(first posted 2/5/2015) Look at this car and what do you see: Eleanor, star of the original 1974 “Gone in 60 Seconds” movie? All the worst excess and ugliness of the early seventies folded up into one bloated pile? A long stripe of black rubber burned into a country road? The destruction of an American icon? Nostalgia for a simpler and more innocent time? Nothing at all, if you’re trying to look out the back window? Put me down for all of the above, as well as a couple of lasting lessons this Mustang taught me.
In the fall of 1970, I was a seventeen year old car jockey at a Ford dealer when the all-new ’71 Mustang plopped its oversized butt on the scene. Admittedly, it did have a hell of an act to follow, appearing six months after the remarkably handsome 1971 Camaro. In absolute terms and relative comparisons though, the new ‘Stang failed miserably.
Its awkward and heavy-handed styling completely abandoned the classic Mustang cues that were so deeply ingrained then, and still are today. The stylists had simply lost the thread, and were grasping at all kinds of new directions. When former GM exec Semon E. “Bunkie” Knudsen saw a fiberglass mock-up of the fastback proposal days after joining Ford as its new president, he instantly green-lighted it without further ado. The designers were stunned; they weren’t used that. Knudsen loved it; maybe precisely because it looked so un-Mustang-like.
The “flatback” SportsRoof may have been inspired by Ford’s GT racers, but it utterly destroyed rear visibility. They should have just advertised it as the first standard moonroof. These ’71-’73 Mustangs were a half-foot wider, almost a foot longer, and some 700 pounds heavier than the original pony car. Eugene Bordinat, Ford’s head of design admitted: “we started with a secretary’s car and ended up with a behemoth”. True that. Ironically, in today’s bloated world it’s really not that big at all.
I got to drive the very first ’71 Mach 1 that rolled off the transporter at Towson Ford that fall, courtesy of the owner’s spoiled kid who annually got a new Mach 1 to destroy. It was red, just like the ’70 that it replaced. As was common in that era of miserable build quality, it had to go to the body shop to correct some pre-“Quality is Job 1” flaws. Strangely, the body shop was a half-hour drive away, but what a drive it was, especially if you knew all the narrow winding back roads through Ruxton and Falls Road to turn it into a highly entertaining forty-five minutes. I knew them very well by then, thanks to the UAW.
I felt like I had been strapped in a bathysphere, peering out into the world through narrow slits and that rear non-window. The tall, deep dash, whose design was ripped off from the 1968 Corvette, only accentuated the effect. But the Cleveland 351 HO coughed to life with a healthy burble, and I was stoked: a seventeen-year old about to have his first drive in a genuine muscle car. What’s not to like?
On the straights, not much at all. Each of the 330 horsepower had only ten pounds to accelerate. Might as well let the clutch get used to the abuse its new owner was going to inflict. And those Firestone Wide-Ovals definitely needed a little burnishing. Keeping it in the right half of the narrow road was already challenging, even though it was still straight.
When it came to the twisties, it got a bit ugly. But I’ll let you be the judge: either I wasn’t man enough to wrestle this beast into submission like James Bond was in Diamonds Are Forever, or it wasn’t my fault for failing to induce ballet from Hulk Hogan. Crash, bang, screech; this vaguely assembled concoction of parts called Mach 1 was fragmenting, each with its own trajectory, none of which corresponded to the two squiggly lines defining the right lane. And it wasn’t happening anywhere near the sound barrier; more like forty-five.
Meanwhile, the little shit box Pinto with the 2 liter German OHC four and four-speed that I often drove for shuttling paperwork and small parts between the store and the body shop thrived in this section. Its manual rack and pinion steering was accurate and transmitted every nuance; the Mach 1’s was overboosted and vague, like an obsolete arcade game. The baby Mustang took a set and held it; the big Clydesdale tried to buck me the whole way. Lesson learned (and never forgotten): a little shit box at the limit is way more fun than a fast shit box out of its element.
Admittedly, some more time with the Mach 1 might have smoothed out my path through the esses. This was a bit more car than I was used to at seventeen, although I had been driving for several years by then. But the experience and contrast has forever shaped my taste in cars. I prefer them a bit lighter and more delicate on their feet in the corners than this draft horse. Now if this experience had happened in Nevada, it might have been a different story. The feel and sound of a healthy V8 pulling hard down an endless straight is intoxicating.
All I have to do is watch this car chase from “Gone In 60 Seconds” and realize I was no H.B. Halicki, who produced, directed, acted and drove in his movie. Over 93 cars were destroyed in the making of the 34 minute chase scene, all bought on the cheap at auctions and such. It’s a bit painful, nevertheless, from today’s perspective.
Three Mustangs were used up in the film, which cost $150,000 to make and grossed $40 million.
This generation Mustang doesn’t need any videos by Ford to put any spin on it. Its outsized personality has become legendary, for better or for worse. It may have lost the way a bit from what the original Mustang started out to be, but then so did everyone else at the time, with a few notable exceptions. It was the final blow-out of the late 60s, and the more outlandish, the better. This Mustang was at the head of that pack.
You might not like it, but it couldn’t care less. It’s not the least bit insecure, like its successor. It needs no explaining or apologies. You ether get it or don’t. Or in my case, both at the same time.
I hated these when they came out,I’ve since grown to kind of like them.1971 was the start of a bad period in American cars,new for 71 Javelins,Mustangs and Mopar B body cars weren’t a patch on the 70 models they replaced looks wise.They all looked bloated compared to the sleeker previous cars.
In 1972 my favourite American cars were the Firebird,Camaro,Dart,Demon & Duster.
As the years fly by, and the bloat that infects many cars today increases, this car looks quite sleek. Probably around a 3200 lb car which is not really heavy by today’s standards. Brother in law had a yellow 73 Coupe Mustang with a 302 auto and it was not a bad driving car with the lighter engine. It did feel like you were sitting in a dark cave with the black interior. He replaced it with an automatic Audi Fox wagon, which he did not like very much. Parents had a 72 Pinto 2.0 4 speed, and that little shit box was pretty quick and handled well enough, but in the rain the light rear end was easy to spin out as I found out.
No weight difference between a 351 and 302 they use the same block just a shorter throw crank on the 302
That may be the case with the Ford Australia’s Cleveland based 302 but the 351 Cleveland found in the 70-73 Mustangs is definitely bigger and heavier than the Windsor 302(and 289 and 260 for that matter). Totally different engines.
True, with the Windsor motor. But the 351 Cleveland were very different. The W is considered a small block the C is considered a big block.the C was an attempt at an engine for NASCAR, high revving not much bottom end.
Agreed. This car has become rehabilitated quite nicely. Just like how most folks thought in 1969-70 that the Beatles had jumped the shark, most folks thought that this Mustang had too. But today, these have a swaggar and the cred of a classic muscle car. I think I have pictures of 3 different ones, all quite nice.
I will admit that at age 12, I liked these, at least the fastback Mach I. But by the time I was looking for a car at 17, I had zero interest in them. By that time, these had proved to be rustbuckets of the first order.
With handling like that when new, I can only speculate how different this example handles with the skinnies and the fatties.
When I was but a mere child, about 7 or 8, I remember frequently driving by a house in which one of these was parked. I asked my mother how a person could see out the back glass of that Mustang. She, too, was uncertain.
Paul, I must admit to being a bit surprised to see you watched the chases from “Gone In 60 Seconds”. What one will do in the name of research. 🙂
Suspensions were laughably inadequate in many muscle cars. I would imagine that if you were to spend some time replacing all bushings with urethane and getting some quality aftermarket springs and swaybars, this would take a corner just fine, even with the California rake.
The chase from that movie was amazing, especially when you realize that CGI didn’t exist. It all happened for real, including the light pole impact coming off the highway that nearly killed Halicki.
The rest of the movie is car fan nirvana, but the production values and acting were definitely of the low-rent variety. Still, it’s one of my favorite movies, mostly because of the cheese and not in spite of it.
I can’t comment on the handling of this car relative to other muscle cars from the era, but in terms of styling, its heftier look was right in line with other early-70s muscle cars like the Camaro, Barracuda, and Challenger. Admittedly, in 1972 it would’ve been hard to accept this as a Mustang, although I’d be wishing for this car after the Mustang II came out.
I have always liked this era of Mach 1 design but, yeah, they drove like a big Lincoln Mark or an LTD.
Seen a fastback at a local salvage yard about ten years ago. I knew the previous owner and wondered why he had sold it. His kids had made a habit of using the fastback as a slide and pretty much trampled the roof in.
I’d have thought it was too horizontal to make much of a slide. You’d just sit there! 🙂
This seems to an early but classic case of selling something larger but no better than the original, and that in its own right would have only a footnote not a feature.
Surely Ford could have done better than this? It appears to be almost a caricature, and maybe even greedy, as well as an excess in size and bulk for little gain.
But it does look very 70s and not 60s, and that is often A Good Thing
I’ve read somewhere that the current Mustang is actually larger than this one, but this one visually just looks bigger…and not that much smaller than the mid-size Torino. The Sportsroof isn’t a bad-looking car, in a “20-year high school reunion” kind of way. Not sure a Maverick-based one would have looked better.
RE: “Gone In 60 Seconds” (AKA the Adventures Of Maindrian Pace), still in my top-10 favorite movies of all time, but referencing Gerardo Solis’s recent post about demolition derbies, some of the destruction in the movie is hard to watch.
Just a shipping crate for a 4V 351 Cleveland is all these cars were to me. Take said 351 Cleveland, drop in ’70 Maverick, with some Shelby inspired suspension mods, and disc brakes, and you would have what Ford should have built all along.
You’d have to do some surgery on the shock towers to get a Cleveland in a Maverick, the low deck Windsor barely fits.
Indeed. A Boss 302, with a 347 stroker kit would be a better choice in a Maverick. While the 351C block (NOT 351M/400) is only slighter taller than a 289/302, every half inch counts.
Yet not so sure. Just dug out a Peterson engine swapping book I have had since ’75 or so, and one of the featured swaps is a Boss 351C in a ’60 roundbody Falcon. And no mention of shock tower mods, and they certainly look stock. If a Cleveland fits in one of these, I would think it should fit in a Maverick. Of course, you may have to REMOVE the engine to change spark plugs….
I dont know which I like better; the car or Paul’s write-up!
Those are actually my favorite generation of Mustangs for all the reasons Paul mentioned-it was so in-your-face big and mean and loud and obnoxious and definitely not a secretary’s car anymore. At shows, I am so bored by just about any 65-70 (or late model) Mustang because they have all been done to death but the 71-73s, man, they are big and sexy.
Despite the yellow bumpers and painted over door handles and trunk locks, I love the car in the article; Centerlines, traction bars and a tunnel ram and suddenly its 1979 again. But a Eugene car with rust bubbles in the trunk lid?
” But a Eugene car with rust bubbles in the trunk lid?”
That these things rust in Eugene tells you all you need to know about how they handled the salty midwest back in the day.
As for the bubbles, maybe the car belonged to “Mary Richards” of Minnesota sometime in the past!!
The difference in cars here along I-5 and west of it vs cars that have spent any time on the coast is dramatic. For all the clean and solid old iron you see here in Oregon, you do come across some real nasty rustbuckets. They’ve either been coastal rides, or come down from Canada.
I side with the contrarians; Knudsen had good stylistic instincts on this, no matter how bad it may have been technically. A supreme example of style over substance, no wonder it was chosen for the Bond flick: in films, it only matters how they look, and of course stunt men can make cars do anything.
BTW, I’ve always hated those Funny Car fats punters liked to put in back, it ruins the stance.
No apologies needed. Wish it was mine.
Love it just like that.
Maybe it’s just on my end, but it seems that all 3 parts of the chase scene are just part 1 posted 3 times.
Oops; Fixed now.
I look at this car and I always see the green Corgi 1:43 Mustang Mach 1 I had as a child (it took me like 30 patient years before I saw one in the metal in Europe – that was in Stockholm). Thus it is my favorite Mustang bar none. Some may say it’s bloated, awkward, and maybe it is… but it’s just so damn sexy! Warts ‘n all!! 🙂
Are you sure said car in Towson was a Mach-1? The 330 HP HO Cleveland was reserved for the Boss 351, it was the only Clevie ever to have solid lifters, other than the ultra-rare ’72 351 HO, which was the same unit with lower compression. Just try finding one of those.
Also CC effect, but I just watched GI60secs the other night. I try to watch it about once every 2 years. Love it, cheezy dialogue, bad acting, thin plot and all.
Yeah, the 351-4V Mach 1s had the hydraulic lifter 285-horse engine. My dad owned a ’71 in Grabber Lime with that engine. Years of looking at pictures of that car made me a fan of this bodystyle, especially in grabber colors.
You’ve thrown my memory into a bit of a quandary. I’d forgotten that that 1971 Boss and Mach 1 look virtually identical, except for the script on the lower front fender, whereas the ’69-’70 Bosses were so distinctive. The owner’s kid’s ’70 was a Mach 1 for sure. The ’71? Now I’m not so sure. It’s been a while.
It was a four speed stick, and it idled pretty lumpily and had the Magnum 500 wheels. And it ran hard. It could well have been the Boss. But then given my lack of frame of reference, the 285 hp 351 in the Mach 1 probably would have felt fast to me too. 🙂
It’s a bit unusual for me to be in this type of quandary, but now l’m left scratching my head….
The Boss also didn’t have the honeycomb panel on the back between the taillights, it was just blacked out. Different stripe too, it wasn’t even a stripe really more of a tape extension of the blackout treatment. Still probably too subtle to jog the memory though 😛
Oh and they only came with chrome front bumpers and the hood was a full blackout.
For 1971, there was the Boss 351, rated at 330 hp (gross). This engine was an excellent performer. It was likely underrated due to the performance times these cars put out. There was the 351-4V M-code, which was rated a 285 hp gross. This was a high compression, 10.7:1, and were rated at 285 hp (gross).
Late 1971 cars got the 351-CJ, Q-code, which was a low compression engine, but the rest of the setup was setup a little hotter than an M-code. This engine was rated at 280 hp, but I am not sure how accurate that was. In 1972 with the new SAE net system, this engine received a 266 hp rating. This engine was a strong performer for 1972, having more hp per CID than the Chevrolet LT1 or Mopar 340 in 1972. The 1972 351 HO was essentially a low-compression version of the Boss 351, and it was rated a 275 hp SAE net. For 1973, only the Q-code was available.
I always wondered about that. If you plot known Net and Gross HP ratings of most given engines on a graph, you’ll see that in most cases, Net is roughly 70 percent of gross, with some notable exceptions. Example, a 1971 302 goes from 210 gross to 143 net the next year, about 70 percent. The CJ barely goes down at all, so either it was underrated in gross form, or overrated in net.
Another example is the 340 Mopar, goes from 275 gross to 235 net, which is 85 percent of the gross figure. Since net figures are supposed to be so accurate, I would say it was underrated in gross form.
For a ’72 351HO to put out 275HP, by the 70 percent formula it would have to have been about 385 HP gross, yet it’s high compression sister was advertised at 330.
Although that 70% figure works sometimes, there is no formula that will work to convert gross to net. There are way too many variables that reduce the power output from gross to net. The number of accessories on the engine, how much power each accessory uses, emission controls, the breather, the exhaust (single, dual, high back pressure, low back pressure), etc. I could see with hi-po engines having more efficient exhaust systems and intake systems there would be less loss between net and gross figures.
When it comes to the accuracy of the power, I think the net figures are the only reasonably accurate ones. The whole point of SAE standard J1349 (net HP std) was to set much more strict guidelines on how manufactures obtained HP figures and to have HP reflect the real “as installed” ratings. Therefore, I would say it’s safe to say the SAE net figures of 1972 on are probably the most accurate figures to come from this era. This rating system continued on until about 2005 or so when it was once again revised.
Since a 1971 Boss 351 were running high 13 sec 1/4 mile times by the magazines when new, I would suspect that it was underrated. These times were comparable to many cars with much “higher” hp ratings.
Have to put one’s self in Ford Design’s shoes on what to do with a sales success that was starting to sink. This design was likely a day late and dollar short for at the time of it’s release, the american muscle car was going out the door thanks to OPEC and high insurance rates.
But how I love that red Mach 1 wearing those iconic Magnum 500 wheels! It hits all the right muscle cues with the stripes, scoops, mags and bright paint. It’s a keeper. And today it enjoys a loyal following. Prices appear to be catching up with it’s GM twins, especially the Mach 1 and Boss 351 incarnations.
I like the evolution of a car model, especially our pony cars. Each will have it’s detractors and fans; I appreciate them all for without them, the line dies; case in point the AMC Javelin/AMX.
OPEC and insurance weren’t even on the horizon when this was released.
The order of events that ostensibly killed muscle cars was
1) Insurance issues in about mid 1970
2) Stricter emissions requirements at about the same time. GM was a year
ahead in compression reduction in ’71, followed by the others the next
year.
3) Arab oil embargo, October ’73, just after ’74 models came out. This event
had very little to do with the death of muscle cars, since, with a few
exceptions (SD Trans-Am for one) they were already long dead. These 3
events are highly overrated as the demise of muscle cars. In reality,
changing consumer tastes had more to do with it than anything.
I get a kick when I hear people try to tell me the latter event had anything to
do with it, as if they were planning for an oil embargo 3 years into the future.
If it had any effect, the most likely was that it rendered second-hand
example valueless for a time, possibly sending many cars to an early grave, which, in turn, caused the value of the remaining ones to increase over time.
Yep, OPEC didnt happen until Oct 1973. In 1970-71, when muscle car sales declined, there was no idea that gas prices would double.
So many, who were not there, assume that right at start of 1970’s, gas prices went up. But was 3 whole years before we saw 30 cents go to 65 a gallon.
One big factor in decline of ‘supercars’ was huge supply of cheaper used mid-60’s versions. Sticker prices were going up, but also, ‘gearheads’ wanted to save $$ for mods and buy used.
Funny that; OPEC was formed in 1960 and gained teeth following the Arab-Israeli War in 67. I mean, if we really want to split hairs here. 🙂
70-71 was the last years of the true musclecar, “supercar” as they were referred to then. I was a few years removed from driving age, but a person who paid much attention to the muscle car age very closely. By the time I got my permit in 76, the muscle car was but a tape stripe job in the Cobra II and a low compression power plant in the Camaro, Firebird and Corvette. Amazing what the car scene looked like then considering a few short years previous.
Insurance made owning the Cudas, RoadRunners, Chevelle SuperSports prohibitive to own. Muscle Cars gave way to the Disco Van era; pleated velour rolling love shacks…. The musclecar; supercar, died a death of a thousand cuts from different angles, foreign and domestic.
This car in question today was the product of Bunkie Knudsen’s brief stewardship at Ford. But I certainly must wonder if the downsizing craze begun by Chevy with the Vega, Ford with their Pinto, AMC with their Gremlin and Chrysler with their early imports was carried out by some internal concern over the collective rise of the Arab Oil producing states…… or was it concern over the power of Volkswagen and their Beetle, not to mention the small bore European cars from the other manufacturer’s making their way here.
Small car sales were clearly on the rise as far back as 1968, five years before the first oil crisis. Not necessarily to the point of eating into sales of larger cars, but enough for the domestics to take notice, and to see subcompacts as a new segment they needed to be in. This is what prompted the domestics to introduce the Gremlin, Pinto, Vega and “captive import” Chrysler products in 1970-71.
VW was at its American peak from 1968-71, selling around 500K annually in the U.S. Toyota and Datsun went from having no more than west coast toeholds in 1964 or 1965 to being significant players in the U.S. market by 1970 or 1971. Even before the subcompacts, Ford’s Maverick had been introduced in the spring of 1969 as a low-end import fighter.
The tide was lifting American compacts too. Sales bottomed out around 1967, then rose to much higher levels by the early ’70s, led by the Chevrolet Nova and Mopar A-bodies. Pontiac and Mercury got compacts in 1971, and Olds and Buick in 1973, all before the energy crisis.
The first mustang was itself a small car, and so was the falcon it was based on.
And if you carefully watch the chase scenes above, you’ll notice a lot of evidence supporting how popular smaller cars were becoming:
1) The chase passes by the former Datsun HQ building near 18501 S Figueroa St in Carson, CA (google it – it’s still there looking virtually identical)
2) A roadblock was set up right in front of the Mazda dealership where a MINI dealer now resides at the intersection of Hawthorne Blvd. & 190th ST in Torrance.
The chase proceeds North through the lot of Butler Buick (now the home of a BMW dealership) where you can see on the letterboard sign Opel Kadett (I remember my local Buick dealer selling Opels as well back in that time).
So just from the movie clips, we can see strong evidence that small cars were really on the uptake. I watched the clips and had Google maps on my other screen so I could track exactly where each scene was happening (the police dispatchers gave either the business names or street intersections and gosh-darnit they appear to be accurate so I’ll give them props for that).
And this is unrelated but if you look on the north side of Penske Cadillac (formerly Moran Cadillac, north of the now-BMW dealership) where the Mustang entered the service garage, it is virtually unchanged! The roofline and shop door openings have not changed even though the rest of the building has be remodeled.
Why people “dismiss” the ’71-’73 Mustang is a mystery to me.
I’ve always liked them (except for the Mary Tyler Moore Lemon Mobile).
Compared to the ’74 Mustang, this is a dream machine.
The Mustang II was just what this generation needed to look respectable.
And the bubblestangs from ’94-’04. Those are pretty fugly looking too. BUT, they could perform when optioned right.
The 2010 to 2014s make the 94-04s look like beauty queens
Another fan of the bloat-stang, well, the fastback and convertible, anyway. The notchback coupe looked horrible in this generation. Add the vinyl roof, and it really was a puke-mobile.
Back in my autocross days, I had a buddy who had one of these running Unlimited Sedan in SCCA autocross, sprints and other various track events. Looked stock but had full roll cage and lots of modifications. Basically a street-legal race car.
Rolling down I-79 on Saturday afternoon with him, heading into Meadville, he got picked off by a PA state police radar unit sited on an exit overpass bridge. Which clocked him at 135mph. Knowing he was dead as soon as he came over the rise, Bill immediately hit the brakes and pulled over. The cop, meanwhile came screaming down the entrance ramp to give chase . . . . . . and had to back up over half a mile when he realized Bill had immediately pulled over.
Laws were different back then. Bill paid something like a $300.00 fine (1973 dollars) but his license wasn’t suspended, nor did he lose his competition license.
My feelings about the fastback were not unlike the current Dodge Challenger: Good looking car. Now, if you could only make it in 3/4ths or 7/8ths scale.
Agree with your observation concerning the scaling down of the current Dodge Challenger. Same would also apply to the current Chevrolet Camaro.
I’m just a bit young for these cars. In my salty city, a few were still around when I was in high school in the early ’80s, one was a restored beauty, most were completing their final miles with their 3rd owner, whose maintenance budget was dictated by what Kentucky Fried Chicken was paying.
When I was little, a few neighborhood studs had these cars, and they probably worked as babe magnets. As I became more aware of cars, I knew that a lot of hi-po vehicles from the ’60s and ’70s had fairly finicky power trains and were not user friendly on a day-to-day basis, either suffering from triple carbs or inadequate suspensions, or whatever. I could not get excited about the looks or potential issues with many of them.
Which probably explains why I gravitated towards Oldsmobile’s Cutlass more than once, with the 350 / 350 powertrain. I was more interested in usable powerband than the potential to get tickets or wrap myself around a tree.
Now, I strangely gravitate toward this car. It is the relative unknown to me, and apparently I’m not the only one whose interest in these cars has increased.
Was anyone else reminded of Mad Max’s Falcon XB by the feature car with its air cleaner sticking out of the hood?
Besides the ‘beak-Bird’, wasn’t this Bunkie Knudson’s other infamous claim to fame during his brief tenure as Ford president? Like others here, I never thought the ’71-’73 Mustang looked all that bad, except for the flying-buttress Grande version (and driving one probably wasn’t all that pleasant, either). It’s rather similar to the Mopar E-body in execution. GM never went the bloat route with the Camaro, which is very likely why it managed to stick around far longer.
I realize, academically, that I shouldn’t like these cars. Too big, too bloated, any pretense of handling gone, and the beginning of the waterslide into High Malaise. And yet, when I look at that red Mach 1….WANT. All the impracticality, and the drawbacks of the claustrophobic anti-ergonomic interior, just fade in the face of that attitude.
The notchbacks, I can walk away from with confidence. And the feature car? It’s a very definite style and attitude, and almost a period piece with that high scoop and the centerlines, but it’s not for me. A Mach 1 of this embiggened generation though, Still doesn’t come close to the ’69 Mach 1, preferably 428CJ equipped (aka My Favorite Mustang of All Time), and nor would I take it over most any ’65-’70 ‘Stang. But on its own merits…that’s one I could not walk away from. No sir.
“Too big, too bloated, any pretense of handling gone”
Main reason Lee I. ordered the smaller MII. They didn’t have a crystal ball and know that OPEC Embargo was coming.
If I had a nickel for every car board post saying “Ford brought out the MII in reaction to higher gas prices”, I’d be rich!!
CC effect! I just watched “Gone In 60 Seconds” again, last week! The destruction of all the cars (especially the Mopars!) still hurts. These Mustangs were all about the looks. I love the striped Mach 1’s!! But because of all the negative qualities expressed in the articles, I feel that the Mustang II was a step in the right direction (EXCEPT in the power department); IMO the styling was more in line w/ the “classic” style of Mustang. 🙂
There’s a line in that movie that had me wondering if HB Halicki’s true feelings about the the Mustang II coming down the pipe was being telegraphed via the script. He’s asked why they’re having so much trouble stealing an Eleanor, and he said something to the effect “probably because she’s the last of the Mustangs”. By the time of the filming, it was quite clear that the Mustang would continue …in downsized form as the Mustang II.
Although released in 1974, it was obviously filmed in the late summer of 1973, as there are no 1974 model cars to be seen, although there are some ’73s in the background, the one other of note being the ’73 LTD Radio News Cruiser.
There are other clues too, such as a “Final Clearout of Buicks and Opels” sign at a dealership.
+1 “…Last of the Mustangs” is my favorite actual line in the entire movie.
A red ’74 Coupe DeVille appears as one of the cars to be stolen. Guy tries to get one and it has a tiger in the back seat. So some 74’s appear. [correct me if my memory is off, myabe a ’73? But seem to remember the opera style rear window]
Yep, you are right, I just checked, it’s a ’74
From what I’ve heard, with the way H.B. Halicki filmed movies that scene with the 74 Caddie could have been filmed a few weeks before the release and spliced in for all we know, just to add a brand new car for more realism. Eleanor is a good example of this since it was actually a 71, the front bumper and turn signals underneath are the giveaways, but since the chase was filmed in 73 and Eleanor would be most desirable as a ‘new’ car a brand new 73 grille assembly was swapped on.
“They should have just advertised it as the first standard moonroof.”
Yes, I keep waiting to see a classic car ad where someone who wasn’t alive at the time these were being build keeps referring to a moonroof or sunroof while forgetting that if that were true then the car would have been built with no rear window.
Last gasp of classic, sassy American style before 5mph bumpers, OPEC, and the Japanese arrived.
Might this be a ’73 Mustang? It seems to have a ’73 grille and front bumper.
It was a bit late last night, as I was looking at pictures of ’72s and ’73s to determine this one. And the grille has been blacked out. But in the light of morning, that chunkier bumper is obviously a ’73. Thanks.
73’s have vertical turn signals in the grille, also.
Other easy tell is non Mach 1s all used the same grille and body colored front bumpers in 73, most(not all) of the 71/72 non-Mach 1s had an ugly chrome surround, sort of pseudo loop-bumper look to them, with a different grille and no inboard parking lights.
The “Gone in 60 Seconds” 73 Mustang was rebuilt and reinforced to crash and look stock. Pretty cool that H.B. (Toby) Halicki did the work on the car.
There’s a scene where he spins out at about 100 MPH and hits a steel pole with the left front.
In the movie you can see where it cuts in deep and then stops where the upper box frame rail would be. A stock car would have been cut in two by this, and I always assumed it to have had some kind of NASCAR type tube frame under there. But in this pic, it appears almost stock, unless I’m missing something.
BTW according to what I’ve read in other sites, that accident was just that, an accident, not in script, and he was knocked unconscious by it.
That’s probably before anything was done to it. I’ve never seen the chase car’s interior but the cage built for it seemed very tight and integrated into the chassis compared to typical roll cages, you really can’t spot it throughout the chase sequence.
I suspect the context of that pic is it was taken after all the exterior sheet metal was removed and before the cage was built into it, possibly removing much of the old structure. I’m no expert on stock car racecar building but I think it was done similarly at the time, well up to that time anyway when they were still production car based
And that pic really cements H.B. Halicki’s awesomeness in my mind!
That crash into the street lamp was a vicious one when you review it several times over. It has been said that Halicki was nearly killed in that hit. Kind of reminds me of the Earnhardt Sr wreck and death at Daytona; on the whole, it doesn’t seem much, but considering the speed in which they hit and came to a stop, incredible forces were at play to both driver and car.
“Look at this car and what do you see: Eleanor, star of the original 1974 “Gone in 60 Seconds” movie? All the worst excess and ugliness of the early seventies folded up into one bloated pile? A long stripe of black rubber burned into a country road? The destruction of an American icon?”
I vote: destruction of an American icon
Mustang died after the ’68 and didn’t come back until the ’79…and even then it was missing some its Mustangness.
THANK YOU for all the memories that came flooding back as I watched the videos ! .
IIRC we saw this in the Hollywood Cinerama Dome and had to wait in line over an hour to do so .
In 1973 a Young Man I knew went into the Marines and bought one of these , I felt then as now they’re too porky but they seemed popular at the time .
You had to have lived here then to appreciate how wide open and un developed L.A. and the South Bay was back then .
-Nate
I like these Mustangs just fine. Hell, Id take one without question over any of them made from 1974-2004 in a hot second. I always did like the coupe versions of this particular bodystyle a bit better than the FB. The proportions are just a little nicer AND it reminds me of a 2nd gen Javelin…one of my all time favorite cars.
This whole transition was well before my time…I was birthed in the same year as the Mustang II….YUCK. So you can see how my perspective is different from someone who saw the original replaced with this.
That red Mach 1 was and remains one of my dream cars. Yes, it is very different from the Mustangs that came before it, and after it. To me it is more of a personal coupe than a sports car. It is stunningly beautiful, a bit over the top perhaps, but many great things are. IMO it looks better without the front and rear spoilers.
thanks for the flashback, liked ur line “a little shit box at the limit is way more fun than a fast shit box out of its element.” I may use that, do U mind? sums my thoughts up too 🙂 1st car I bought was a 82 civic, almost bought a 77 or 78 Boss or Mach 1 can’t remember, same paint as above pic, but the pwr steering was out n U couldn’t get to it, told him if he fixed it, I’d buy, never heard from him n couple weeks later bought the civic, I hauled more ppl n that car, including hot rod guys to parts store, work or home can’t tell U how many times. And I was king of the Mnt, we had a 10 mile stretch of US Hwy 71 here, that had lots of 20mph curves, em rods couldn’t touch me on it, most wouldn’t try LOL good ole days lucky to be alive, no, it wasn’t my time 🙂
Mmm, that Mustang or this slant six turbo Dart???
I see a car that could benefit from the upgrades that Goolsby Customs gave to a similar Mustang for one of its clients.
I remember those fondly. A friend of mine had a 71 in a sort of mustard yellow with the 351-4V 285hp engine and 4 speed. Being an offensive lineman for SDSU at 6’5″ and 285 lbs. the car looked small on him. Do remember it being a very fast car for the days.
One of my better memories is him, in his Mustang, and me in my 68 Cougar with a beefed up 302-4V racing up Mt. Soledad Road in San Diego to the condo I lived in. He took the standard entrance and I took an alternate which put me behind him by about 100 feet as he came down. Only problem was the motorcycle cop who was right behind him and now in front of me. Clocked us at 70mph in a 35mph zone but in the end, after a lecture, let us off with a written warning in 1975. I still have that warning in the glove box of that same Cougar today.
FWIW, Ford did bring out fastbacks of Fairlane/Torino in ’68 and Galaxies in ’67. So, Mustang was next. Not as if never done before.
But also, the bigger Stang was to counter GM’s new sportier mid size coupes, on shorter 112″ wb. But just when they were introduced, the Mustang II was being penned.
Ironically, in today’s bloated world it’s really not that big at all.
Oh yeah…
That’s a stunning photo and truly puts today’s bloated cars in perspective.
Agreed.
Imagine the scene: owner of the one on the left returns to his car to be confronted by this. NOW whose car is the bloatstang?
Diamonds are Forever was what made me love this generation, I still think it’s one of the better bond chase sequences, as well as Man with A Golden Gun, but let down (both of them) by a dumb gag and an otherwise terrible movie containing them.
I’ve long been in the Minority of Mustang enthusiasts, I really don’t care about handling(and newsflash, compared to anything today a 66 Shelby handles like poo too) so driving dynamics isn’t gong to get me into a 65-68 and really the only ones I actually lust over are the sportsroof 67/68s. To me The 69-73 Mach 1s were the coolest Mustangs, followed by the 87-93 LX 5.0s, and the 94-04 SVT Cobras. I think the 05-current Mustangs are all way too tall and bloated aesthetically, which I should hate about the 71-73, but I don’t. I guess it’s because I like long low bloat, rather than short and tall.
I love everything about the featured car except that scoop. I Just saw a Top Gear special with a green Mach 1 with the same appendage, did every 71-73 owner get a memo to bolt those useless ugly things on them? Those are only appropriate if they’re feeding a Weiand 6-71
These had the right look:
67-68 fastback
65-66 fastback
84-86 notchback(with some reservations)
In that order
The rest just don’t quite make the grade.
$40 mill from a $150000 investment. Now thats what I call a good return. Could not believe how good the original Gone in 60 sec is compaired to the remake. The original perhaps the best movie car chase.. ever?
Bullet starring Steve McQueen.
I actually liked the fastback models of the early 70’s Ford Mustang’s but never cared much for the coupe version’s, I always consider 1973 to be the last year of the real classic Mustang’s before they became the Pintostang’s, I always find the 1971-73 fastback Mustang’s to be the most underrated era of the Mustang’s, I wouldn’t mind having a 1971-73 Ford Mustang Mach 1 if it comes with the high performance 351 V8’s, the only Mustang’s I liked built after 1973 were the 1994-04 models (preferably the GT).
I have a greenlight Eleanor diecast, I still think these were quite ugly, they kinda look like javelins.
I had a spoiled friend with a 1972 Mach I. This is my favorite mustang generation, by far.
Please,please everyone keep hating and badmouthing these cars! At least until I can buy one. It’ s the only Mustang fastback that’s still affordable- I don’t even want a Mach One, just a standard base sportsroof. I’ll supply my own motor and tranny. Seen in retrospect they don’t seem so big. It makes sense that that Ford would have planned on these competing with GM’s downsized A body coupes which were pretty space inefficient also. The coupes have the sail panel tunnel roof which actually looks pretty good with a vinyl top (check out the CC on the 71 Mustang Grande). There is at least some headroom for back seat passengers with this design. I think the fastback would benefit from a tunnelled backlight. There was one like that featured in Hot Rod mag a couple of years back. Please continue the hate fest! Here’s another take on bloat. I actually like the newer Mustangs, and their styling only suffers in a side by side comparison.
Here’s another view.
Except for the color of the early one, this could be my driveway. I park my 2009 Mustang and my 1966 Mustang in two different garages but sometimes swap them around when I am working on one. I can’t believe how much more space the 2009 takes up. Unless you see them together like in your pictures it is not near as apparent. The ’66 is also much easier to get in and out of especially for back seat passengers. It also has a much more usable back seat. When I took my son in law for his first ride in it he remarked that you could actually see out of it, too.
This fell to bits in Patagonia but it looked good in the snow.
I like these cars stock. The first yellow one looks like someone tried to build a fake drag racer out of it. It’s a rolling junkyard with all those clinkers sticking out all over the place. The yellow one from the movie, without the spoilers and with stock Ford wheels looks terrific.
It’s really a shame about all those cars being destroyed. Same thing with the Dukes of Hazzard. I wonder how many Chargers were destroyed making that crap show. People get all upset if a pigeon is killed making a movie, but it’s ok to destroy thousands of classic cars.
In the picture with the two blue Mustangs side by side, it is easy to see that size is not the only problem. The proportions of the new one are completely wrong. It is way too tall and narrow. The rear end looks more like a Fiesta than a Mustang. As the former owner of a 1970 Challenger, the new Challenger has exactly the same problem. It’s almost as tall as it is wide. And of course the original cars, Mustang and Challenger, had the proper size wheels. Ford and Chrysler went completely ghetto with the new ones. My non muscle car Challenger had 14″x6″ wheels, and they looked fine. Oh, and they weren’t all black.
Agreed, the giant wheels are ridiculous, thinking just over a decade ago 17s looked huge on SN95 Mustangs and 4th Gen F bodies. The only wheels that proportionally fit the wheel openings of the current pony cars are 19s at the minimum, which YUCK. I love hearing people rationalize them, as if the substantial extra unsprung weight, $1,200 tire sets and harsh ride are so essential to good handling, pfft. It’s a fad, stop rationalizing it and just admit it people!
Oh and I have an unflattering pic saved of a pair of Challengers as well 😀
The Challenger does have the same issue as the Mustang. The original was low, wide, and sleek. The new one is narrow, tall, and looks fat. It’s not as obvious in those pictures, but there is also a major difference in the sides. The original Mustang and Challenger had beautifully sculpted body lines, with a very noticeable curve from the roofline to the rocker panels, while the new ones are flat sided. Obviously the car designers had access to the original designs. This is not just about “copying” the original. It’s about car design in general, and how it has gotten so much worse over the decades. I don’t see any DOT reasons why today’s vehicles have to be so devoid of style, or why anyone would think that today’s fat, flat sided look is more appealing than the ’70s style. The Italians still build cars that have some shape to them. The original Lamborghini Countach was low and wide. It’s not much longer than it is wide, and the roof is about waist high next to me. Modern models have basically the same proportions, and they are sold in the U.S., which means they meet DOT safety standards. American car manufacturers need to hire some new designers.
Look at the top picture of the yellow Mustang. Notice that sharp crease just a few inches from the bottom, where the body panels fold back inward, even past the outer edges of the tires. Also notice how the side door glass has the same angle. It angles sharply inward from bottom to top. Both these styling cues look great to me, and give the body some shape.
Coincidentally, I saw a hardtop of this vintage on the Bay Bridge this evening. Not as excessive as the sportsroof. I see very few of these around; the 1964-66 hardtop is much more common and it’s odd to me that these much bigger and differently-styled cars are part of the same generation. Here’s a black one:
Lets face it, these cars were built for exactly one purpose. To get from this stoplight to the next one faster than your buddy, and look cool doing it.
If you need to see out the back, you buy the coupe, and if you want to go around corners, you buy an MG or something. 😉
Note: the contents of the post may be affected by the fact that I’m currently listening to classic Motown, and looking at pictures of the Woodward Dream Cruise. 🙂
” if you want to go around corners, you buy an MG or something”
Lotus Elan +2
Datsun 240Z
MG MGB GT V8
TVR Tuscan V8
Porsche 914/6
Last night I had dinner with my Son who has a big collection of Car Movies , I asked him if he had the original Gone In 60 Seconds and could we watch it , he said yes but as it turned out , it had vanished along with quite a few of his other car movies , apparently his wife no longer supports his GearHead madness and is slowly but surely throwing out his things whilst he’s at work…..
I’ll go find him a new copy at Amazon later to – day .
-Nate
If that’s true, that’s not only inconsiderate and disrespectful, but downright despicable on the wife’s part.
If she continues that sort of behavior, a divorce can’t be far off.
It’s far worse than what I described here sad to say .
She’s a stay at home mom and the house is dirty , food encrusted dishes stacked up …..
I worry for my Grand Daughter’s health & safety but my hands are tied .
The sad thing is : his mother was the same way (apart from Hospital clean always) : she’d toss out my things when I was at work…
She didn’t like me being a Mechanic so one fine day she simply ” forgot ” all my freshly washed uniforms at the washeteria , I didn’t discover this until Monday morning , she said ‘ oopsie ‘ and told me I’d have to get another job .
Instead , I went to work in all the fancy disco era clothes she’d bought that I didn’t like anyway and at the end oif the week all those fancy-schmancy clothes were ruined and I had sufficient $ to go buy some used work clothes…
For crap like this , I don’t miss her one bit .
When you’re young you don’t see the GIANT RED FLAG that hot babe is waving…
-Nate
owning a 1972 mach1 now for 14 years,it still brings a smile to my face when i drive it in the weekends.i yes it does cost a lot to mantain it but the joy it brings is fs unpriceable for me.its garage kept and i dont park it anywhere because it draws people attention all the time,and i dont want it to be schratched damaged or stolen.furthermore it gets photographed a lot and lots of thumbs up.
I remember mine.
It was like driving from the bottom of a bucket.
No visibility.
Build quality – “what’s that?”, asked Ford.
Luckily, it got T-boned by a 1970 Newport driven by an elderly lady hopped up on her meds as she drove through the red light striking it.
Don’t miss it.
If only this car hadn’t succumbed to the bloat virus sweeping Detroit at the time. If it had been the same size as the previous model, would there have been the same degree of hate? Alongside that beautifully-fresh Camaro, this just looked old. But then, anything did.
Of course CC-in-scale has these. Here’s one.
I love these Mustangs. If I had the money I would have a couple of these sports roof models. Don’t need a Boss or a Mach1. I’d build one for autocross and another for drag racing. These bodies were also the sleekest looking funny cars in their day.
As far as bloat goes you can throw damn near every vehicle into that complaint box.
The first GTI’s versus the current 4dr only GTI. Original Civic vs todays Civic. Its been this way for a long time, almost every refresh or next generation is a touch wider, longer, more hip room, more head room, etc.
All the additional requirements and added equipment. Todays properly equipped 1/2 ton has more towing capacity than a 1 ton did back in the day.
I wasn’t a fan of the bigger wheels but there are applications where there is a benefit. Bigger brakes can only be fitted with bigger wheel diameters. 17″ and a lot of 18″ wheels won’t clear the front brakes on my car.
Bond goes from leaning right to leaning left.
I’ve a trick I learned driving my ragtop Landrover. With the vinyl cover on, there was zero rear view and I had to rely on the door mirrors to see what was coming my way when overtaking and merging. I simply exercised an extra dose of caution in this respect and it was not a problem.
When I moved on to ‘normal’ cars with a view out back from the rear view mirror, I was horrified at the stress of all those asses riding up my tail, flashing their lights and generally trying to push me alone the road to match their speeds.
So I started flipping the rear view mirror to face the roof and only use the door mirrors for manoeuvres. It’s incredible the drop in stress and anxiety when you’ve no idea what moron is up your ass. They simply don’t exist anymore. This is a permanent feature now of my driving habit and has been for 20 years plus. My driving record is perfect. No accidents, no points, no worries.
My only memory of this Mustang was lusting for it upon seeing the Charles Bronson movie ‘The Mechanic’. Such a shame it was blown up in the final seconds.
Even with these cars’ many shortcomings, I’d still love to snag one and give it the Bullitt treatment, just for fun.