With 1,288,557 cars sold in just two and a half model years, the original Ford Mustang was the definition of a mass-market success. Car Life magazine compared it to a hamburger: cheap, popular, and almost infinitely customizable. In this test of the latest Mustang fastback with the new 390 engine, however, the editors wondered if Ford had gotten a little carried away with the toppings.
They began:
MUSTANGS, LIKE hamburgers, have become an American institution. Mustangs, like hamburgers, share basic ingredients, but are served up in a wide variety of seasonings to suit a vast spectrum of taste. The basic 6-cyl. Mustang compares with the mustard-only burger, just as the all-options Mustang has its counterpart in the “Super Deluxe Doubleburger With Everything.” One man may order his burger and his Mustang in the plainest form, but the gourmand likes his hamburger and his Mustang highly spiced.
Certainly, no one shouted, “Hold the onions!” when CAR LIFE’S first Ford test car of the 1967 model year started down the assembly line. The car that emerged after assiduous addition of automotive mayonnaise, lettuce, tomato, relish, pickle, catsup, horseradish, mustard, onion—of course—and seeded bun was the absolute, the Super Double Deluxeburger Mustang.
Ford marketed the Mustang as “the car designed to be designed by you,” with an ever-growing array of extra-cost options and equipment groups. As the data panel below reveals, the Car Life test car was lavishly equipped, with the 390 engine and a range of add-ons including C6 Cruise-O-Matic, Selectaire air conditioning, Stereosonic tape system, fingertip speed control (i.e., cruise control, controlled with a steering column stalk), and the Interior Decor Group.
This brought the price tag from $2,592 for a basic 2+2 Fastback to a hefty $4,427 as tested, and the CL car had not come close to exhausting the options list. Unlike the Wimbledon White car in the color photos, it didn’t have a center console or the GT Equipment Group, although it had many of the functional pieces of that package (dual exhausts, front disc brakes, Wide Oval tires), which were available separately.
The “Thunderbird Special” 390-4V engine, a new $158.08 option on the V-8 Mustang, remains the most controversial element of the 1967 Mustang line: not only the 390 itself, which was essentially a mild-mannered station wagon engine that Ford had been trying, without great conviction, to sell as a Supercar power plant, but the modifications made to the Mustang platform to enable the big FE-series engine to squeeze between the shock towers. (As anyone who’s tried to change the spark plugs on these cars can attest, “squeeze” was the operative word, despite a 2.1-inch increase in tread width.) While the effects were not yet dramatic, the Mustang had begun a mostly unwelcome “embiggening” trend that would get worse before it got better.
S-code 390 engine / Bring a Trailer
This would have been easier to excuse if the 390 had turned the Mustang into a more formidable performer, but that was sadly not the case. Car Life observed:
It is, nowadays, a relatively slow-turning engine, limited at the top end by breathing restrictions, but reliable. It makes an admirable power source for the demands of sustained, power-assisted travel in an air-conditioned atmosphere tinctured by the outpourings of the stereotaped Ford Family of Fine Music—for such is the forte of the superburger Mustang.
If the increased piston displacement for 1967 provides additional power for creature comfort for the Mustang, it adds little to the straight-on acceleration so prized by many enthusiasts. In past years, CL has tested a number of V-8 Mustangs, all 289s, in various states of seasoning. Quarter-mile elapsed times were 16.8 sec. for the 225-bhp version, 15.9 for the 271-bhp model, 14.7 for the Shelby GT-350 and 14.0 for the GT-350 with a Paxton centrifugal supercharger. The best quarter-mile e. t. tallied by CL’s doubledecker delight Mustang was 15.4 sec. All times were clocked with cars carrying a full fuel load, two test crewmen and equipment. Thus the single 4-barrel 390 is somewhat quicker than the single 4-barrel 289, but, in the view of test drivers, not 101 cu. in. quicker. Perhaps the superburger, if it is to be a superburger, needs a little more mustard.
One could also say that the 1967 Mustang had more bun than beef: The basic six-cylinder fastback had gained 86 lb from 1966, and the 390 and C6 Cruise-O-Matic added 490 lb — 276 lb more than 289 with the C4 automatic. CL‘s air conditioned test car had a curb weight of 3,400 lb.
The data panel later in this article contains the following performance figures:
- 0 to 30 mph: 3.4 sec.
- 0 to 60 mph: 7.8 sec.
- 0 to 100 mph: 20.5 sec.
- Standing ¼-mile: 15.5 sec. at 91.4 mph
- Top speed: 113 mph
- Test average fuel consumption: 11.7 mpg
These acceleration figures were more than adequate for most people, but none too impressive by contemporary Supercar standards, and not fast enough to justify the significant degradation in handling compared to the lighter, less nose-heavy 289.
The captions of the top photos above read, “FORD’S PREMIER Ponycar is fitted with everything, up to and including the 390-cu. in./335-bhp engine,” and “TAPE DECK, metal-trimmed pedals, air conditioning and burnished aluminum panels are superburger seasoning.”
Car Life was happier with the Select Shift Cruise-O-Matic than they had been in their earlier test of a 1966 Ford Fairlane GTA, in part because of the Mustang test car’s 3.25 axle ratio:
What proclivities toward acceleration were displayed by the 390 Mustang were in part due to the 3.25:1 rear axle ratio, which is supplied only in the optional limited-slip differential. A 3.00:1 axle is standard with the 390 V-8. The Cruise-O-Matic transmission, refined, docile, effortless and well-suited to the 390, was remarkable only in that it performed its job without fuss. The driver may allow the transmission to do all the gear changing, or select and hold a lower gear until he wishes to change up manually, a feature available on Ford high performance cars in 1966, but now standard on all automatic transmission-equipped Fords. Just enough sweet pickle.
While contemporary magazine reviewers were not fans of Detroit’s customary longer-lower-wider imperative, Car Life was pleased with the Mustang’s new styling. They remarked:
The overall styling is a sleek, harmonious improvement over the 1966 Mustang. A lowered nose and enlarged air intake scoop/ snout give the impression that Mustangs have become more sturdy, huskier. The sweeping new header-to-tail roofline provides additional head room for rear seat passengers and gives the 1967 Mustang a more sporting appearance. … Despite dimensional alterations and subtle changes in shape, the overall appearance of the fastback still is totally Mustang.
This remains a widely held opinion, not least among modern Ford designers and product planners, who long ago accepted the 1967 fastback (rather the more popular first-generation hardtop) as the “default” Mustang shape.
Nonetheless, despite what contemporary Ford marketing trumpeted as “‘Gran Turismo’ sports flair,” the fastback was not wildly popular at the time: Of the 472,121 Mustangs Ford built for 1967, only 71,042 of them were fastbacks, and only 19,398 of those were ordered with the 390.
The photo captions on the above page read, “RAISED, THE upholstered underside of the rear deck panel provides a minimum of 2 plus 2 passenger accommodation,” and LOWERED, THE carpeted deck panel and trunk offer the long-distance tourist a sufficiency of space for luggage.”
While the CL text doesn’t mention it, their test car’s fold-down rear seat was optional, the “sport deck option rear seat,” which cost an extra $64.77.
Since the rear seat wasn’t terribly comfortable or commodious for human occupants, being able to fold it flat for cargo space was worthwhile, especially since the trunk was not generously sized and was partly occupied by the spare.
Although the basic suspension layout was the same Falcon-derived arrangement as before — upper and lower control arms with high-mounted coils in front, semi-elliptical leaf springs in back — Ford had made some useful improvements for 1967, including rubber bushings for better isolation from road shock, polyethylene-filled ball joint sockets, longer lower control arms, and a lowered upper arm pivot — a trick previously done on the Shelby GT-350.
The Car Life test Mustang apparently did NOT have the optional heavy-duty suspension (included with the GT Equipment Group and a standalone option for V-8 cars), which was a good deal stiffer than the standard 390 suspension, especially in back. (I think the 125 lb/inch front wheel rate they list may have been a typo; the AMA specifications list the 390 at 115 lb/inch with the standard springs, 140 lb/inch with the heavy-duty setup.) In any event, the editors weren’t very happy with it, complaining that it produced “a jolt-squish ride over roadway irregularities and a tendency for the rear end of the automobile to hop about unduly.”
They were far more pleased with the Mustang’s optional power front disc brakes, big Kelsey-Hayes ventilated discs of generous 11-5/8 in. diameter:
Usually, a hamburger palace offers a specialty of the house—charcoal broiling, coarse-ground pepper or the like. The special relish for the 1967 Mustang tested by CAR LIFE was the remarkable ability of the car to stop quickly, surely and without loss of directional stability. In two all-on stops from 80 mph, the Mustang delivered deceleration rates of 29 and 27 ft./sec./sec. In the second stop, the test driver, with both feet hard down on the brake pedal, experienced only slight vacuum runout as heat buildup resulted in minor fade. Nevertheless, the deceleration rate in the Mustang’s second stop was far superior to that recorded during the first deceleration runs for the majority of cars tested by CAR LIFE.
Contributors to this phenomenal decelerate prowess were the front-disc, rear-drum and proportioning-valve braking system and a set of fat footprinted Firestone Super Sports Wide Oval tires, both optional on the Mustang. A superburger with truffles and pate de foi gras? Definitely!
Even in the first generation, Mustang disc brakes had included a proportioning valve to limit pressure to the rear drums, in order to prevent the rear brakes from locking well before the fronts. However, it appears Ford had rethought the proportioning threshold, which Car Life had previously found much less satisfactory on the Mustang than on the heavier Thunderbird and Lincoln Continental.
The caption of the steering wheel illustration reads, “TILT/SWING column pops up and right for entry/exit ease, and has nine driving positions.” The adjustable wheel was a $59.93 option.
CL‘s test car had F70-14 Wide Oval tires, which they liked:
The sheer toothy bite provided by the Firestone Wide Ovals obviously was a major factor in the Mustang’s outstanding ability to stop. The tires, introduced by Firestone early in 1966, are passenger car kissin’ cousins to the extremely wide tires now in universal use on road and oval track competition vehicles. In cross-section, the Wide Oval tire is approximately 2 in. wider than the broadest of earlier low profile tires.
The Super Sports Wide Ovals, in addition to their contribution to deceleration, gave the Mustang a greater than anticipated measure of roadability and handling character. Curving roadway provided the best test ground for the Mustang/Wide Oval combination. Bends were taken at high speed, but with a sense of security and a feeling of precise control that tires of lesser sticking quality do not provide. CL drivers, who have logged many hours with radial ply tires, said they preferred Wide Ovals to several brands of radials for reasons of riding comfort. The Wide Ovals demonstrated cornering capabilities equal to the majority of radials without the characteristic low speed ride harshness of radial ply tires. And, aside from functional considerations, in the realm of styling, the Wide Ovals gave the 390 Mustang a squat, stocky look that was eagerly businesslike.
Unlike the exterior, they felt the Mustang was visually overwrought inside:
THAT THE SUPERBURGER Mustang was too highly seasoned in some respects was evident on inspection of the car’s interior. The CAR LIFE consensus was that Ford stylists had prepared this burger for a glutton, rather than a gourmet. The interior was overly decorated—as has been the case since Thunderbirds became 4- instead of 2-seaters. Too many textures, too many surfaces, too many bits of glittering brightness overworked the eyes of the beholders.
I happen to like the abundant metal trim of the 1967 Interior Decor Option, although I might feel differently on a bright, hot sunny day.
My understanding is that Mustang collectors now regard most of these options as highly desirable, the opposite of a problem. Car Life was more dubious:
Part of the problem, of course, was that the test Mustang was fitted with a full array of optional equipment, including am radio/stereotape system, air conditioning system with integrated heater, speed control, metal trimmed foot pedals, overhead map lamps, parking brake signal lamp, brushed aluminum on panel and doors, courtesy lamps, automatic transmission quadrant lamps, tilt/swing-away steering column, low fuel warning lamp, seat belt warning lamp, and more.
Since most of this stuff has long since become standard on all modern cars and trucks, the editors’ implicit moral outrage now rates only a bemused shrug. The only specific item I would agree was a bit much was the turn signal repeaters in the simulated hood scoops, part of the Exterior Decor Group:
The caption at the above right reads, “VENTS in rear roof pillar are operated from inside to provide straight-through ventilation.”
Their rant continued:
THE TAPE PLAYBACK equipment filled the clean, conditioned air with sweet song as the speed control maintained an unvarying rate of progress over hill and dale, with only the driver’s limp fingers directing the power assisted steering. Thus was the Mustang driver, in his nest of glitter, knobs, shiny buttons, glint and levers, separated from the reality of the road. The 390 Mustang became simply a comfort capsule bearing its occupant to his destination in an electromechanical environment, robbed of many of the stimulating pleasures of driving. Addition of a few condiments to the hamburger make for good taste; an over-abundance proves cloying.
One can only imagine how the editors would react to modern automotive touchscreens.
However, their description of their struggles with the test Mustang’s shoulder and laps belts is a reminder how spoiled we are by modern retractable inertia reel shoulder harnesses:
More than 30 sec. were required to sort out, adjust and buckle both lap and chest belts, a time expenditure the majority of in-a-hurry American motorists will not tolerate. Once buckled and fitted into the belts, the driver was unable to reach important controls—the parking brake lever and windshield wiper switch, for example. Human engineering, rather than styling, must one day dictate matters of body restraint and placement of automobile controls.
They concluded:
At the corner drive-in, the base price of the hamburger is 19¢. At the swank restaurant in the heart of the city, it is disguised as “Salisbury steak on toasted French roll,” at $2.25, but it is, nevertheless, a hamburger.
Such is the Mustang menu for 1967. The base price of the 6-cyl. model is approximately $2600. However, to add the spice for the super deluxe double-burger delight 390 Mustang—with everything—the prospective buyer must be prepared to pay well over $4500. Shortly after CL’s meeting with the cool, cushy, factory fancy 390 Mustang, staffers were introduced to the Shelby Mustangs for 1967—the GT-350 and the GT-500, with a modified 428-cu. in. engine: While the vast majority may wish to dine on hamburger—from mustard only to Super Deluxe—there are forthright individuals who choose steak sandwiches.
Although the popularity of ’60s Mustangs has never really abated, there’s a knee-jerk tendency to dismiss them out of snooty disdain for their sheer ubiquity, just as some foodies disdain mass-market fast food.
However, these cars do still look good today, their performance is decent if not scorching, and the Mustang’s sheer ubiquity means that you can still have it your way without anyone getting too upset. For the adventurous, there are many far more exotic dishes, but there’s a reason so many people like burgers.
Related Reading
Curbside Classic: 1967 Ford Mustang – Forty-Four Years of Wedded Bliss (by J P Cavanaugh)
Curbside Classic: 1967 Ford Mustang Hardtop – No Pasture For This Pony (by Jon Stephenson)
Curbside Classic: 1967 Ford Mustang Notchback – I’d Like To Get To Know You (by Joseph Dennis)
In Motion Classic: 1967 Ford Mustang Notchback – Spicy Mustard (by Joseph Dennis)
Automotive History: The Ford FE Series V8 Engine (by Jason Shafer)
Vintage Snapshots: Mustang People In The ’60s & ’70s (by Rich Baron)
Once again the high compression mild mannered station wagon tuned 390″ engine should be getting 3 – 5 more MPG… 3400 lbs. isn’t that heavy of a car…
The carburetor shown is no where’s near stock…
I believe the carburetor shown in from the “Bring a Trailer” car for sale, not the Car Life test car.
Although 3,400 pounds may not seem that heavy today, it was around 200 pounds heavier than a tri-five Chevy. The listed MPG of 11.7 was actually better than a contemporary GTO with an engine of comparable size and power, that was lucky to get 10 MPG.
The carburetor shown is no where’s near stock
Would you like to clarify that assertion? Because it looks very much like a Holley 4150, which is what came on these 390s from the factory.
That is a much later 4150 Holley, not stock as you can tell by the universal throttle lever.
You’re quibbling. So it’s a replacement 4150; it’s still the same carb make and model as used originally. He claimed that Holley double pumpers were never used on these engines at all.
I worked on one of those in the fall of 1972. It was bone stock but I don’t remember what carb it had. That being said, my 390 ’66 Fairlane GTA had the bathtub Autolite carb.
According to the AMA specs, the 1967 Mustang 390 had a Holley C70F four-barrel; there were four distinct versions for manual and automatic transmission, California and 49-state.
The white car in the Bring a Trailer listing has a recent replacement carburetor — in the photos in the listing, they have a picture of the carburetor that was removed, which was included with the sale. It’s not clear from the information provided whether that was the original carburetor or not.
Would this article’s headline make more sense if the word ‘Mustard’ was replaced by the word ‘Meat’?
Great piece, Aaron. The ‘67 and ‘69 still remain my favorites of the Classic Mustang era.
Since I have a 40 year newer Mustang that was inspired by the ‘67, I think my own “V6 Premium” as Ford called it is just enough toppings on my Mustangburger.
If I went back in time to get one of these, I would’ve been satisfied with a basic 289 fastback with a few GT touches. That would’ve been seasoned enough for me.
The 390 Mustang seems like another example of Iacocca’s “sell the sizzle, not the steak” or, in this case, hamburger. Or maybe that the Mustang’s dizzying array of options puts it into the category of jack-of-all-trades but master of none. This would be especially true when compared with both the then-new Camaro’s small and big-block V8s, as well as the excellent Mopar A-body 340 which debuted in 1968.
I can’t imagine the disappointment of 390 Mustang buyers and would go so far to say that it had a direct impact on the less than stellar sales of the excellent 428 CobraJet which was as much of a screamer as the 390 was not.
OTOH, the 1967-68 Mustang fastback was definitely a looker and I wouldn’t argue with anyone who suggested it was the high-point of sixties’ ponycar styling, if not performance.
Let’s see if Car Life, Car & Driver, Motor Trend, Road & Track or Road Test did a test drive of the Shelby GT-500.
I have always found the 390 Mustang a perplexing car, but then I guess Ford was selling what it had rather than what it wished it had. I am not sure I ever came across a 390 Mustang back when they were ordinary older used cars.
I like the hamburger analogy a lot. I also liked those hood-mounted turn signals a lot – then were on my 6 cylinder 68.
I’m fairly sure GM’s F-bodies were designed from the get go to accept the Mark IV big-block engines. Ford had to do *something* about that, but I fear they lost the plot of the “pony car”. I’m not a huge fan of Mustangs from ’67-’73.
I guess the 390 was a stop-gap measure until the 428 (who was available on the 1967 Shelby GT-500 Mustang) arrive and the Boss 302 and Boss 429 was just around the corner for the 1969 model year. I wonder if Bunkie Knudsen was involved in the 1969-70 Mustang reskin?
Camaro did not get the big block the first year, 1967. Barracuda with 383 was a beast, not as civilized as this Mustang, no A/C option and manual steering only, just no room for them in the engine bay.
Actually, the Camaro did get the 396 shortly after it was introduced so there were a few big block ’67s running around. Chevy didn’t really need it to compete with the 390 Mustang or the 383 Barracuda and it’s kind of a shame the ponycars went this way since all 3 were much better cars with small blocks. I think Ford and Plymouth both saw the 350 in the Camaro and realized their smaller V-8s, good as they were, were overmatched and decided to counter with what they had at the time. So Chevy added the 396… One displacement war coming right up!
Plymouth soon had the 340 which was more than competitive, but Ford didn’t have a small block to compete until 1969.
More to the point: The GM F-bodies had a DECENT front suspension, with the springs on the lower arms instead of on the upper arms. Springs on the lower arms can act upon a frame–or subframe. Springs on the upper arms require the gigantic sheet-metal “inner fenders” or “shock towers” who’s bulk intrudes on engine compartment space.
That Ford allowed those hideous intrusions to begin with only makes sense with an inline engine, straight-up (not a “slant six”) Which means the Falcon platform and everything based on the Falcon, was deficient from the very first V-8 ever installed in one. If Ford had competent engineers, they’d have seen that coming.
The real solution–somewhat better than GM, enormously better than Ford–is to put torsion bars on the lower arms, which leaves no need for spring pockets in a frame or subframe that restrict engine compartment access. The torsion bars anchor under the front seat/footwell area.
I was about ten years old when the big block Mustangs, including the GT500, came out. I was so immersed in the European/sportscar/Road&Track world that I just didn’t get these. I was beginning to learn about weight distribution and understeer/oversteer. How could a sporty car, especially the Shelby version, have such a heavy boat anchor ballast weight under the hood? Thankfully the Boss 302 was just around the corner.
Would a been soo, cumbersome/front, heavy!
Things would improve for Mustang fans when the 351 V8 was introduced in 1969. More displacement than the existing 289, but less weight than the old 390. I agree that Ford was making do with the 390, but it gave them a “big block” engine to play up in ads. Most contemporary magazine articles at the time that I read, were critical of the 390 engine as a real performance choice in the Mustang. I read one road test where the testers complained of the poor rearward and side visibility of the fast back, and stated that they would rather equip a hardtop with sporty equipment if it were their car. Though this model has become legendary as the “Eleanor” in the Nick Cage remake of Gone in 60 Seconds. Bullitt had started the legend, but the movie remake exposed the car to a wider audience.The value of these really skyrocketed after that!
And the Mustang fastback although it was a Shelby GT-500 version was featured in the anime Gunsmith Cats.
https://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_31732-Shelby-GT-500-1967.html
When I was in high school (’81-’84) a fellow student had a ’68 Mustang GTA, with a 390 that had more 427 parts in it than 390. I got to fly in it once at 120mph on Durham road. Although supplies were thinning out, you could still get quite a few 427 engine parts from the dealer.
Fun fact about the FE Ford? Just by putting a aluminum intake manifold you can shave 90lbs off of it.
Actually it’s a false fact. 🙂 The stock manifold weighs 78-82 lbs, depending on the exact type. The Edelbrock aluminum intake weighs 22 lbs. That’s a reduction of 56-60 lbs.
I weighed my FE 4bbl intake when I took it of my 410 and pretty much got 80lbs. with me holding it.
pretty much got 80lbs. with me holding it.
Wow; you must either be very light or that manifold is made of anti-gravity material. 🙂
I guess I should have left off the part about me holding it but then a gentleman never divulges his own weight now does he?
It seemed to me that Ford was answering Chevrolet with their 396 Camaro. Of course this was apples to oranges with the 396 first destined for an earlier Corvette and the 390 your basic engine for the Galaxie. The stock 390 had issues with oiling and breathing for high rpms. Those 67 heads weren’t that good. Yet for the applications, that it was designed for, it was fine. So a “390” sounds big for a Mustang, that previously only had the 289, but you couldn’t expect much more.. Meanwhile the 390 in my F100 and the 410 in my Parklane are excellent engines. Great torque engines from dead stop and my F100 has the 3.25 rear. I have yet to floor the gas from a dead stop even after 12 years now. Both probably will never get far over 4000 rpm. Fine for me.
Today lots of the younger performance crowd do not like the FE. They complain about high end performance. Duh! Can you make it perform better? Yes, but you have to know how and it takes a bit more skill than a Chevy big block. No offense because it just does especially if going fast is your only requirement. First place to start? The heads.
I totally agree with Evan Reisner’s comment above: the Mustang suffered from feature creep. The reviewed car isn’t a bad car, and it definitely had a market, but it’s also a car that could only get away from a Hi-Po 1st gen in a straight line, and then not by a big margin. On the other hand, throw all that AC, power steering, and interior appointments on a 289 Mustang, and the 390’s torque probably starts to feel more like a necessity than a “nice to have.” But by the same token, Ford could have left it to the Cougar to be the choice of the more comfort-cruise set.
I think in an ideal world, the 351C would have appeared in time for Ford to skip shoe-horning the FE into the Mustang, and they would have kept it closer to a true pony car. I’m not sure if sales would have rewarded that approach initially, but it could have precluded the need for drastic downsizing that gave us the Mustang II. The FE was a fairly big, heavy motor for its output (outside of the 427 and other mostly racing versions), and CL makes a good point about it being more of a family wagon type of motor. I wonder why Ford didn’t at least give the it bigger valves and try to hit the middle ground between the grocery getter and the high-strung 427. Maybe the plan was to wait for the two new engines in development (the Cleveland/335 and 385-series big block) until the Camaro forced their hand. Anyway, all this isn’t to say the big block Mustangs were a mistake – just not the choice I would have made.
One other note: it makes sense that the highly-optioned cars would command higher prices, but in many ways, I’d be more interested in the no frills version with a four-speed, disk brakes, and heavy-duty suspension. The “no more Mr Nice Guy” version that the guy wanting to win races would buy (or special order). Of course, there’d be more Mustard in 68 and 69 with the 428 and then 429 (as well as 351, although things got even more porky by the time my favorite motor, the Boss 351 appeared). Ultimately, I have a hard time picking my favorite Mustang: I feel like I’d want a little more motor than the 289 (although it’s a sweet little motor), but I wouldn’t want the heft that came with it in the later cars. And motor swaps would be cheating… Maybe I’ll just go with a Hi-Po 1st-gen fastback when my ship comes in – except then you’re left with the conundrum of whether to sacrifice originality to ditch those drum brakes (if they’re anything like my Fairlane, one aggressive stop from highway speed and they’re already fading).
Of course Ford sold what they had available and made the best of it. I am sure that development of the various 302s and 351s was being rushed as fast as possible but they were not ready until the 1969 model year.
I had an loved a 67 convertible, 289, 3 speed manual in 1975. Sweet car. Sadly a drunk totaled it and several other cars in the parking lot when he failed to negotiate a, curve.
The biggest problem (performance wise) with the stock 390 Mustang was the tiny exhaust pipes.
“A lot of people think America can’t cut the mustard anymore”
Can’t help it, this car being Lido’s baby and all.