Mustang Week has given me the chance to ponder what I was going to say about this fine CC ’67 Fastback I found just a couple of weeks ago. Earlier in the week, I started writing about how this was undoubtedly the most well-loved generation (’67-’68) of the blood line, at least up to the Fox Mustang. It’s certainly become an icon, thanks in part to a famous appearance in the movies. And it is a fine looking Mustang, a reasonably successful development and evolution of the original.What’s not to like?
But then sitting in the bathtub one night, I changed my mind; instead of praising it, I come to damn it. Ok; not the car itself, but the first fatal step Ford took with it towards what became the annihilation of the genre it created.
As is well know, the original Mustang used a modified version of the 1960 Falcon’s “platform”, with the same 55.4″/56″ front/rear track. The goal of the Mustang development program was to end up with a weight of 2500 lbs, so that performance would be adequate with the six, and sparkling with even a low-tune base V8.
The original Mustang was designed to appeal to multiple market segments: everything from the “secretary’s car”; a low-cost entry-level sporty coupe that was economical to purchase as well as to operate, and gave adequate performance with the base engine; Mommy’s stylish new errand-getter; a student’s graduation present; even a family-mobile with which to haul a camping trailer, and even a mini T-Bird.
But at its essence was the ability to be a genuine “sports car”. From the beginning, it had that capability, with the crackling 271 hp solid lifter 289, four-speed, Special Handling Suspension, and even some short-lived high-performance 15″ tires, with which Motor Trend set a new fast time for tested cars on Riverside Raceway. From day one, the Mustang was capable of being a genuine high-performance sporty coupe, one that could give the Corvette a run for its money, along with some change back.
The highest fulfillment of its potential arrived already in 1965, in the form of the brilliant Shelby GT350.
The point I’m getting at here is that the original Mustang was right-sized; in fact, just about the right size, forever.
Which of course Ford rediscovered eventually, with the 2005 Mustang, whose 107.1″ wheelbase is within an inch of the original. And whose roof line and other styling cues it carried forward into a new century. But the path it took to get there was hardly a straight line.
The equally-iconic Porsche 911 arrived almost at the same time as the Mustang, but Porsche never wavered once in its vision, and how the 911 evolved accordingly.
Instead of a steadily refined, lithe, agile and sporty Mustang, we got this instead. OK; amusing, but hardly in line with the original vision (obviously a lack of vision was a key factor here). Well, Porsche did contemplate replacing the 911 with the 928.
The Mustang could (and should) have become America’s Porsche 911, and followed a similar path of evolution. Meaning: staying true to its pony-class genre, and avoiding the Great Big Block Temptation; the sin that brought down the genre.
For the 1967 Mustang, Ford abandoned its original tidy width and adopted the same wide-track underpinnings that the 1966 Fairlane and Falcon adopted. Why? That move not only effectively killed the Falcon within a few short years, until it was effectively replaced by the narrow-body Maverick, which essentially rode on a shortened 1965 Mustang platform.
And what did the wide-body ’67 Mustang gain? A 390 cubic inch V8, rated at 320 hp. And one which utterly destroyed the Mustang’s reasonably good handling and semi-good balance.
Yes, Steve McQueen’s iconic car had a 390 under the hood, but the amount of work it took to make that beast fly is well known.Seems to me that a 306 hp Shelby-ized 289 with the optional supercharger would have done better on the air-borne scenes, with less ballast in the rear end.
And (in real life) the driver of the hemi Charger it was chasing had to ease off the throttle during those chases, lest it leave it the Mustang in the dust. That wouldn’t have looked right.
The reality is that the big block engines available in the pony cars starting in 1967 were a colossal mistake. Until the CJ428 came along, the FE-engined Mustangs were ponies in wolves’ clothes.
And the same applies to the 1967 Camaro SS396, which was only available in the very mild 325 hp version, and whose actual performance was rather embarrassing, never mind its handling. How hard would it have been to offer a hi-po 350, based on the 365 hp 327? With some 375 hp, it would have been much fatser than the 396, and handled much better. Well, that engine (the legendary LT-1) did come along a few years later (1970), and it did make the 396 essentially irrelevant, and it was soon dropped from the Camaro’s option list.
More pathetically, Chrysler felt it had to play in the big-block sandbox too, shoehorning the 383 in a body never designed for it, and one that performed superbly with the 340 LA engine. The 383 was such a tight fit, that power steering was not even available. So who are we pandering to? Leave the big blocks to the Road Runner and such.
It’s not like the ’67 gained any extra space inside, to go along with a wider engine compartment. The 1967 Mustang’s main body structure was largely carried over; the interior dimensions are all the same, and the windshields are even interchangeable. Maybe the doors are too?
The rear seat got an even bigger window, which was well on its way to morphing into a sunroof, as well as a highly effective solar collector.
The more I look at these two, the more I like the tighter and tauter roof on the original. If only they’d spent the money on other things, like a high performance version of the 200 six, or that independent rear suspension Ford was already teasing about back then. Fifty years later, it’s finally coming.
The more I look at this ’67, the more I see the beginnings of middle-age weight gain; or more like morbid obesity. Why was Detroit so obsessed with everything having to get bigger? Bigger is not better; how hard was it to learn that? The answer soon became obvious.
I can’t tell you exactly how the Mustang’s design would have evolved; that would be an interesting project if I had the ability and time, but we did already design a key evolutionary step; the 1974 Mustang. And no, this is not a “MUstang II”; it’s the 1974 version built on a somewhat shortened 103″ wheelbase version of the original platform, and improved with a completely new front suspension. Since its a bit smaller than the original Mustang, weight is kept about the same or so, allowing it use use the 2.3 L four as the base engine to compete with both the Japanese competition as well as the Camaro.
Enough daydreaming. Let’s end with paying our respects to this fine original survivor, which is becoming a rare thing to see on the streets.
I’d almost forgotten about this other ’67 Fastback I shot a while back, also in red, although a rather different shade. How can I say negative things about these iconic curbside classic Mustangs? Well, it’s not the cars’ fault; but their makers who couldn’t keep the original vision in sight. Or maybe they never really had it, and just stumbled into the Mustang’s brilliant success.
The Mustang and Ford’s splendid new little V8 were meant for each other (as well as a theoretical hi-po six), and the speculation as to how the Mustang might have evolved in a more direct and continuous line along with it is tantalizing.
Some cars look better with the fastback look than others. The 1964-67 Mustang looked good, but the current generation Mustang looks awful! Besides that, they were dropped into cars that weren’t made for that kind of performance. If you’re going to drop a high output engine into a car, make damn sure it’s up to the challenge. Make sure the suspension can take the weight of the engine. Make sure the transmission and rear axle can withstand the power and torque the engine is delivering. Under no circumstances should car makers cut corners.
I really like the new Mustang and I’m one of the few who dislike the new Camaro
I’m with you about the new Mustang, and I don’t think you’re one of the few who dislike the new Camaro. I think the look of the Camaro is very polarizing; and even though I owned one from a few decades back, I find the current car ugly at best. Were I 30 years younger again, I’d have a new Mustang.
I used to be a huge Camaro fan, I’ve owne a 72 Z28, an 86 six cylinder(my first car) and a 94 cop package (basically the same as Z28 without the badges).
The new Camaro is the first one I have zero interest in owning, I think they’re ugly as sin. And they look chopped with that low roofline. Just an ugly car IMO.
I’m not a fan of the new Camaro either.
The new Camaro is a cartoon car, a caricature.
And an ugly one at that.
There are more than a few of us who think the current Camaro is really, really ugly. As a 3 time F-Body owner (2 second gen, 1 third gen), it saddens me. I hope they don’t screw the coming one up too.
No argument there. I like the 1st gen Camaro and Firebird, I don’t like the 2nd gen Camaro and Firebird until the later 70s. The 3rd gen Camaro, I didn’t care for, but I loved the Firebird. I liked the 4th generation Camaro over the Firebird. I think the current generation Camaro is *ugly*.
One of my favourite Mustangs,thanks Paul.I like the first coupes and convertibles but the 67 fastback is the nicest fastback.
Automakers never cut corners. Just ask them.
Totally true. Not even Yugo.
Oh yeah, right! I remember the Yugo. What a joke! It was fine in size, but from what I’ve read in Consumer Reports the Yugo was the worst car they’ve ever driven.
Wrong! That would be the Subaru 360.
The closest thing to a 911 evolution to the Mustang was the FOX bodies, 14 years with little more than bumper changes and never had any more cubes than a 302 in all those years. Those were right sized too and nailed the proportions, despite the different style. Hell the SN95 era was really just a 993esque update for the Mustang that carried it on another 8 years(22 in total). Ah, but they don’t look like 65s, so apparently they aren’t real Mustangs.
Oh yeah, and that chassis was adapted for IRS FIFTEEN years ago.
The 05-current may be more refined but all it is is a characture of a 65 with zero pedigree underneath. The Fox cars were the pioneers and like usual, they get the arrows. All the time I read blogs saying how Ford “finally” got it right with the 05 and everything in between it and the 66 should basically be forgotten. Well they’re forgetting the most important and interesting Mustangs ever built then. Whatever, they can have fun with their midlife crisis/relive their youth machines, the 05-currents are suited exactly for that.
The ’79-’93 Fox Mustang was the closest in spirit to the original by far. Even way more than the current car – which I like, but I also kinda agree with your analysis. I often wonder if that styling will still hold up years from now.
Like too many vehicles from that era, the Fox body is very underappreciated.
For how long was this Fox chassis in use?
1978-2004, starting with the Fairmont and ending with the Mustang.
Ah! Ok. What platform was the Mustang II from?
Jason – the Mustang II was on the same platform as the Pinto. Also, though the SN95 Mustang is still technically a “Fox Body” car, it was a significantly revised version of that platform. It also wasn’t shared with anything besides the Mustang by that point, unlike the ’78-’93 “Fox” which underpinned a whole bunch of different cars.
Get an early Mustang and install a twin cam turbo Barra motor from an Aussie Falcon then you really have something with more power than it can use without the weight penalty.
Now that’s something I want to see.
Make it so 🙂
..well if the base platform it used was ‘Falcon’ it would have had horrid handling.. sorry ..the early Falcons were about the least sporty handlers you could imagine ..I used to drive a ’65 XP wagon for about 4 years and the steering was low low geared and as ‘woolly’ as a sheep, the brakes were nasty grabbing weak stoppers that faded very soon after use.. and the cornering capability was to mid-50’s Morris Oxford standard (on crossplies) except that the rear end would slide under even careful driving circumstances with the Falcon ..in wet weather you were safer to stay home ..sorry but that’s the truth (perhaps we had a crook Falcon??) why do people rave about early Mustangs? please someone explain this to me…
Oh, I don’t know….because they’re beautiful maybe? Geez.
waaaiiiil ..yessss.. they ARE ‘nice’ to look at !! ..up to 1970 very nice to behold even..:) ..same really for the same era Camaro and Firebird, and Mopar’s Cuda and Challenger… all very good looking vehicles
They are ok in places like Aussie and the US with straight roads, gentle turns and gradients. Rural NZ roads of the 60s, not so much.
Hey Bryce ..what mid to large sized cooking pot vehicles did we have in the mid-to late sixties that handled really well on metal and tight mountain corners such as the Kaimai’s or the metalled dreaded Tapu road at the time for example? Is it correct to think the FD Victor 2000 from ’67-onward had coils all around? I seem to recall they did and they seemed okayish from memory (and they had front discs) ..there was the Fiat Crusader 1500 a bit earlier than that (c1965?) and also the Mk 1 Triumph 2000 ..that trio seemed reasonable enough to push along safely enough, but the regular Big Three were a different story …unsafe at speed on any corner ..and lethal in the wet ..right?
(having said that a few years ago I ran the VF off the shoulder on Front Miranda Road at speed and didn’t roll it by some miracle… the front dug-in and the little 185’s just scrubbed sideways ..thanks to the torsion bar)
When I was a teen boy, I thought a big block Mustang would be the thing to have, now I know better. I’m grateful that my 67 has a 289 V8.
+1
I was in that camp too until I worked out why Carroll Shelby raced 289 Cobras he added lightness and they steered properly.
Cobra + 427 = faster. Just add more tire to offset polar momentum. Oh…duh…Carroll did that.
A big-block Mustang would be the thing to have only if you did all your driving in quarter-mile spurts.
But then that’s pretty much true of a big-block anything. For the strip? Sure, why not. But for the street? I’ll take a Pasadena on that one.
I guess McLaren didn’t get the word back then either.
Say, if Trams-Am rules had allowed a 7-liter displacement limit, would everyone continue to race 5-liter engines for better handling? I think not.
Your analysis seems so prescient – with the advantage of 50 years hindsight. If you’ll recall the times, big blocks and drag racing seemed a natural evolution in America. Gas in 1965 was at most 32 cents. The freeway system wasn’t exactly a run requiring a nimble automobile. You can present your case – circa 2014 – but it fell on deaf ears in the mid 60’s. The market spoke louder than the purist. I have no dog in this fight, but your reasonable tone makes it seem such a natural assumption when it was anything but. Especially to the thousands trying to make a living adapting to the moving target of automotive tastes.
Well, that’s pretty much how I saw it and felt about it at the time. Of course, I wasn’t running Ford either. But I thought that dropping the 390 in the ’67 was a big mistake at the time, both because it wasn’t a very powerful engine and its negative effects on handling were obvious. And the same applied to the Camaro and Barracuda.
Of course that reflected my background and interests at the time, but the automotive press generally panned th big block pony cars, and there was a fair amount of negativity in response to their bloat.
I’m not sure the market did speak that much louder. Not many big block pony cars were ever sold, except maybe the last-gen Mopars, which were really just shortened mid-size cars. I think the manufacturers got into a pissing match that ended up not helping them..mine’s bigger than yours.
And what became the most iconic pony car? The ’69 Camaro Z-28, with a high-winding 302 and good handling.
The big block pony cars never really sold well, since there was no real advantage to them and a lot of drawbacks. That said, there’s always more than a few knuckledragger types who have to have the baddest ride around, so why not shoehorn an agricultural implement called the FE and increase the price a lot? Sounds like a bottom line winner to me. They can even be marketed as halo cars. The car makers are even doing it now. There are hi-perf versions of all their so called pony cars. The volumes are tiny but the profits fat.
The FE was actually an incredibly adaptable platform that was used for everything from agricultural pumps to Lemans-winning racecars. To call the entire line agricultural is not accurate.
I would agree that Ford did a poor job of preparing the Mustang for the FE and that they did an incomplete job adapting a truck/galaxie 390 for higher performance use. In particular, the 390 GT exhaust manifolds that were quickly cooked up to clear the shock towers were horrible and cost 30+ hp.
The 428 CJ was a much more completely thought-out iteration of the FE and it was a straight line terror with some light modification.
If my math is correct, you were in high school at the time. You came up with that analysis at 16? Remember Paul, sycophants are not allies, merely yes men. Have it your way – it’s your site.
Whether putting a big block in a Mustang was a mistake or not really comes down to how you consider it: from purely a vehicle balance/dynamics point of view, you are no doubt right. From the perspective of Ford in the mid 1960’s I think that the big block mustang was just a logical and maybe even necessary step.
This was the height of the muscle car craze and it was about advertising and bragging rights. Even though these were ‘Pony’ cars, they were part of the overall trend. Once Chevy dropped the 396 in the Camaro, Ford basically HAD to follow suit with the 390 in the Mustang or every magazine cover would have been a 396 outrunning a 302 mustang in a straight line. The 271hp 289 would seem like a logical alternative but that engine was quite expensive to produce, was high strung on the street and required valve adjustments, etc for its solid lifter valvetrain.
The 390 gave Ford a reasonably-attainable semi-halo version of the Mustang that helped it maintain public perception as a Camaro competitor. If Ford had not gone that way I would bet that Dealers would have been screaming for them to respond to GM and Mopar’s big block pony cars.
The real mistake was not preparing the 390 GT engine package to truly do battle with the 396 in terms of HP and straight line performance. The 390 as installed at the factory was more akin to the Galaxie 390 than a true performance iteration.
67-69 Mustangs and Camaros can be made to handle well if one butchered the body work to accommodate wider tires and wheels. Big blocks in these cars dominated the street and track drag racing with wider “meats’ and automatic transmissions. A certain automatic trans 390 cid ’68 Mustang with hideously flared fenders and M-size rear tires would run 13.2 against my M-20 stick ’69 396 Camaro’s 13.5 with G-size tires on Corvette Rally Wheels, both cars with 3.30’s in the rear end. That Mustang easily kept up in the canyon twistys as well. I sold my ’69 Z-28 because it wasn’t fast and didn’t handle any better than the 396 Camaro. The Z-28 lacked amenities and would run 13.9 on that rare perfect launch with the M-20 four speed and 3.73 rear gear. The early 302 cid Z-28 was a road track car with an endurance engine that drove poorly on the street and was only formidable in the noise it produced doing so.
I like a good handling car as much as anybody but frankly, circa 2014, nimbleness around corners is still a very rare joy to take advantage of vs. straight line performance, unless of course you’re into playing play F1 driver on the only roads with curves, which are 25mph subdivisions deep in the suburbs around here.
Great analysis and right on target. If building superb automobiles and not milking planned obsolescence for every possible nickle had been what the Big 3 were all about the Mustang would have been constantly improved. The Japanese sure taught them how to do that in the 1970s and beyond.
If the Mustang had not been constantly changing though how in the world would dealers have enticed customers into trading every two or three years?
A question: Given the basic Falcon platform could the Mustang have ever been superb or a would a completely new chassis been required?
The ironic thing is that since the original Mustang, sporty coupes often end up remaining in production for lengthy periods with mostly minor evolutionary changes. Initial purchases are style-driven, so sales drop off once the design becomes familiar and then the manufacturer has to either stretch out production to amortize the original tooling cost or just give up on updating the car at all.
Well the harsh reality is that now people don’t buy sporty coupes in large enough numbers so that the tooling can be amortized quick enough at the level they have to price them at to sell as many as they do. So they just can’t afford to restyle them extensively as they did when they were selling a couple hundred thousand a year. In general the cost of developing a new car has increased dramatically too.
Which is why we are seeing longer product cycles. The current Civic, for example, dates back to the 2006 model year. We do get better cars that last longer, but they are not terribly interesting.
Thank you for this enjoyable article Paul, and for the high quality of your Mustang tribute week. The variety and thoroughness of the coverage was excellent. Best by far on the web IMO. It is much appreciated.
We talk about the Mustang drifting away from it’s roots by the late 60s. Perhaps Ford did in the car they placed the Mustang badge upon. But I’d consider the ’69 Maverick the spiritual continuation of the original Mustang. Certainly, it’s incredible initial sales showed that they hit that Mustang market again. Sales and marketing wise, at least. But with a different model. Of course, the Maverick ultimately wasn’t much of a car. And Maverick sales and popularity dropped. The Maverick had humble Falcon origins, like the original Mustang. As well as cheap build quality, dated engineering and rust issues. But when introduced, it seemed to be much closer to the essence of the original Mustang, than the current version. So, Ford did hit another home run, sales wise. The Maverick almost topped the Mustang’s first year sales record. Marketing did their job. Of course, it’s shortcomings were apparent pretty quickly. It was a dreadful car, I know. If only they invested more in making a better car. As the Maverick was positioned in many ways (mostly size), to carry the torch for the essence of the original pony car.
Something closer to the evolution of the original Mustang did exist in Ford’s lineup. Only, it didn’t carry the Mustang nameplate. They just needed to make the Maverick a much better sporty compact.
What I’m suggesting is that Ford proved they knew how to capture the original Mustang magic again with the size, packaging and pricing of the Maverick. They just did it with a new nameplate. Maverick had sales of almost 579,000 in 1969. Far higher than the Mustang’s sales. Only, the car was poorly executed.
The Maverick was a classic example of how your new design is completely inferior to your old one in every way. There were lots of Mavericks around when I was kids in Quebec as they were cheap and the Falcon had a loyal following as a good, cheap car. These were among the worst cars I have ever experienced. the interior is claustrophobic, the materials crap and the cost cutting so extreme they didn’t even have a glove box. The cars were slow with a capital S and they rusted like mad, in two years they had holes in them. Lots of Maverick owners got into imports in my family, anyway. They were simply a better value.
I suspected you’d completely miss my point, and not read the details.
I said Ford still knew how to find the *marketing* formula to capture sporty compact sales. They had the marketing down pat. Of course, I know the Maverick was crap.
If you can get 579,000 people to buy your car. You’ve met a huge challenge.
Of course they blew future sales with a poor car.
But the Maverick was a marketing coup. That was my point… Ford still knew what it took to get 579,000 sporty compacts out the door. The marketers didn’t lose their way. The cost cutters had their way.
I thought I made that point quite well initially.
There was nothing sporty about the Maverick. It was sold on price, and being easy to fix. Not like the Mustang at all.
Don’t forget that inflation adjusted, the original Mustang’s price was equivalent to about $3000 in 1969-1970, or 50% higher than the Maverick’s base price of $1995. Big difference in terms of market segment and pricing.
The Maverick looked sporty and fresh, plus it was a compact.
And the simplicity would have harkened back to the original Mustang as opposed to hairy muscle cars. Even if the car itself was nothing more than a stylish Falcon.
If I was a non-enthusiast buyer, the Maverick would have seemed closer to an early Mustang compared to a Rambler, Dart, Valiant or Beetle. Even if it was only the styling. They certainly would not be looking at the Camaro.
Why I say the Maverick was a marketing coup. As the Mustang has always been a marketing coup.
You don’t sell almost 600,00 cars first year on Ford Falcon engineering and price alone. The Maverick looked similar to the original Mustang (than the current Mustang) and it was popularly sized. Even if it was an exceptionally average car otherwise.
It was the styling (marketing) as well as the price and size that made the Maverick so popular, at first.
The Maverick was originally offered only with a straight six, no V8 (the V8 came later). Ford fans lamented the lack of a V8 option, and it also told you that the target market of the Mav was definitely different than that of the Stang.
Maybe the Maverick was the 70s version of the Falcon. The Falcon was the economy car, rather basic, a good first car for a beginning driver or a family just starting out, while the Mustang was more style and panache. By the 70s, the same thing happened, perhaps the Mustang was again the upper rung on the ladder, while the Maverick was the lower rung.
The Maverick was targeted quite differently than the Mustang. The Mustang was nicely equipped as a base model, and played up its sport and mini-T-Bird aspects successfully.
The Maverick was very spartan, in its first year or so, and sportiness and affordable luxury were not in its brief. It came out at the very height of the VW’s and the Opel Kadett’s success (#1 and 2 import cars in 1968) and siphoned off a lot of their buyers looking for a very cheap car but that was American and felt a wee bit more substantial than those two, or some of the other little import sedans.
I’m not seeing the Maverick as a Mustang successor; perhaps the Grabber versions that came along later, but even they didn’t have buckets or floor shift; two key items that really distinguished the Mustang for what it was.
The Maverick Grabber and Comet GT certainly looked the part, but I don’t think they were serious attempts. You couldn’t even get a 4-speed on either of them!
Well some of the advertising copy did play to the youth market, like the Mustang did, with the crazy color names trying seem “hip”. “You can choose from switched-on body colors like Hula Blue and Freudian Gilt. And there are popular options like Blazer Stripe seat trim”. But that is pretty much where any similarity with the Mustang marketing ended, otherwise it was pretty much the rebirth of the Falcon.
@ Paul That’s why I said it was a marketing coup. It looked stylish. If that’s where the sportiness ended. And it was seen as an affordable compact-sized, back to basics car, that looked clean, modern and sporty. In the showroom, closer in concept to the original Mustang, than the current ’69 Mustang. If the Maverick didn’t look sporty, in the vein of the original Mustang, those people may have bought Valiants. Or Beetles. Non performance cars, but practical small cars.
I was never defending the Maverick itself. I know it was no Mustang. And a depressing car, really. But the marketing that went into it. As a small, affordable compact car that *looked* sporty. I agree, that Ford should have marketed performance options from the beginning. And just presented a much better, and more durable car.
Given how average the Maverick was, it was a marketing coup that they sold so many. Perhaps those early owners saw the potential second coming of a new smaller Mustang? The marketing (which includes sporty styling) did it’s job. If the car itself was inferior. How else did they sell almost 600,000 of them in the first year? It wasn’t just price and simplicity. They looked clean and stylish… and good to be seen in. In the same vein as the original Mustang, and that goes a long way.
I’m not 100% sure, but I suspect the majority of early Mustang sales would have been affordable, fairly bread and butter hardtop coupes. Many of those buyers were not enthusiasts. But people that saw that the Mustang looked stylish, was a nice size, and was very popular to be seen in.
The reinvented late 60s Ford compact coupe could have been much more, of course. Capitalizing on people’s memories of the first Mustang. But they chose to sell the Maverick. But the marketing was appealing in similar ways to the original Mustang. Primarily, affordable price, styling and a smaller practical, compact size that was going to have mass appeal. Closer in size and look to the original Mustang than the ’69 or ’70 Mustang.
I think the early sales buzz around the Maverick at first, could easily have resembled early Mustang popularity to the public.
Yes, the PT Barnum analogy could apply with the Maverick. If only Ford applied the successful marketing formula to a better car. They could have grasped, and repeated the mania. But like the buzz around the Mustang II, they offered up poor followups to the original Mustang success. Both the Maverick and Mustang II were examples of the power of marketing. And people perhaps being romantic over the early charms of the first Mustang.
I’m just curious; how old were you when the Mustang and Mavericks came out? Are you drawing on the actual experience of the time, and how folks reacted to these two cars, or is this an abstract mental exercise for you?
From my experience, the marketing and impact of these two cars was quite different. The only possible area of overlap is that they were both popular with secretaries 🙂
The Maverick tapped into the huge interest in small cars, in advance of the Pinto, which was the real thing. The Mustang: something rather different.
But I’m not going to beat this dead horse any longer… you’re certainly free to have your interpretation of things.
One last thought: Don’t credit Ford’s marketing genius too much with the initial success of both these cars. If it hadn’t been for the public being properly primed and ready for them, they wouldn’t have been such a big hit.
Americans love fads, in their cars and other things. Note how both the Mustang and Maverick had huge early years, and then petered out, although with different trajectories. The Mustang was clearly the more enduring concept. The Maverick was just a place holder. And although it was modest, the Maverick wasn’t a terrible car, in terms of its reliability. The Falcon components were certainly well proven. it petered out because a new wave of small cars were much more compelling: Vega, Pinto, Corolla, Datsun 510, etc.
“Are you drawing on the actual experience of the time, and how folks reacted to these two cars, or is this an abstract mental exercise for you?”
Good heavens Paul, you want people to only post about what they know for them selves? It could get pretty, pretty, lonely around here.;-)
Information’s pretty thin stuff unless mixed with experience. ~Clarence Day, The Crow’s Nest
He also wrote ” Life with father” made into a great film in 1947.
Having been nineteen when the Maverick came out, I can clearly remember the marketing push. “It’s a Beetle for those of you who want to buy
American.” Period. Cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, er, economical.
The 1970 Maverick was the successor to the 1960 Falcon, and was never intended to be anything else. Yeah, they did the Grabber package. but that was a couple of years later when tape stripes became all the rage due to the styling of the muscle cars.
However, there was never, nor was there ever intended, so much as a sport or sporty bone in the Maverick’s body. It was a cheap car, for those cheap bastards who wouldn’t spend anything more than on a cheap car.
Maybe Ford’s intention with the Maverick was bring the Falcon into the 70s? The Falcon was Ford’s economy car for the 60s, while the Mustang was more upscale. The Falcon was for the first time driver, or a small family who needed a car that was basic, something that was reliable, nothing flashy. By the 70s, Ford wanted to try the same thing with the Maverick.
Exactly. Back then, I was wondering why they didn’t call it Falcon. Then again, they were pushing the “all new” angle, so what better way to hide one’s underpinnings than by giving it a new name?
I could be wrong, of course, I’m too young to remember when the Maverick and Comet was introduced. But my guess is that the Maverick wasn’t aimed at the same market as the Mustang was. The Mustang was for the sporting kind, that want something that has an aggressive look, and if one wanted a more powerful engine, disc brakes, posi traction diff, etc., could order such.
The Maverick, and the Mercury Comet, were for those who wanted something less sporty and more practical.
Sounds like what the Falcon was like when it was first introduced. From what I’ve gathered, it was a fairly basic, no nonsense car that one could buy as-is, or if they wanted, could dress it up to something nice. Fast forward to 1969-1970, the Maverick picks up where the Falcon left off.
I agree. Even with all the options that were available, the Maverick was simply not a Mustang, nor do I believe that’s what the point of Maverick was.
Before Mustang tribute week closes, enjoy Sly Stallone and the Ides of March…
I remember seeing this movie. It was called “Lock Up”, starring Sylvester Stallone.
I drove a ’67 289 coupe for over 20 years. It was still in nice shape when I sold it. I now have a ’66 289 coupe, so I can compare the two. The ’67 had more room under the hood for the big blocks so it gave you a little leeway while working on the engine. That is the only advantage that I can see. The ’66 on the other hand just seems better sized even though there is not that much difference. It has a crisper feel.
My 2009 V6 coupe is supposed to have a much improved suspension over the 2003 I had before it. It just may be me, but the ’03 just seemed to fit my driving style better. I enjoy driving on curvy hilly roads and the ’03 reminded me, after having a series of small trucks, of how much fun that type of driving can be. The ’09 drives very well, but I don’t find that it gives me as much feedback as the ’03.
I ran the ’67 in a few rallys and it did OK, but then, the courses were mostly flat ground with not a lot of curves.
If you haven’t yet, put a set of 255-45-18 BF Goodrich Comp 2 tires on SVE 18×9 Bullitt wheels and get a set of stabilizer bars takeoffs from a 2011-up GT Mustangs (no spring or shock change…stay with stock stuff…for now) and try those curves again. Your ride quality will not deteriorate as would happen with lowering springs and XYZ shocks. The lower profile tires will not spring and you will be surprised that the factory shock are pretty good because you could not feel the damping before. Your lateral-G will go from 0.75 to 0.9+.
I like my FOX too, it is more stable at very high speeds, but hurts my back for that level of performance.
Today’s Mustang is bang on its roots in 1964. It looks good, goes on the road cheap and has tons of power. The base model is something over 300 hp and costs like $27k in livable form. I can’t for the life of me understand why I see so few of them on the road. I assume the buying public’s tastes have just changed.
The best early ‘Stangs were the 1966 models, as all the new (and over) production glitches where ironed out. The 289 moved the car just fine, thanks, as they were not heavy at all. With the automatic, the Mustang was a great daily car.
The ’67’s kind of set the trend of obesity that killed the car for a while. The FE was never much of a performance engine but it was all Ford had. Ford, of course, much preferred their Windsor motors and didn’t develop the FE much. It was a heavy, agricultural lump that weighed so much it was no faster than a nicely tuned 302. The FE was great in a 3 ton grain truck but not so much in a small car like a Mustang.
At the time, Detroit, without question, believed that bigger was better and that repeat customers wanted to “go up the ladder” and the way to get them into more expensive cars was to make that car bigger with every refresh. This kept going until the gargantuan monstrosities the Big 3 put out until GM finally started a trend toward sanity in 1977. We can hope that trend will somehow rematerialise here and, but I am not optimistic.
Ford certainly still knew that formula in the late 60s. They sold almost 579,000 Mavericks in ’69. Almost beating the Mustang first year record. It was sized and packaged properly. And it was well marketed. Unfortunately for them, they sold a cheap, inferior car. And future sales tanked.
But marketing wise, they most definitely still found that original Mustang marketing formula. They just needed to offer a better car.
Ford blew it with the Maverick. It contributed to the financial problems they experienced in the late 1970’s. Ford used the good reputation of the Falcon and the Mustang to sell the Maverick. It was marketed like the Mustang was in 1965, as a successor. This led to great sales but Ford shafted their loyal customers with the Maverick. Ford lost a lot of customers they never got back in this era. When since 1969 has Ford sold half a million units of one model?
Did they? I thought they made their biggest blunder with the Pinto. I thought Ford made their biggest blunder since the Edsel.
Between 1959-1979 Ford had a whole slew of “biggest blunders.” The Pinto was as bad as the Maverick, which was just as bad as the Granada. The Fox was the first decent thing they made in years.
Ford almost went bust in the 1970’s when the Ford family was milking the company for all it was worth. HFII was hardly a visionary in the car world. It didn’t turn around until Petersen took over.
@Canucknucklehead I am completely aware of everything you are telling me.
The Maverick marketers did their job. So, they *did* still have the formula to sell huge numbers of sporty compact cars. Only they did it with a dreadful car, with terrible execution.
Like a lot of advertising, it may have been lip service, but they were selling a small, sporty looking compact that was well packaged, priced and advertised. Just like the original Mustang. So, they still knew the formula of what would sell. Only, it was a poor car they were selling.
I’ve never owned or driven a Ford Maverick or any Ford for that matter, so I can’t speak from experience. I had a neighbour who had a Maverick when I was a boy. She seemed to enjoy the car a lot. I don’t know how long she had the car.
The FE never made it into MD trucks that was its brother the FT that needed a number of changes to stand up to that duty over the long term.
“Today’s Mustang is bang on its roots in 1964. It looks good, goes on the road cheap and has tons of power. The base model is something over 300 hp and costs like $27k in livable form.I can’t for the life of me understand why I see so few of them on the road. I assume the buying public’s tastes have just changed.”
Mustang has been Ford’s third best selling car line for quite a while – a testament to your comments that it is a good car. But, the amazing thing is that Ford’s 3rd best selling car only sells about 80,000 units a year. In times gone by, that volume might have been good for 10th best selling Ford. In today’s consolidated Ford, Mustang is the 6th best selling passenger vehicle (I include F-150 but not the work vans), public tastes have moved to utilities and trucks.
Most Mustangs I see seem to be second cars – if not third. They get left at home a lot in bad weather with the family utility or truck getting 1st shot out of the garage for must daily driver duties.
These sales figures are published each month and are always interesting……
https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North%20America/US/2014/04/01/march14sales.pdf
That’s because a CRV is a much more useful daily driver than a Mustang. This is no different than in the 1960’s, however. In my suburban neighbourhood, several ‘Stangs served as second cars and a wagon as first. Looking at these sales figures, we have to reflect on just how much market share Detroit has lost.
And nobody can convince me a truck is a good daily driver.
You will see many more s197 ’05-’09 Mustangs back on the road now as primary vehicles. The prices of the units have been extraordinarily high and presently range from $8000 to $18000 depending on mileage and appointments. Units on the low end are now selling briskly, mostly the plentiful V6 models. A good portion of the half-million or so of these s197 cars have been resold overseas, or destroyed from abuse or wrecks.
I wonder if a “hi-po” 200 six would have had to have been a substantially new engine. There’s no way that cast-in log intake manifold could ever be convinced to flow well enough to make reasonable power. IMO it would have at least required an entirely new head design.
Which of course the Ford boys down under did and they managed to get some pretty impressive power out of it in its ultimate state of tune. The reality however is that at the time people didn’t buy hot rodded 6cyls in any significant number you bought the 6 for economy and if you wanted power you bought a V8.
Of course that is the case. Have a look at the Pontiac OHC Six. The press raved about it, but it never sold. Why pay for a six when you can get a more powerful V-8 for few bucks more? The OHC engine had to be at least as expensive to make as a V-8. GM tried lots of exotic stuff in the 1960’s and got spanked in the market every time.
A different cylinder head. Not exactly very hard to come up with; they did it all the time with the V8s, right?
They did a 250ci 2 barrel carb version in Australia in 1971, which had a different manifold setup.
I wonder if a longer stroke version of the 351 would have been a better alternative to the 390? Of course the 351 didnt come until later, and at 370-380ci it still would have looked small on paper.
If one doesn’t become attached to the Mustang nameplate, the successors to the original Mustang were alive in the Duster, Demon, Nova and other compacts.
I think Detroit likes to lead buyers with nameplates. But it’s better to observe their offerings in a car class (ie. compact, intermediate). To see what car suits your needs. It might mean having to abandon a nameplate. In the case of the Mustang, I believe choices closer to the spirit of the original were still on the market.
I mostly agree with your assessment Paul, having owned 65, 67 and 2001 Mustangs. The 65 is my favorite 60’s Mustang, and I actually prefer the coupe to the fastback. I am not a huge fan of the 2005-up cars. They may have a similar wheelbase to the original, but they look massive. I personally felt that my “new edge” SN95 Mustang from 2001 was more like the original than the newer models, save for the lack of retro styling. It had a svelte look, good handling, and Mustang styling cues like the side scoops, 3 bar tail lights and of course the horse and corral in the grille. That is one car that I regret selling. It never gave me a lick of trouble and got decent gas mileage.
Another strike against the 390 in the Mustang is that the 289 is a very stout little V8, and it’s not difficult to get it up to the 300 Hp range with some modifications to the heads, compression ratio and cams. Some of the Shelby go-fast goodies were tested by Mustang Monthly recently on a standard 289 built to Hi-po specs. They found that 306 Hp was possible with the 4 2-barrel Weber carb setup. Of course, you’ll need to rev the 289 to the moon to get 300 Hp, but it’s doable.Cheap stroker kits are now available that give a boost in cubic inches to any 289 or 302 block and make them able to get to 300 range and more with less drama. Other than bragging rights, there isn’t a lot of benefit to a big block in a ponycar, IMO.
I also forgot to add that when I was younger, my favorite Mustang was a 69 Mach1 Sportsroof. I still think that it’s the most aggressive looking Mustang, but definitely a porker compared to the original. I do feel like the whole musclecar thing has kind of played itself out with me, so as I’ve gotten older, I like my 65 better. I even changed the overall plan for it’s restoration. I was going to go all out straight line fast restomod with a 347 Stroker (built from one of the two 289’s sitting in my garage. Now I’m planning to go more original with it. A nice driver that looks original, but with some upgrades in the handing department. Air conditioning would be nice though… maybe I’m getting old. 🙂
Yes, age is a major bummer… lol ..moi wuz going to do the exact same thing (a 347 stroker) to go into my Falcon XR8 (a factory 5 spd 5.0 HO V8) ..the thing is now the ‘little’ engine has all the gear on it the car’s chassis and braking etc is maxxed out….
it’s amazing what can be dragged out of an EFI 302..
(Jegs 292 roller cam, Crane roller rockers, Edelbrock RPM intake, 70mm TB, 76mm Mass Air, 24 pound injectors, GT40P heads, J3 chip, Tri-Y’s, crossover, and catless straight through twin pipes)
the thing flies…. up to 5,700 (J3 increase of 200 rpm to limiter)
anymore than 5,700 and Henry’s stock bottom end will ‘let go’ at the big end cap bolts
351 Windsor block, offset ground crank, 318 Mopar rods, Chevy 350 turbo style dished forged pistons with bit more valve notching, makes a dandy 383 cid – great torque. Too bad it won’t fit in a “65…or can it?…hmmmm.
Carlo why not a ‘tame’ 347 so you get the extra torque but keep it looking standard? I agree a 65 coupe seems happier than other models in standard/cruiser guise. Subtle modifications that most people wouldnt notice.
390 FE just add a cam kit to get 306 bhp AND more torque. No forged reciprocating parts required. No valve adjustments. 5250 rpm hp peak.
I believe your analysis of the evolutionary descent of the Mustang and more broadly the pony car to be spot on. This is a symptom of a broader malady or more precisely a mental disorder of the American automobile manufacturer that was just starting to manifest itself about this time in the form of self-destructive psychopathy. This is more then the “deadly sins” this is hitting the target with a near perfect product then systematically f*cking it up to the point of being unrecognizable or even remotely relating to the original concept. Then repeating the process over and over expecting different results. The Mustang, Camaro, Riviera, Thunderbird and many others took this manic route until they disappeared or returned to their original concept.
My question is why do they do it? Instead of an evolution of refinement like VW or Porsche, they destroy and rebuild rarely for the betterment of the product. I guess part of the problem is with the consumer who willingly accepts less denying the obvious until he feels he can no longer stand the embarrassment of being played for a fool.
Touched on an interesting point, Ottomobill. The consumer had accepted the gradual increase in model size for US passenger cars, and would continue to accept it into the 70s. It became just once facet of ‘the next is always better than the last’ philosophy of planned obsolescence. And that was a part of the evolution of the Ist gen stang. The consumers bought in.
Of course, not everyone accepted it, hence the downsizing in the seventies that was typified by the stang II. But the 2+2 (front engined) niche the original Mustang defined was eventually occupied with many more options. Not just US, but imports as well. The consumer had moved on. And demographics had fractured into multiple groups.
Whereas in thirty years, the 911 never really increased in size. By the time it did, customer loyalty was number one in the game and improvements in technology allowed the same basic principle to exist on a larger car.
BTW, I sort of like the new Camaro and just superseded Mustang, but one reason they look like caricatures is that the bodysides are SO deep compared with the original. Not the case with the 911.
Which of course goes a long way towards explaining the huge success of the VW in America. Among other things, it was a rolling protest against the “big is better” mentality.
The Beetle was inexpensive to buy and maintain. We all had one to drive around. On the weekends we drove our mega-cubic-inch detroit iron muscle cars down the boulevard to the Pup’n”Taco. No protest, just duality.
The 67’s were being finalized in Ford’s styling studios as the first Stangs were unveiled. So, they had the ‘longer, lower, wider’ gravy train planned all along. This was the day of ‘annual styling’ and it was ‘war’ with who had newest, biggest, etc.
Firebird/TA never had a big block and had a high output six. So Pontiac wins.
I also think the “American 911” title belongs to the Jeep CJ/Wrangler.
did I imagine the 455?
The Pontiac 455 is not a big block.
Well all Pontiac blocks were basically the same size externally. Roughly a “medium block” but yes there were no true small block and big block Pontiacs.
Well, no Pontiac big block, but ‘Birds still had a big cube motor, going along the “no replacement for displacement” mantra.
Sixes are cool.
Especially the 5-Liter GMC V6.
Someone actually put two together front to back and raced them like a v12.
Cubes Rule !
The 67 & 68 mustang fastback were/are my favorite of all the years. The early ones were too small, the later too big, theses years were just right, but only with the small block. I had a 68 XR7 cougar 302 so I guess I’m biased for the up scale pony car. To me they were bought on emotion and looks not HP, drag strip numbers, or fancy pants Europeen IRS. How can you say no to this shape?:
Yup emotion was and still is the key to selling Mustangs and similar cars.
or this posterior?
You give Porsche too much credit. Change the camera’s perspective, and behold the porkification of the 911:
Wow, great comparison. The original 911 is a beauty, compared to that beast.
I used to think the original 911 was ugly looking. But when I look at today’s Porsche 911, and the original 911, I prefer the original 911 hands down. 🙂
I can see why Porsche-boss Matthias Müller recently said that the 911 may not grow any further….
The original 911 was a somewhat reasonably affordable sportscar; the current 911 is a near-supercar with a different mission statement. The Cayman is Porsche’s present day ‘affordable’, everyday sports car.
To me, comparing today’s 911 with the original 911 is like comparing a present day Shelby GT500 to a 1965 Mustang. They occupy different portions of the market, so the comparison isn’t relevant.
Then why call it a 911, if they don’t want to take advantage of it’s legacy for marketing purposes? If it otherwise has nothing in common?
Ah yes, marketing does make money.
They absolutely do leverage the 911 legacy–by selling their most expensive sports car. I am not saying that moving the 911 that far above it’s original mission is right or wrong–I am just saying that it happened.
The Cayman is mid-engine. When Porsche started indicating that they next 911 might not be rear engine, the media and 911 fans decried it as blasphemy, so they built it and had to call it something else: hence the boxster and cayman.
Porsche has had plans to cancel the rear engine layout for a long time, but the problem is that people still want them and buy them despite their price tag and the inherent challenges of the layout.
Excellent answer. There is a huge advantage gleaned from having a rich legacy in a brand or specific model. At least Porsche has been accountable. They could easily have made the 911 more accessible, with greater sales and profits. At the expensive of it’s legacy.
Their future direction with the 911, is a decision I’m sure many manufacturers would enjoy having to face, given their models are so uniquely hallowed.
The fickleness of USAmericans vs. the steadfastness of Germans displayed in metal. Great comparison, Paul, and it really makes me wonder what might have been if the Mustang (and Thunderbird) had followed it’s trajectory as the 911 has.
They would feature plugs unaesthetically placed on bumper covers and body trim like all German automobiles have. Must be some Union requirement to make attaching these parts less laborious, or some fetish manifestation.
Great article Paul, I always liked the 67 fastback, but you can see the first steps in the direction that went to a not very nice place.
Also, isn’t that photo of the Mustang II the doctored one with the altered wheelbase? Your point might have been better supported by an unaltered photo.
I totally agree with your comments on big blocks, and I think the adulation has gotten more intense over the years. All the drooling over Hemi transplants and such that goes on elsewhere, in my limited big block driving experience I think it mostly makes it worse.
I pretty much agree with Paul’s take on the Mustang, but the 67-68 Cougar would have been the perfect Mustang of those years instead of what was produced. I really don’t think 67-69 are bad looking cars at all, but they just seem IMHO to be a little “off” compared to the 65-66. The 05 up seem to be as close as Ford could get to the first gen with modern federal requirements. I like them also. But the first was the best. Ever since I informed Paul I have long hair, the bloated guy that suffers on the toilet now sports long hair and a tattoo. The Google effect can be a riot!
I love the first generation Mercury Cougar. I’ve never known anyone who has owned Cougar, but I’ve seen plenty when I was growing up.
+1 The 67/68 Cougar is my favourite American car.I drove my ex’s black cherry 302 4 barrel a lot being a non drinker.Later ones lost their looks and became bigger and heavier although there were some brutal tyre burners
I like the first gen Cougar the best. I agree with you, the subsequent versions of the Cougar have lost their good looks and have indeed gotten bigger and heavier than they needed to be.
Gem, yes that’s my pick for American cars too; at least for the normal non-millionaire, as there is always the original GT40. I am surprised that you on that side of the pond ever heard of one let alone owned and drove one. I had a ’68 XR7 302 2barrell so it was just a cruiser, but dare I say it handled pretty good compared to standard US fare or even English Fords, but not up to the Cortina GT I drove once. Far as big blocks in them, I test drove a ’68 427 Cougar XR7 (most don’t know you could get the 427 in it, I didn’t till I seen this one) and scared my self so bad that I turned around and gave it back to the salesman, my license was hard enough to keep with the 302.
@ Gem Whitman: Where are you from? Where do you live?
I live in South East England,there’s quite a few Cougars in the UK though nowhere near as many as Mustangs,Camaros and Firebirds there’s always a good chance of spotting one at a car show.I wish I’d owned one but I drove my ex’s a lot,I’ve been a Cougar fan since I saw a new Lime Frost Green one from the USAF base near my Grandparents in 1967.Being 56 with long ash blonde hair and red nails I suppose I look like a Cougar now!
Picture of Gem before she decided the earlier Cougar was her thing.
LOL Don I wish! I look more like Vanessa Feltz
Maverick was aimed at the VW Beetle at first. There was a comparison test labeled ‘Maverick vs. the Mob’. Comparing to Bug, Corolla, and Datsun. No ‘sportiness’ mentioned in any ads.
The Grabber was pushed as a ‘trim’ package, too. There was some backlash against muscle cars as early as 1969, and some Boomers just wanted a cheap small car, not win drag races.
The subcompact Pinto came next and we all know the rest.
I thought the Pinto was the one that was aimed at the VW and Japanese cars at the time. The Pinto was the right size to go against Toyota, Datsun, and possibly the Mitsubishi (Dodge) Colt. I used to know someone who had a Pinto. Hers was a two door hatchback. I don’t know what cars the Maverick was aiming to compete against. Neither Toyota, nor Datsun had anything similar in size to compete against the Americans.
Yeah, the Pinto came next and was pushed as “VW fighter”. They wanted to say “we got a cheap car” fast, and quick, to tide over until Pinto was out. There was pressure from young buyers for ‘cheap 1st cars’, not all wanted muscle.
Thus, suddenly for ’71 the Maverick was pushed upmarket, adding the 4 door, Grabber, and LDO packages.
Big 3 change plans on a dime, then and now.
I think the reason the Maverick was such a poorly built car was it was all Ford had at the time to attempt to gain VW sales with a car that was not really in the same class. So to price it low enough to compete with VW, it was doomed to be a pos. The Pinto that was still waiting to be ready for production was the real VW competitor. I understand Daniel M’s point about it being based on the Falcon as was the first Mustang. If it had not been built to a VW price point which forced it to be a low quality car, It had the “bones” to be developed into a Mustang replacement. Ford chose to go with ‘bigger is better’. His ‘what if’ is understandable. Ford sold a lot of Maverick’s, and it probably was a good short term business decision. After all, the more cars you sell, the more money you make. What should have been given more thought is if you sell a cheap car that falls apart quickly, in the long run you chase away customers to other makes. As it turned out, they chose to go the “cheapo” route on the Pinto as well. I really enjoyed Mustang week, thank;s Paul.
I agree. Cutting corners in quality should *never* be tolerated under any circumstances. If you can’t afford to build it, don’t build it! But if you’re going to build something, you’d better do it right the first time, every time.
Brock Yates wrote a book and claimed that the Big 3 made small cars poorly on purpose, hoping buyers would say “Next time I’m getting a bigger car, they are better built”. Some older folks felt this way and went back to big cars when gas was cheap again.
But, we know what really occured with most ex-Pinto/Vega/Cricket owners.
If that isn’t screwed up thinking, I don’t know what is. What they were doing was driving people away from them, indefinitely. Car buyers were then saying “screw it! If the big three can’t build good quality cars and trucks, we’ll go somewhere else.” It’s a wonder they’re still building cars today.
The smart ones returned to larger cars. So did those that survived collisions with much larger cars.
The Maverick and Pinto did not fall apart. The Maverick was certainly built to a price point which left it extremely spartan in base form but on the Pinto they did not cut quite to the bone. There were a lot of happy Maverick and more so Pinto owners it was quite common for a family to have multiple Pintos because they were happy with them.
I’m sure that’s the case. I’ve never owned a Ford, so I wouldn’t know one way or another.
Spartan Pinto (with trunk), medium green metallic, 4-speed, 2.0 Liter with Crane Cams Kit and Header = Lots of Fun. Buy spare shifter handles they break off when beating up the imports of the time. Until 1982, then more fun = Toyota Celica.
Not the first (or last) time Detroit felt “improving” it’s vehicles meant making them longer, lower, wider, bigger, etc. The ’67 is one of favorites, but they should have stopped there.
Paul, just one nit – the 1968 Charger R/T used in Bullitt was a stock 375 hp 440, not the hemi. Apparently McQueen’s 390 Mustang had a hard time keeping up with it.
Indeed, cubic inches rule again!, A simple cam change would have balanced the equation, a limited slip differential would have made the clutch drops more interesting too.
I love the look of early Mustangs, but I had a 65 convertible, 289 auto car, Wimbledon white with black base model interior, and was struck by several things…it’s SMALL…there’s no room between the steering wheel and door trim for my left knee, and while it sounded good, it really wasn’t all that fast. Like it or not, technology has moved ahead by leaps and bounds since the 60s. That thing rode like an ox cart.
I am not a fan of modern pseudo-retro coupes, the Camaro is bloated, the Mustang just leaves me cold, the Mopar variants are all too tall and narrow through the rear haunches and the proportions are wrong. Heaven help me, I prefer a big sedan with upright seating like a Mercedes W124.
I’ve never been a fan of these “retro cars” myself. If I want a vintage car, I can usually just buy the real car, not some modern interpretation of that vintage car.
With the top down and a black interior, I would restate “rode like a burning ox cart”.
Great story line and enjoyed everyone’s opinions, facts and statements. Have been the owner of mid 60’s and 70′ Beatles, Datsun’s, Chevy Vega and even a maverick and they were all fun and troublesome and rotted like heck. But as I read on another site and I loved the saying as someone was complaining of the low HP of late 70’s sports cars as compared to today, “Hey 190 horses in a vette as well as its styling at the time was all that was allowed by the government at the time and compared to cars like the 80 Camaro with the 4.4 with 110 HP it was a demon so it was the best at the time and we enjoyed it”. We all rode in what we could afford and made the best of it and whatever that vehicle was the best in our opinion.