of leading the country out of the “Crisis of Confidence”, and they turned away from him.
An excerpt from that speech:
The symptoms of this crisis of the American spirit are all around us. For the first time in the history of our country a majority of our people believe that the next five years will be worse than the past five years. Two-thirds of our people do not even vote. The productivity of American workers is actually dropping, and the willingness of Americans to save for the future has fallen below that of all other people in the Western world.
As you know, there is a growing disrespect for government and for churches and for schools, the news media, and other institutions. This is not a message of happiness or reassurance, but it is the truth and it is a warning.
These changes did not happen overnight. They’ve come upon us gradually over the last generation, years that were filled with shocks and tragedy.
We were sure that ours was a nation of the ballot, not the bullet, until the murders of John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. We were taught that our armies were always invincible and our causes were always just, only to suffer the agony of Vietnam. We respected the presidency as a place of honor until the shock of Watergate.
We remember when the phrase “sound as a dollar” was an expression of absolute dependability, until ten years of inflation began to shrink our dollar and our savings. We believed that our nation’s resources were limitless until 1973, when we had to face a growing dependence on foreign oil.
These wounds are still very deep. They have never been healed. Looking for a way out of this crisis, our people have turned to the Federal government and found it isolated from the mainstream of our nation’s life. Washington, D.C., has become an island. The gap between our citizens and our government has never been so wide. The people are looking for honest answers, not easy answers; clear leadership, not false claims and evasiveness and politics as usual.
What you see too often in Washington and elsewhere around the country is a system of government that seems incapable of action. You see a Congress twisted and pulled in every direction by hundreds of well-financed and powerful special interests. You see every extreme position defended to the last vote, almost to the last breath by one unyielding group or another. You often see a balanced and a fair approach that demands sacrifice, a little sacrifice from everyone, abandoned like an orphan without support and without friends.
Often you see paralysis and stagnation and drift. You don’t like it, and neither do I. What can we do?
First of all, we must face the truth, and then we can change our course. We simply must have faith in each other, faith in our ability to govern ourselves, and faith in the future of this nation. Restoring that faith and that confidence to America is now the most important task we face. It is a true challenge of this generation of Americans.
I know you meant July 15, 1979.
whoops; fixed.
I think you are confusing the malaise era of US history with the malaise era in automotive.
The triggers for the malaise era — the 73 arab oil embargo, Watergate and the mid-70s recession — weren’t on anyone’s radar in 69. These built upon each other and after three failed presidencies culminated in the Carter-era misery index of double digit inflation / interest rates / unemployment and funky national mood. He spoke of such in his famous malaise speech.
One could argue that a malaise era in automotive started earlier, around 1973, from emission / safety reg pressure on the product design and the fuel crisis impact on sales and product mix.
69 however was a great year for product AND sales. Mark III, Grand Prix, LTD, Mustang, Camaro, Cadillac were just a few of the stellar new models that year.
As someone already pointed out the 69 Mustangs were conceived, designed and styled 2-3 prior making the malaise reference, no matter how you definite it, irrelevant in the discussion of the subject car.
I am not sure that I agree with your diagnosis as to the cause of the “Malaise Era.” The problems of 1973 were the inevitable results of bad policy (both political and economic) going back several years before (under both Democratic and Republican administrations). I started to go into more detail on this (I was an econ major in college when this was all relatively fresh) but stopped myself. While I could really get going on this topic, this is not why we are all here, so I will put a sock in it and move on.
As for the cars, I maintain that when you climbed into any car made in the 1969-70 timeframe, you saw a lot more in common with 1975 than with 1965. The big performance issues were still a couple of years away, but they would soon arrive. Perhaps it is my age, but I mourned the loss of the aesthetic that had ruled until around 1964 in American cars. After that, it was one compromise after another and then, suddenly, there we were with the Gran Torino Elite. Ugh.
I’ll have to chime in briefly.
The loss of asthetic to me began with the advent of the 1968 models. Why? Look at the interiors. Loss of bright polished aluminum around the edges of the headliner and A pillars. Compare a 1967 Impala with a 1968 and check the interior difference. 1968 had interior color plastic parts in place of the nice metal.
Dash clock reverted to option status in the ’68 Impala — that was my sign, LOL…
According to my grandfather who had a career at Ford… automotive clocks were on the way out because none of them ever seemed to keep accurate time. That and folks didn’t like them draining the battery. I did have one in my 1969 Mustang however… Grande model. Nope… it didn’t work!
The most valuable Mustangs, the BOSS 429 (especially) and BOSS 302, were only made for 1969 and 1970.
I think for many CC”ers the intrinsic aspects of a car are second to the nostalgia and memories. To me, as a kid, the 1st gen Mustang (’64-’66) was a hugely significant blip on my automotive radar. The profile, the massive sales for a non-sedan, etc. Though I’m not sure I LIKED them … my sister and I would play a game in the car, where white Mustangs were like enemy fighters, and we would turn our window cranks to aim at them and shoot them. But anyway, by the time the ’69 came out, I was in junior high, closer to driving age and a budding road racing enthusiast. The new version, in TransAm race trim or even as a stock Boss 302, looked tough in a way that earlier Mustangs never did. Same with the ’69 Camaro … it may have been a less elegant design than the ’67-’68, but who cared about elegance for those cars? The ’69 Camaro and Mustang look good stretched over wide tires and that’s what mattered to me then. The fact that Parnelli Jones, an All-American hero, was turning right as well as left in a full-fendered car in an SCCA series that would have been derided as tea-bagging a decade earlier, didn’t hurt this Mustang’s reputation.
Yes his crisis of confidence in the American people. I think one of the guys he sacked was the one who actually coined the term national malaise.
Carter wasn’t canned for those resignations he was canned because he was ineffective on both domestic and foreign matters, and was a terrible leader. Remember the hostage taking in Iran? That’s what happens when your enemies perceive you as weak, as we most certainly were under Carter.
It wasn’t until Reagan came along with his optimism about America and its people that things started to turn around. Didn’t hurt one bit that the hostages were released on the day of his inauguration.
Reagan couldn’t hold Jimmy’s jockstrap. Neither he nor Ford would’ve been any better…
President Carter’s speech was given in response to a worsening domestic situation. The Iranian Revolution in early 1979 had spooked world oil markets, which sparked an increase in oil prices. There were shortages that spring in California, which soon spread to the east. I remember a riot at a gasoline station in suburban Philadelphia in the summer of 1979 when it ran out of gasoline.
This was one reason that the GM X-cars were so successful when they debuted in April 1979. People were again concerned about not just gasoline prices, but availability, and a roomy, small GM car with great gas mileage (for that time) was just what the market wanted.
The economy began slipping into a recession, and the domestic auto industry, in particular, was hammered hard. Full-size cars (even the downsized GM cars) and trucks, whose sales had boomed from 1976 through 1979, piled up on the lots, while customers began clamoring for Japanese fuel sippers.
Chrysler, which had been teetering on the edge, was facing imminent bankruptcy. Chrysler began seeking a bailout from the federal government, and the debate over that issue was no less contentious than the recent bailouts of GM and Chrysler were a few years ago.
The president’s speech was in response to all of this. The interesting thing is how much of that speech could be used today, and still apply to our current situation! His decision to sack his entire cabinet was a big mistake, as Paul noted. The Iranian Hostage Crisis, along with his decision to allow the Federal Reserve Board to wring inflation out of the economy with double-digit interest rates, ultimately sunk his presidency. This threw the economy into a recession, as car loans for people with GOOD credit had double-digit interest rates!
Carter looked “wimpy” and ineffective, and the failed mission to rescue the hostages in April 1980, combined with the infamous encounter with the killer bunny at a lake (remember that one?), only cemented this image.
The domestic auto industry, in many ways, foreshadowed all of this. Federal emissions standards were strangling the performance and mileage of every car, while prohibitive insurance rates and changing customer tastes had killed the old muscle car market. By 1974, all too often that shiny, brand-new car had balky performance, was hard to start and was assembled with less-than-loving care. The 55-mph speed limit and CAFE standards really signaled that the party was over.
This is when Detroit’s habit of taking the cheapest and easiest route really came back to haunt the industry. In 1960 and 1961, GM had introduced the Corvair and its “senior” compacts with unique engineering and features that would have been very useful in the dark days of the 1970s. But GM had abandoned them for cheaper and easier solutions.
When it all hit the fan in the wake of the Arab Oil Embargo, Detroit had to scramble to remake its entire line-up. The results were half-baked engines and transmissions that often self-destructed just after the warranty ended.
In many ways, the domestic auto industry reached a low point in 1977-80. Sales boomed after the economy recovered from the Arab Oil Embargo, but it was only the calm before the real storm. Quality was terrible, thanks to rushed production, new designs and a disgruntled workforce. Emissions controls were still affecting performance and reliability. Some customers may have loved opera windows, landau roofs and fake wire-wheel covers, but many others thought that they represented the final elevation of style over substance.
Things would eventually get better, but we went through some very tough years to get there. The auto industry didn’t really begin recovering until the successful adoption of computerized engine controls in the 1980s, along with the debut of the Pontiac A6000-based STE (don’t laugh, it was a big deal at the time), Ford’s “aero look” for the Thunderbird/Cougar, Tempo/Topaz and Taurus/Sable and Chrysler’s K-car convertible and minivan. There was something to get excited about with domestic cars again. The economy began recovering in late 1982, and car sales were soon on the upswing.
Dog dish wheelcovers were standard fare on the 1967 and 1968 Mustangs. I don’t mind the ’69 Mustang, but I think of this generation, the ’70 is a nicer looking car.
I had a high school buddy who had a ’69 302 notchback. Automatic. Had pretty good power all on it’s own, 2-bbl 302, single exhaust and all. Enough to get in trouble with.
Insofar as boat anchors are concerned of this generation ‘Stang, Mach 1’s with anyting less than the Cobra Jet 428 were stones. I rudely shut down a friend’s 351W Mach 1 (a ’69) in my step-mother’s 318 2-bbl ’72 Plymouth Scamp. A very girly looking car too with a white vinyl top and sky-blue paint, skinny E78 x 14 belted whitewalls.
I would suggest that you were the better driver. The 318 in a light car like the Scamp (I know because I had a Dodge Demon with the same drivetrain) is a pretty lively performer, but it is no match for a 351 powered Mustang, even if it had a 2 barrel carb. Now a Duster with a 340 would give the Mustang a run for its money.
I didn’t know they shared the ’65’s 108 inch wheelbase – they look a lot longer somehow. I must admit the ’71-’73 would be my second choice instead of a ’69, but a ’69 fastback is the dream car of one of my sisters. I’ve asked why, and she says it’s because the styling for that year is 100% right.
For all the (very interesting) discussion going on, I think most everybody is missing a most salient point: If you really want to rate a given year and model of a car in general against the competition, then look at the 6-cylinder, 3-speed, rubber floor mats, dog dish hubcaps version of that car (or whatever is the equivalent for that year) against the competition. At that point the basic design shines (or tarnishes) thru.
Forget the Boss 302, etc. That’s loading the dice. Look at the bottom of the line, no options, 6-cylinder, 3-speed Mustang notchback coupe for 69 and 70. How did it stack against against the equivalent Camaro, Firebird, Barracuda or Javelin? Or against an equivalent 65-68 Mustang? Or a 71-73 Mustang, same specs? That’s when you’re getting into the worth of the design.
In antique cars, we never pay enough attention of the cheap-o version.
I am reasonably sure anything would stack up well against this…
+1
Yeah, I get where you’re coming from. However, if you added some Cragars or American mag wheels, wouldn’t that give it a whole new and much better look? For me, it only needs a little aftermarket help.
If it were a fastback. I want to find something good to say about the coupes but I just can’t, those buttresses just do. not. work. I’ve never seen one that has changed my outlook yet
I like it.
The ultimate sleeper?
http://www.mustangmonthly.com/featuredvehicles/mump_0901_1969_mustang_grande_hardtop/
I’d love to see the Marti Report on that one.
As someone who turned 15 in 1969, I’d already been interested in cars for several years. I was not a huge fan of the Mustang until the fastback 1967-68 models. Really liked those. I liked the 1969-70 models even better, so long as it was one of the performance models: Mach 1 or Boss. In, 1971, a neighbor only a couple houses away bought the new body style Mustang in Mach 1 trim and I have like that body style ever since, too. OK, in 1969 I thought the Boss 302 looked really awesome, and I still feel the same way. Fully loaded with the rear louvers, spoiler, paint and graphics, it might be the high point for the Mustang for me. Actually, 1969-70 Shelby Mustangs were and continue to be the ultimate for me.
I’m also the odd man out. The 1969-1970 models are my favorites. I thought the original too small and too much a secretary’s car and the 1971 – 1974 were too bloated.
These were perfect to me.
Final note:
This and the 1970 Mustang puzzled me back then. You could get a convertible, coupe and fastback version. Curiously, the fastback had rear windows that flipped open, not roll down as in the coupe and convertible.
I still wonder about that one.
I had a 65, 68 and 69 Mustang. They were all notchbacks and the 69 was the most comfortable to drive for me, “The Tall Guy.” Unfortunately the windows jumped their tracks alot!!
As a whole I’d consider the 69 or 70 a second choice, as it applies to the convertible in this article. For fastback models though? I don’t know anyone who’d pick a 71-73 Mach 1 or Boss 351 sportsroof over these years, I’d even question people picking 65-68 GTs over one, save for the Shelbys(that’s the opposite).
Personally I like the padded black vinyl cave like interiors of the 69 and 70 over all the previous years, I’ll go against the grain and say it. I find the previous interiors(and this includes most 60s and prior cars as a whole) tinny and gaudy. Not a fan of chrome and painted metal on a dashboard, I’ll take padded vinyl anyday over it in terms of look/feel. Hell if I were building a 67/8 fastback I’d probably put a 69 dash in it just for the heck of it.
Are you kidding me??? 1969 and 1970 were the most badass looking Mustangs of them all!! They were the standard for aggressive cars!
My first choice 70 sportsroof second choice 69 sportsroof third choice 69/70 coupe. All powered by the 302.
The 69/70 Mustangs are beautiful automobiles. My favorite Mustangs are the 69/70 and 71/73 models. The muscular curvaceous lines on these cars is most alluring. I have a strong liking of the 65/68 models, particularly ’65 and ’66 convertibles with the GT trim and ’65 and ’66 fastbacks are wonderful looking. I just love all of the entire early Mustang series.
The first automobile that I can remember getting me interested in cars is the ’73 Mustang convertible on the opening and closing of Mary Tyler Moore Show. I was around 5 or 6 years old and loved the looks of that Blue Glow Mustang convertible.
I had wished my parents would’ve bought a ’73 Mustang convertible, but by the time they settled on a new car it was a 1977 VW Rabbit that was in the repair shop more than in my parents driveway.
15 years ago I was fortunate to purchase a mostly original (one repaint and no rust!) beautiful Medium Bright Yellow ’73 Mustang convertible/black bottoms, with a white and black interior and decor group. It’s a 3 owner car (me being the 3rd owner) and has a bevy of options including the 351 4 barrel. It’s a wonderful car that I plan to never part with.
Ok. Now I know this is really old, and I shouldn’t even be here, but this article is all kinds of wrong. There are TONS of people, including myself who consider the 69-70 fastback to be the best looking Mustang ever. On the other hand, coupes and convertibles, yeah… Not so much, so you would be correct on that. Also, unfortunately 71-73 fans are few and far between. There are FAR less of those than 69-70 fans for sure.
Also, LOL at the 69-70 being compared to a Honda Fit.
Well I see that we have resurrected what may have been my most controversial post ever. Five years out, I still mostly stand by what I wrote.
While the fastbacks were great looking and have tons of fans, this was about the notch and (mostly) the convertibles.
I still see a lot of love for the 71-73 Mustang, but mostly from younger people. Those of us who were around when they were new or shortly after do not see the appeal. As I said, two different demographs.
I don’t dispute that the 69-70 may have been the better car. Lord knows Ford finally put some decent performance engines in them. But I still believe that if you put one example of each of the three main groups of Mustang convertibles out for people to choose and take home, this will be favorite of the smallest group but still acceptable to everyone.
So let the arguments begin (again)! 🙂
I always agreed with your core point with this article, except the interior, which I still think is one of the best ever in a Mustang. The 67-68s are arguably THE best, but I find the 65-66 dash a little too Falcon like and the 71-73 dash looks like it was yanked straight out of a 67 Camaro, no Mustang connection at all.
I wasn’t around when 71-73s were common, and I indeed don’t mind them, but the big reason is I don’t subscribe to the notion that every Mustang should resemble a 65, and I think a lot of the criticisms about weight and handling are misleading or misguided(it’s apple’s to oranges comparing a FE/385 powered one to a Windsor/Cleveland powered one in either measure). I find it quite rich especially whenever I hear them called bloatstangs from older owners who happen to own retro 2005+ Mustangs.
What a mind-blowing visual comparison! The modern Mustangs are just as long & wide as the “BIG” ’71-’73 models but have taller roofs. Those don’t appear to be so big now, do they? Looks like Lee Iacocca has even more Mustangs to call “fat pigs”.
For the 1969-70 Mustang’s I’ve always loved the fastback versions but was never a huge fan of the coupe and convertible version’s, I still never cared much for the 1971-73 Mustang’s because they looked too much like Torino’s, I’ve thought 1969-70 had the best engine’s of the 1964-73 Mustang’s if you didn’t want the high performance engine’s.
Big issue with the 69 convertibles and coupes are those super racy looking quad headlights(which seem to be inspired by the 1967 Shelby GTs with the large outboard fog lamps). The fastbacks pull it off, the scoops, ductail spoiler and slick roofline all match, even in stripper mode. They look unbalanced on the coupe/convertibles, which in isolation from the noses really aren’t that bad looking, particularly in Grande form with the vinyl top treatment, but nothing on them compliments that nose. 70 pulls it off slightly better since the design is cleaner, but for most people it doesn’t resemble a Mustang anymore…
…which, slightly off topic, is amazing how both the Mustang and Cougar front end deviations from the original designs never found acceptance by fans the way F bodies or Barracudas could. With those everyone has their favorite design with no controversial choice, many of us at CC (myself included) certainly wax poetic about the 70 RS Camaro as the best of the breed, but say you like a 70, 71, 79, or 99 Mustang front end more than the 65-69 or even 05-14, people will look at you as if you said the moon landing was faked.
69-70 Fastbacks may as well be different cars though, the Ford equivelant to the 68-70 Chargers, where coupes/convertibles are equivelants to the Coronets of the same time frame. There is no bad line on either one, both are pinnacle late 60s supercar designs, but the bread and butter cars they are based on probably are nobody’s favorites. Fans of the Dodge Coronet marque likely prefer the 66-67s the same way fans of the overall classic Mustang prefer 65-68s
You make me think of something. On the 65-66 the coupe/convertible was almost styling perfection while the fastbacks looked a little compromised. In 67-68 I would say that both notch and fastback styles were equally well done – I don’t know that most people would have a really hard preference for one over the other. I know I certainly don’t. But for 69-70 it was the opposite of the first two years in that the fastback just nailed it while the notch styles were a little more muddled.
Yep, if this were 1968 and I was looking to buy a new Mustang off the lot it would take a coin flip if it were down to coupe or fastback, and definitely coupe on the 65-66s.
I had read in one of the Mustang history books(I think 40 years of fun) that the 65 and 67s were styled to be coupes from the getgo, with the fastback design after the fact, and that process flipped around for the 69, 71, and 74 IIs, with the Fox being designed as a coupe first – which is another Mustang where people don’t seem to have a hard preference for bodystyle. I also wonder if the Cougar compromised the Mustang coupe to some extent, or that designers just lazily pasted it onto the Mustang after perfecting it for the Cougar. Both the 69 and even 71 roofline that looks so “off” on the Mustang worked fine on those, but the Cougar was a longer car with a longer trunk.
I’ve always liked the ’69. That 4 light front end makes me wish my own retro ‘stang was a GT to have that look. But the more I look at them, and maybe some inspiration from having the car it inspired, the 1967-68 model years have become my favorite over time, when the ’69 used to be my favorite because of that front end.
IMO, when they got to the 1970, the ruined the look of the front with those chamfered parking lights on the corners. That just doesn’t look right to me. (I do like the ’70’s taillights a little better though.
I’ll echo you guys above (Matt and Jim) in that the notch back looked good from 1965-68, the fastback looked good from 1967-70, making the obvious overall favorite due to overlap the 67-68 model years.
As to the 71-73, I think that the unfair bloat-stang nickname is simply due to the epic blindspot on those years (especially as a fastback). That C-Pillar is HUGE and throws off the overall proportions visually. Everyone knows the retro-stangs are bigger than the ‘stangs of old, but to me at least, they really don’t look bloated (biased opinion natch).
However that picture you provided above Matt, comparing the Grabber Blue ’10-’12 with the same color ’71-’73, speaks volumes though. Yikes!
I’ve come to realize the 05-09s look significantly tidier than the ‘10 restyle, and in fact I think the V6s without the lower bumper extensions look visually lighter than the GTs as well. I have always harbored quite high disdain for the refresh, especially those candycane taillights, the earlier design hid the mass decently, but it all became very obvious with that restyle.
The taillights on the 70 appeal to me too, and I also prefer the deleted side scoops as well. I can tolerate the 70 nose for the other improvements(including the 351 Cleveland) but I agree that it wasn’t a successful execution. I like it better in base form than Mach 1 form at least, the parking lights don’t help it.
Fascinating reading through these past comments; Paul, as always, I admire your intellect and middle-of-the-road positioning. I remember Carter’s speech and then his support swirl down the toilet between the cabinet resignations, hostage crisis and inflation.that said, ‘69 was my favorite year of the 1st gen Mustangs, followed by the Fox, Mustang II (they very much served a purpose at that moment in time), and the 2005 rebirth. Of course the ‘18 completely kicks ass, and if there were a Bullitt convertible I’d give a kidney.
I had a friend back in my early college years who had the same ’69 Mustang as pictured except for the color, his was pale yellow. We had a ton of fun in the summer of ’73 with that convertible. It was surprisingly quick for only having the standard 302 C.I. engine.
As a guy who really doesn’t like Fords or Mustangs, this is tall praise, I really enjoyed that car.
A very thought provoking piece, as the interesting comments over the years demonstrate.
As to the discussion of the beginning of a “malaise era,” I think Mr. C. gets it right. The Mustang was conceived in the early 60’s and introduced in the spring of 1964, a very optimistic time in US history (despite the Kennedy assassination the previous fall, hope was still high as the economy was booming as a result of the tax cut, increased federal spending on defense, the space mission, and infrastructure, and LBJ’s first full year in office was deemed a successful transition). Historian James T. Patterson argues in his book, The Eve of Destruction: How 1965 Transformed America, it was events of that year – Johnson’s massive troop commitments in Vietnam, the attacks on civil rights workers in the South, and racial violence beginning to explode in American cities – that revealed major divisions in the populace and negatively impacted the country’s view of itself.
“By then, there was something that never existed in 1965: just a regular, plain Mustang, as in ‘oh, you just got a regular Mustang.’ Now, the basic Mustangs even came with dog dish hubcaps. How quickly Ford forgot one of the things that made the original Mustang so special – the fact that even a basic six- cylinder 1965 model was never viewed as a cheap car.”
Quite right. While the instrument cluster was Falcon, the stylish dual-cove dash and deluxe steering wheel, standard bucket seats, floor shift, interior lighting, full carpeting, full wheel covers, etc. made every Mustang look premium, even those ordered with just a radio and whitewalls. That was part of the genius of the original car. A long list of options allowed the Mustang to meet the needs a wide demographic.
I like all early Mustangs up to the Mustang II. That one was a total dud for me but it reflected the lowered expectations of the era, with an economy stuck in “stagflation,” gas lines around the corner, and governmental failures at home and abroad.
The Mustang II at least came from the best intentions – who wouldn’t want their favorite sports car to get smaller and lighter? – and was every bit the “right car at the right time” its’ slogan promised, to an extent probably not imagined in the spring of ’73 when they were planning the launch ad campaign. But it suffered from HFII’s disdain for small cars along with his and Lee’s determination to sell the sizzle and not spend money on engineering “steak”.
I enjoy rereading some of these articles. This is one of them. Mustangs are a hard topic for some because they’re iconic and common to the point of boring some people. Why not get a Javelin? I love Mustangs (and early Cougars), so I’ve been sitting on this one for awhile. Here’s my breakdown on the ’65-’73’s…
’65-’66- Hard to beat an original. Coming off the Jet Age on wheels, this was a clean design. American manufacturers were really starting to hit some home runs starting ’62-’64, here’s a good example. Clean from just about any angle. Decent interior, except for the Falcon dash. Coupe looks better than the fastback, though the fastback is nice looking. These cars worked great with the 289, and the six was OK. I like six cylinders, and wish Ford had a better one back then. I hate the intake manifold.
Not fond of the 13 inch wheels. Front styling was not perfected yet, in my opinion. Smallish grill, too many busy little details on the front valance.
’67-’68- OK, here we go. This is nice. I bought a ’67 coupe years ago and drove it as transpo for about 7 years. I still miss this car (got divorced and sold it, or I might still have it.) Better dash. Cleaned up front design. Mine had the turn signal hood with the vents. Cool detail, nothing too outrageous. Love the concave tail light panel with bigger lights. Still a smallish car, but everything fit just right. The seating was perfect for my lanky 6 foot frame. I drove it across state with no worries or discomfort. It had the A-code 289, but I put an Edelbrock 5oocfm carb and dual plane intake on it. Dual exhaust with a crossover pipe. Plenty quick. Sounded awesome. I had visions of installing a Ford AOD trans and regearing the differential with 3.55’s or maybe a 3.73 set. Here again I think the couple looks a bit better.
’69-’70… Like the ’67, but sportier. Somehow, the ’70 nose with the vents is best. The padding on the dash looks a bit too chunky, but I like the rest of the interior. There were Windsor and Cleveland 351’s available. I really think the 302 and 351 was the best for these cars. If they don’t make enough power stock, they are so easy to modify for more power without ruining a somewhat stock appearance. Mustangs were not meant to be big cars and were nose heavy to begin with. I know big blocks were a necessity back then and made for an interesting car, but I wouldn’t want to drive one on a regular basis. I think the Boss 429 was a mistake. They really had to hobble that engine just to get it to fit in the Mustang. Restrictive exhaust and a milder cam to work with it. They should have went full tilt and put them in the Torino and sent it to clobber the Hemi Charger. The upshot of widening the Mustangs form ’67 on was the standard models benefitted in the handling department. I think the pinnacle was the Boss 302. This car had everything I think a musclecar needed. Here is where the fastback really came into it’s own. I still like the coupe, but the Boss 302 is an awesome looking piece of machinery. Five stars here.
’71-’73… These seem to get disregarded as much as the Fox body just because of their looks. “It doesn’t look like a Mustang to me.” Total ’70’s funk factor in the styling. It’s not really a good looking car in the normal sense, but even after all this time, I still like looking at it. I can’t figure it out. From some angles, the front overhang is a bit overkill, like the ’71-’74 Charger, another car I like. The ’71 Camaro/Firebird is one of Amerca’s best, but I can’t ignore the Mustang. I don’t know why this series still gets called a fatso in light of the Mustangs they’ve been making since ’05. The picture someone posted earlier of the two side by side perfectly. Must be in context with the ’65 only. The coupe is nice and the fastback… damn. Is there a more fastback-y car out there? Yes, I know the rear window is totally useless. This car was totally done for style with no real consideration for practicality. No one will design something like this again or even reference it. Maybe that’s what gets my attention. I guess it’s like a boat tail Riviera that way.
Most of what I say here goes for the Cougar as well, although I put the ’67-’68 on equal footing with the ’69–’70. A little give and take on the details. The ’71-’73 I like, but I sometimes have a harder time with that central grill. For some reason Ford kept trying some version of it after the Edsel. Look at the ’71 Galaxie.
There is for sale locally a ’66, ’69, and a ’73 Mustang. All coupes. all around the same price. All need help. I’d like any of them, but the ’69 is the standout for me. Perfect color combo. Blue, black interior. Grande. 351.
This was late in coming seeing how long this post has been here. I’m generally not real wordy in my responses, but I had to put this out there. I’ve been reading here for at least 5 years and find it greatly enjoyable and informative. Hopefully this wasn’t a boring read.
Not boring at all. There is no doubt about it – Mustangs bring strong feelings and opinions from almost everyone.