This comparison by Road and Track of the three new 1967 pony cars is a bit different. Instead of a breathless and hyperbolic test of the biggest engine versions, R&T evaluated them in their ability to be affordable enthusiast drivers’ cars. So R&T specified them as they might expect their readers to do, with mid-range V8’s teamed with 4-speed manual transmissions, optional suspensions and no power assists. They didn’t all quite arrive that way, but that didn’t detract as much in the comparison as might be expected. In any case, it’s rather unlikely any other enthusiast magazines tested these in these configurations and in the typical R&T objective manner.
The lead-in puts the Mustang in perspective, as being a disappointment for those expecting a “a real sports car chassis along with seating for four”. R&T rightfully points out that the Mustang was a direct reaction to the unexpected success of the Corvair Monza, which was of course just an economy car with bucket seats and an available four speed stick and bucket seats. The difference was that the Corvair had a rear engine and four wheel independent suspension, which gave it a good ride over rough roads, light steering and intrinsically sporty handling, if a bit too sporty for some folks at the limits.
The reality of the Mustang being a Falcon with a new body is of course old hat, and was already so in 1967. But it does explain the inherent limitations of the genre, as well as its advantages, such as low cost and simple, durable components.
And by 1967, GM finally had its answer to the Mustang with its new Chevrolet Camaro, and Chrysler had a significantly revised Barracuda, looking more competitive than in its first iteration, essentially a Valiant with a fastback.
The ’67 Mustang was of course the first refresh of the original, with a wider front end to make room for the larger FE V8s, and some some revisions of the exterior generally, although the basic body structure was essentially unchanged. R&T was never that impressed with the Mustang’s styling, which was of course rather conservative and a bit of a throwback. The chunkier ’67’s modest changes and increased size and weight was then even more of a disappointment, and R&T presciently said “the fattening up is something Ford can’t seem to resist: don’t be surprised if the Mustang is a full-sized series of sedans and wagons by 1970”. Ouch, but almost right on the money.
On the plus side, the Mustang structural tightness, assembly and material quality were better than the competition, undoubtedly thanks to it having been built for several years and presumably those being a bigger priority for Ford.
The test car came equipped with the 225 hp 4 barrel 289 V8 (not the hot 271 hp K-Code), 4-speed and the GT package, which included stiffer springs, shocks, roll bar and wider 6″ wheels shod with the new Firestone Wide Oval tires in F70-14 size. The GT package did not include faster steering, but that was available in the “competition” handling package.
Even with the very light 289 V8, the Mustang was of course still substantially front heavy (like the rest of the pack), resulting in strong initial understeer. But the changed pivot point of the upper A-arm, as was pioneered on the Shelby GT 350, did reduce roll understeer. But the manual steering was decent once under way, and the wide tires made a significant contribution to feedback as well as cornering power.
Not surprisingly, it all fell apart on rough roads, thanks mostly to the simple leaf spring live-axle rear suspension. Ford had talked about IRS for the Mustang, but it was not to be. Most of the typical buyers wouldn’t have properly appreciated it, and certainly not the extra cost.
Road noise was moderately high, but wind noise low. The biggest single complaint with the Mustang, as well as the other two, was the lousy seating position. All had only a fixed seat back, without any adjustment, and the seats didn’t slide back far enough, presumably to enhance the perceived rear seat legroom. This made it impossible to be comfortable on longer drives, with no ability to change the seat back and reduce the feeling of being pushed against the steering wheel.
This was a cardinal sin in Detroit back then, and if you see drivers of these pony cars today, especially if they’re the typically more ample body size than was more common back then, they invariably look cramped and crowded. European cars of the time invariably had seat back adjustments, including the VW by then. There’s a very good reason cars are universally so much larger today, and profoundly more comfortable.
The Barracuda came with the 235 hp four barrel 273 V8, but with automatic Torqueflite transmission. It also had the “S” package with firmer suspension. Wide Oval tires and wider 5.5″ wheels were also part of the option list. The Torqueflite turned out not be an impediment at all in terms of performance, as long as it was shifted manually at an indicated 5800 rpm, as the little 273 was a relatively high-revving engine, with a 5200 rated power peak, the highest of the three. As such, there was no deficit in the Barracuda’s performance numbers; in fact, it was a bit faster than expected as well R&T’s 1966 Barracuda, similarly equipped. The ’67 was a full second quicker to 60 and shaved five seconds off the ’66’s 0-100 time, and consistently beat the four-speed Mustang in acceleration.
Somewhat surprisingly, R&T did not find the Barracuda’s handling to be superior to the Mustang’s. Of course, the Mustang was optimally equipped for handling, with its revised front suspension, GT package and light 289.
The Camaro elicited the greatest interest, as it was of course the only truly all-new car of the three. The styling was a bit on the other end of the spectrum from the familiar and conservative Mustang: “GM stylists have gone berserk” according to one R&T styling critic. The Camaro brought new meaning to “Coke bottle styling”, for better or for worse. It was deemed “exciting” though, and certain elements, such as the way the roof integrated so cohesively with the rear of the car was noted positively.
The Camaro, which came with the 275 hp 327 V8 and four speed, did not come with the optional handling package, so it gave R&T the opportunity to evaluate the base suspension and have a reference point to the other two. It did come with quicker steering, but along with power assist.
The ride was of course softer, but handling did not suffer as much as might have been expected.; it was just as responsive to steering inputs as the other two. At higher cornering speeds, it lacked the ultimate grip that the Mustang and Barracuda’s wide tires afforded, thanks to its ridiculously small 7.35-14 tires. But it could still be driven fast without serious issues, as long as the pavement was of course reasonably smooth.
R&T felt that GM was beginning to show some genuine prowess in improving handling due to improved front suspension geometry. This was still the early days for that, and GM would all-too soon eclipse Ford and Chrysler in handling capability, even with simple live rear axles.
The 275 hp 327 V8 was of course familiar fare, essentially a de-rated 300 hp 327 as had been built for some years and still used in the Corvette. Whether there was any actual difference between the two is highly questionable, except for exhaust systems and the gross hp rating slapped on them. The real reason the 300 hp 327 was now rated at 275 hp (gross) was because the 350 hp L48 327’s 350 hp bumped into GM’s new 10lb/hp edict, so it was given a 325 hp rating, and the 300 hp pushed down to 275 hp.
The shift linkage on the Camaro’s transmission was faulted, although the Mustang’s wasn’t all that much better.
FWIW, the Camaro did not accelerate quite as well as might have been expected, given its displacement and horsepower advantage over the other two, nor as well as the 300 hp Corvette tested one month earlier. It was a bit over a second slower than the Corvette to 60, although it narrowed the percentage lead in the sprint to 100 mph. But it was no faster than the Barracuda with its smaller engine and automatic, which again raises the question whether the ‘Cuda had benefited from a bit of massaging.
The summary: while all three of these cars were not genuine driver-oriented sporty cars, they certainly offered a healthy measure of performance for the money, and perhaps most importantly, proven reliability, a factor that was all-too often missing in import brands at the time.
The Mustang was picked as the favorite of the bunch, because it exuded a higher level of quality. That had been the Mustang’s brief from the get-go, to have (and exhibit) some Thunderbird genes. Even a totally stripper Mustang didn’t look cheap, with its standard bucket seats, bright trim and full wheel covers. In comparison, base versions of the Barracuda and Mustang came equipped like typical American stripper sedans, with little hub caps, bench seats and modest upholstery and trim.
R&T felt that the Barracuda fastback looked better than the Mustang, despite it still sharing key body hard points with its A-Body siblings.
The Camaro was deemed something of a disappointment, given the erroneous assumption that Chevrolet would create something more inherently advanced and sophisticated, something along the lines of a four passenger Corvette rather than essentially a Mustang in a slick new wrapper. That reflects R&T’s naivete more than any reasonable expectation, as this outcome was of course quite predictable. The need to match the low pricing of the Mustang and Barracuda drove those decisions. In a somewhat confusing last line in that paragraph, R&T says: “we can honestly say we like it”.
The first generation Camaro (1967-1969) was a rushed job to get a Mustang competitor out the door. But that would change with the next generation, when the new F-Bodies solidly eclipsed the Mustang and Chrysler’s E-Body cars. Ford rather wasted its huge lead in ever bigger and fatter Mustangs, until they had to reinvent it.
I always find these comparison tests interesting. The seat travel in the Mustang is interesting to me as I owned a 68, which had the farthest-back seat travel of any car I ever owned – it was one of the few cars that I could not move the seat fully rearward because I couldn’t reach to bottom out the clutch pedal. Either some prior owner moved the track on the floor or Ford fixed R/T’s complaint the following year.
I am also interested in the performance numbers. The Camaro should have done better than it did, given the significant displacement and power advantage. But I have concluded that despite the Chevy’s theoretical advantages, performance of mass-produced versions could be all over the map. I recall a 1973 Popular Science test where a 302 powered Maverick was marginally faster than a Nova with a 350 (both 2 bbls).
I love getting the view from 1967, and the styling critique is particularly interesting – different from the consensus decades out, which holds the 67 Mustang as a near-perfect update of the original concept and the Camaro as kind of ordinary.
My mom had a red 72′ Maverick 2 door with a 302 and that thing MOVED,,, lol..
JP I was also going to mention the seat ravel also. Since I have a 68 Mustang in the drive way, and am 6’1″ tall and a 34″ inseam, I have no trouble getting behind the steering wheel with my arms at a decent distance.
The 68 Mustang was also what I wanted back then because it was young looking. I didn’t want to be driving a Galaxie, Implala, Fury, Falcon, Dart, Valiant, or Nova. When I had my first ride in a 1966 Mustang convertible I went WOW and so the stage was set.
I might add that very few buyers looked at these cars as sports cars and delved into this or that about the suspension and whether the car understeered or oversteered. What car buyer in the 60s looked at cars that way? It was all about style, looking cool, and looking younger. Compared to what was out there that our parents drove was key and of course some of our parents felt the same way we did so they bought to.
Note the 68 Mustang I bought in 1984 was from the original owner. She was in her later 40s at the time and bought the car new in Houston TX.
It is pretty obvious here the Camaro was a half-baked rush job, though they didn’t have the guts to come out and say it. The 327 is a excellent engine. I rode in a few ’67 Camaros back in the day; granted they were a few years old, but even then they were rattletraps compared to ’67 Mustangs. Can’t speak for the Barracuda, as most smart people I knew avoided Chrysler products like the plague.
I love the illustrations. Like something out of a Hieronymous Bosch painting.
I remember this test and the drawings. I found them quite disturbing as an 11 year old. Rather like Hieronymous Bosch, indeed.
Interesting article to read 54 years later. It’s purely subjective of course, and only one man’s opinion, but that lead photo bar at the top of the article spoke 1000 words to me. GM’s stylists may indeed have “gone berserk”, but to my eye the Camaro looks like a car 5-7 years newer than either of the others. This opinion is one that I would apply to a comparison of vehicles in any size or classification from the Big Three for at least two decades after this comparison. The General just knew how to sell the sizzle, even if the steak was a little gristly on occasion. I was intrigued by R/T’s assessment of the Camaro, which was not particularly flattering until it was admitted that it had endeared itself to them in spite of themselves.
I was born in ’67 and have never owned a car built before 1974, but I like to read these articles as though I were a consumer at the time. Middle-aged “Thinking Me” would probably be very interested in the Barracuda after reading this, but younger “Fashion Conscious Me”, who’d likely be closer to the target buyer at the time would probably be drawn to the Camaro. It should probably be stated though that I’ve never been a Mustang fan, so it probably really wouldn’t be in the running for my dollars.
The Barracuda really isn’t a typical Chrysler design of the period. It’s a GM style cokebottle that should have been a style leader. It suffers because Chrysler cheaped out and used the Valiant/Dart cowl and windshield structure, which then made the roof/side glass between the A and C pillars vertical and stodgy. A 67 Barracuda with the Duster’s windshield and radically curved side glass would be a knockout. The Valiant windshield means the roof sits on the Barracuda’s slinky lower body like Elmer Fudd’s hat.
The severely curved side windows are the reason that the Duster generally was appealing to the folks who turned up their noses at other Chrysler s. It really sexes up the car. Side by side, the Duster’s styling is more appealIng than the contemporary Nova and Maverick IMO, which is really unusual for a Chrysler product in this era. Combine that with the excellent Valiant underpinnings at a lower price than Nova and you’re a winner.
The old Chrysler Corporation just couldn’t win. When they got a car really right, it ended up being what that asshat Rumsfeld termed a ‘catastrophic success’. IOW, the terrific Duster was ‘too’ good in how it famously ate into other, much more profitable Mopars.
Chrysler sold an awful lot of Dusters, but they’d have made more money if they’d sold the same number of E- and B-bodies.
The whole problem for Chrysler is that *no one*, more or less, wanted Plymouth E bodies and B bodies. Duster was one of the few Chrysler products of the era that *didn’t* only appeal to people who would have bought a Chrysler product anyway. The Cordoba may have been the only other car that didn’t just sell to dead end Chrysler loyalists–it was a really nicely styled car for the time that probably would have sold okay as a Plymouth. It was exactly the right car at the right time, as either a Chrysler or a Plymouth. But the Cordoba was a hit that Chrysler couldn’t extend or replace.
The 1970 Barracuda was an absolute faceplant, with or without the Duster.
It was a barely adequate execution of a car in a rapidly shrinking segment. The writing was on the wall when it hit the showroom. The product planner for the E body line remembers leaving a consumer clinic of the new car in the fall of 1969 with his head in his hands. People simply didn’t want pony cars in general and his new E bodies in particular. Camaro sales dropped 75 percent from 1968 to 1972 (two years when Camaro production was in full flow for about 12 months without strikes, midyear intros, etc.). That trend is why future Barracuda models were cancelled in the fall of 1969. The plan at that time became new Valiants/Dusters for 1972, without Barracuda. Chrysler quickly recognized that the existing A bodies were fully competitive in sales and didn’t need to be replaced in 1972.
The actual trend in 1970 was stylish compact coupes: Nova, Maverick, and Duster, with the Gremlin tagging along. Compact coupes outsold 4 doors by three or four times. The only 2 door compact that didn’t outsell its 4 door linemate was Hornet, which had the same boring sedan roof. But add in the Gremlin, and AMC had the same 2/4 door sales breakdown as other makers. (The 1973 Hornet Hatchback filled the style gap, but the price premium for the hatch hurt volume.)
Plymouth B bodies were duds from 1965 til 1977. They just weren’t competitive. Chrysler tried hard with the 1971 Sebring coupe, but it zigged where the market zagged; the Sebring was as big a disappointment as the 1974 Matador coupe, but it was a less visible symbol of corporate disaster. The 1971 B body totals were about the same as 1970, which was significantly down from 1969 as the Road Runner fad ended. The other Plymouth B bodies were just meh. In the era that Sebring, Satellite, and the small Fury were flailing around, Cutlass, Torino, and Chevelle/Monte Carlo were the spine of the auto market. The 1975 small Fury coupe was literally designed to be so boring that people would pay extra for a Cordoba, the same way that the 1971 Satellite sedan was intended to make the Sebring coupe look great by comparison.
Plymouth sold less than 400K A/B bodies in 1969, including Barracuda.
1970: about 500K A/B/E bodies in a down market, including the end of the muscle car fad that had boosted B body sales.
1971: about 500K A/B/E bodies with new Sebring and Satellite coupes and sedans. And the Plymouth B bodies actually *passed* Dodge B bodies in popularity by staying level in sales for 1971. Dodge lost Challenger sales, Dart sales (despite adding the Duster body), and B body sales. Plymouth stole some Dart hardtop sales by adding the hardtop, but Dodge got some Duster sales. It’s more likely that Plymouth Duster prospects simply bought a Scamp hardtop when they actually went to the dealer. By this point, the 1967 A body hardtop was pretty stale whether it was branded as a Plymouth or a Dodge. Only Chrysler diehards would actually go to the dealer thinking “I want a 1967 hardtop body with vent windows!”
Note that B body buyers didn’t buy fancier cars than A body buyers. Other midsize cars were sold as mini luxury cars with fancy trim and extra equipment; Torino, Cutlass, and Monte Carlo were little substitutes for big luxury cars. By comparison, B body sedans were just bigger Valiants and Darts. The 71-74 coupes had more style, but it was the wrong style for the times. The 1973 Charger SE with the triple opera window, half vinyl roof, and standup hood ornament on its sculpted racecar body just looks weird.
I vaguely remember reading the article as an adolescent (in my junior year of high school) because dad had ordered a new Camaro – his first car (as opposed to mom’s ’66 Caprice wagon) since leaving the dealership. Of course, dad did his usual: Red with black interior, Rally Sport option, 327 two barrel, Powerglide, narrow white walls, optional higher cost interior. A definitely secretary’s car, intended to sell easily when the replacement finally arrived, an identically equipped ’70 Rally Sport, only this time dad let me talk him into getting the optional suspension. What a revelation! He never bought a car with stock suspension after that.
Of course, it’s was nearly summer 1967 before I was allowed to drive it (despite dad telling a number of my classmates parents that he’d bought the car for me), and never did take it to school until the last two days of my senior year, a year later.
What I did get was rides from one of the senior flag twirlers in her (bought by her parents) SS350 convertible with a four speed. And she could drive it.
I had no idea you could ever get a Camaro with a bench seat, but I did a Google image search and indeed they’re out there. It actually doesn’t look that different – the seatbacks are tall and split with a fold-down armrest between them, and it is bolstered like period bucket seats. As for column shifters, I never understood why they are derided as “not sporty” – they’re more convenient and require less moving of your hand away from the wheel.
I guess the Camaro looked super-modern in 1967; to me it picks up 1965 Impala styling language and reproportions it to a pony-car shape. None of these do a good enough job of hiding their economy-car roots, but the Camaro does the best of the three (and the Barracuda worst – how can you not think “Valiant” sitting behind that dashboard?)
Regular Car Reviews made a good point in this week’s video on the ’73 Chevy C-10 that a manual column shift is inherently more expensive to build than an RWD manual floor shift and yet the latter was sold to the public as an extra-cost upgrade.
The floor shift usually wasn’t an extra cost line item. It often was tied to an extra cost option, like 4 speed stick, floor console, or bucket seats. Many cars aimed at the sport market had standard 3 speed floor shifts when 4 speed was extra cost: Duster 340, mustang, camaro, Corvette.
Interesting article, and I like all three cars, however I want to see the ’68 version with the AMC Javelin thrown into the mix. Come to think of it add in the Cougar and Firebird too.
Mike: I recall a 1968 test just as you suggest, but I believe it was in Car and Driver. A primary difference was that the cars had big blocks.
As stated, that was the problem with the cars that the main enthusiast rags normally tested: they were always the cars with the biggest, most expensive engines. It’s refreshing to see a comparison of cars with the smaller engines that were what the vast majority of them were actually built with.
You wouldn’t think that was the case with the surviving, restored cars that are seen at today’s car shows, but not every sporty GM, Ford, or Mopar coupe came with a big-block V8 back in the day.
It was March 1968 and it is available on the CD website. They compared automatics with engines around 390 CI and disc brakes. The Camaro was rated second last and the Mustang last.
I was an teenage R/T subscriber back then but don’t remember this. I was also Mustang oriented; my mom had a ’66 six cylinder coupe on which I learned to drive and the boss at my after school/weekend job had a ’67 289 coupe that I used to do some errands. So Mustang was the standard (and that resulted in decades of buying Fords). Chryslers of any type did not even rate a look but the Camaro was certainly a threat to the car with which I identified and put on a pedestal.
In general I’ve ignored Camaros (except when getting one as the periodic rental car). I am still amazed that people who own one and list it for sale on Craigslist seem to favor the spelling “Camero”.
Why were these cars popular? They weren’t space efficient, they weren’t very practical, they weren’t fuel efficient, yet they sold a million every year. There were better cars being sold in 1967. What was it that made these cars so successful?
The long hoods and engines made them front heavy to the point of creating handling issues. The rear ends were so light, these cars were winter road nightmares. What was going on during this era to cause millions of tract housing suburbanites, Korean War veterans, and moms with more than 2.3 kids to buy these cars?
Was their impracticality actually an attraction? What was it about an impossibly long hood, low seating, and a useless back seat that didn’t seem to matter? What were the priorities of these buyers? Bigger sells, but these cars were smaller and when Detroit and Kenosha tried the same formula with full sized cars – they didn’t succeed in the market like these compacts.
I’m not German enough to just accept that “this happened” – I’d like to know why this happened and why these cars? I’ve never figured that out. What makes these cars “look good” enough to sell by the millions?
They were “sports cars” to a lot of Americans who wanted a sports car but weren’t willing to put up with the negatives that came with a Sixties (non-Corvette) sports car: Lucas electrics, leaky tops that were a bitch to raise, spotty dealer support, etc. Or, for that matter, drive a manual transmission.
Plus they were ‘Murican’: Proper cars with a V-8 up front, rear wheel drive, and something that the average import-adverse American buyer could understand. And trust. Which is why the Mustang blew the Corvair Monza into the weeds. The Monza was just ‘too damn furrin’ for a lot of American car buyers.
The final part of your question “why?”. Well, if you can answer another mania that I directly went thru and earned a living at 7-8 years later – why did Americans suddenly start riding spindly light bicycles with weird handlebars, narrow, hard, uncomfortable saddles, and gear changing systems that took a good bit of time to learn how to use effectively; when all they really needed for bicycle rides around the neighborhood after dinner was a classic 3-speed English Racer (as we called them back then) – then you can probably answer the rise of the pony car. After all, the average 10-speed sold in the early 1970’s was nothing more than a heavier, cheaper version of a bicycle that was good for road racing, and not a whole lot else.
Because it made just as much sense. And was just as fashionable. Which is most likely the one true answer.
“Plus they were ‘Murican’: Proper cars with a V-8 up front, rear wheel drive, and something that the average import-adverse American buyer could understand. And trust. Which is why the Mustang blew the Corvair Monza into the weeds. The Monza was just ‘too damn furrin’ for a lot of American car buyers.”
– that’s a pretty insulting thing to claim. We aren’t as stupid as you imagine.
It’s exactly right. Foreign (European) cars exc VW were fragile by US standards and service networks were skimpy. Even Corvair owners found service difficult, because there was approx one factory trained mechanic per dealer who enjoyed tracing oil leaks.
Americans tried European economy imports and ran back to relatively simple American cars. More expensive European cars like Peugeot and Volvo didn’t become radioactive like the Renault Dauphine, but the typical American still put money on a new Impala or a new Valiant instead of a Valiant sized car that sold for Impala money. The European car buyer was mostly making a statement, not some coldly pragmatic choice.
If you didn’t want your car to be a hobby or a social statement, you were better off with a conventional American car or a VW than a typical European car.
For the same reason Beatlemania happened.
I’ll disagree with you – slightly. From the time that Fifties rock crashed and burned (Elvis getting drafted, Jerry Lee Lewis marrying his underaged cousin, Buddy Holly’s death, Little Richard getting religion, etc.) what followed pop music in the early 60’s was commercial garbage. Manufactured artists, clean and safe, dutifully singing songs coming from the Brill Building, and a general cleaning up and de-balling of the rebellion of rock and roll. In retrospect, about the only pop music being turned out just before Beatlemania that is getting any respect was Motown and anything that Phil Spector was starting to turn out.
The Beatles were different. Singer/songwriters who put out a better quality of pop music (ok, I’m talking 1963-65, back then I consider the Dave Clark Five superior to the Beatles). They were a breath of fresh air, and once the mania started, any British band (Herman’s Hermits – yeech!) were guaranteed hitmakers. We often forget that The Rolling Stones first album was nothing but covers – Jagger/Richards as a songwriting team only started with the second album.
So, there was a rational reason for the coming of the Beatles. However . . . .
Never underestimate the power of the American fad. Back in 1972, I was a highly respected bicycle mechanic who worked for one of the two primary dealerships in Erie, and was getting bribes slipped to me to put somebody ahead on the waiting list for the next Schwinn or Raleigh shipment. By 1975, the bicycle business crashed so badly that I ended up leaving AR Adams Cycle to become a steelworker at Erie Malleable Iron just to be able to pay my grad school tuition. People got tired of riding their 10-speeds and moved on to the next fad.
I seem to remember the pony car was pretty much a spent force by 1973. The Mustang came close to proving Road and Track’s prediction true, Chrysler’s entries died a quick death (the fact that they were probably the poorest cars of the lot didn’t help), and only GM kept going by turning out a couple of very good cars that people weren’t calling ‘pony cars’ anymore. Dad’s 70’s Rally Sport was a much better car than his ’67.
I’ll disagree with you – slightly. Rock didn’t crash and burn. What happened is that it got too popular and since this meant white boys playing black music, something had to be done. That commercial Brill music you are knocking was created for white audiences. Dances like “Locomotion” were promoted as well to white audiences. You were listening to white radio. I guess they weren’t playing hot white rockers generating classics like “Bird is the Word”. By 1963 white radio had enough white music to prevent black-root rock music from gaining popularity.
British bands were embraced because they were presenting white rock and roll. The Rolling Stones were edgy because they were covering black music.
That’s the “rational reason” for the coming of the Beatles. They weren’t black. Aretha was too black, but Dusty Springfield was British white.
> In retrospect, about the only pop music being turned out just before Beatlemania that is getting any respect was Motown and anything that Phil Spector was starting to turn out.
The Beach Boys and Roy Orbison’s records from that period got (and still get) loads of respect, along with an abundance of great R&B.
“In retrospect, about the only pop music being turned out just before Beatlemania that is getting any respect was Motown and anything that Phil Spector was starting to turn out.”
Motown, Spector, Stax, and some of the Cameo-Parkway output in those years between 59 and 64. The payola scandals, the Feb 3rd plane crash, and of course backlash in general meant that the adults would have their clean cuts music back en mass on top 40 stations for a few years – “Theme From A Summer Place” by Percy Faith & His Orchestra being the biggest song of 1960 as an example.
The Beetles and the Stones were just as crafted as Fabian or Ricky Nelson in the early years – with way too many covers of R&B/early rock to try and fill out album time. But at least the songwriters got a cut…however Irma Thomas was pissed the Stones version of “Time Is On My Side” eclipsed her version.
Back to the cars…the marketing people worked their magic and understood that if you can appeal to emotion…you can sell something that isn’t completely practical. The cars were youthful, well styled, and gave off a vibe…practicality be damned!
It’s why I bought a CTS instead of an Impala…same car, but I wanted a Caddy and not a Chevy.
Iacocca developed the Mustang for Baby Boomers? Was he that prospicient? Surely that first wave of million buyers weren’t born after WWII, right? There was something there that predates the Boomers, right?
Tweens and Teens could buy a Beatles single, or an album – but they weren’t the market for these cars yet, were they?
You missed my point. It was an analogy. I didn’t say Beatles listeners were buying Mustangs. I meant that both were colossally popular fads.
The dreaded “WHY” question.
I got my driver license in 1968. Our family car was a 1959 Rambler American. A low bar to be sure, but these had a cool factor even a contemporary Rambler, Falcon, Nova or Valiant could never hope to achieve.
For a new car buyer (not our family), these cars were affordable. The mechanicals were well proven. The style just made them look faster – even if they only had a 6 under hood.
My generation loved the look. We didn’t have to be practical and could dream. Of course, most odd us didn’t have a new car buyers’ wallet. For those that could buy new cars, these things were still reasonably practical.
Hop in any one of them and you were suddenly transported back to being a bit younger – at least in your own mind. The chance to hang on to youth a bit longer was a powerful advertising message back then. Still resonates today too.
True that the Boomers loved these cars, however their development predates Boomers as buyers, right? Boomers might think these cars are Boomer cars, but they actually were designed, built and sold by the millions to people from earlier generations.
Kind of like Levi’s. Or VW Beetles. There are a number of Boomer icons that predate that generation. These icons must have had a stronger attraction.
The pre-Boomer generation was afraid of being left behind and automobile advertising at the time fed into that anxiety:
You couldn’t find a better example of what Chrysler is all about this year.
Everything says youth. Vitality.
…
Think about it for a minute.
How’d you like to feel that exhilarating kick you experienced when you bought your first new car? Then do the thing that people who want to be young are doing these days.
Go drive a Chrysler.
1966 is Chrysler’s year for young ideas. Make it yours.
https://i1.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/1966-300.jpg
Same feeling behind the Beatles She’s Leaving Home in 1967. I think it happens with every generation to some extent but the mid-60’s it was particularly strong. Hyperbolic, I know, but it was the United States’ version of the Cultural Revolution: stamping out the Four Olds: Old Ideas, Old Culture, Old Habits, and Old Customs.
In the case of the Mustang: marketing. Ford nailed it perfectly, and realized just how gullible most people were (and are). Sell the sizzle, don’t bother with the steak. Use fancy styling and expensive advertising to cover for poor engineering and mediocre mechanical parts. Make it look good, and people won’t care they’re paying over sticker for a 1960 Falcon.
Chassis-wise, the Barracuda is head and shoulders superior to the others. It’s not close.
Sorry, but if Mustang buyers were as gullible as you claim, then so were Barracuda buyers as well. One’s a Falcon and the other is a Valiant, right?
Mostly, yes, though the Barracuda, unlike the Mustang, did not sacrifice practicality. I’d prefer a Valiant 100 post car over a Cuda.
The A body chassis is far superior to Ford or GM, both of which need the geometry modified for good handling.
There were many, many fewer Barracuda buyers.
Yes…as I just noted, most people are really gullible.
I once read a terrific article in one of the ‘lesser’ period magazines (Popular Mechanics or something similar) which did an in-depth comparison of a similarly-equipped 1965 Mustang and Falcon convertible. As one might expect, the Falcon won in every category save one: styling.
Guess which one won the sales contest.
The magazine was Special Interest Autos.
Well, oddly enough, my in-laws were tract-housing suburbanites, Korean-era vet, with 2.0 kids… and they traded in a Falcon for a new ’67 Mustang. In their case, the Falcon got old and tired, and the Mustang was fun, good-looking, but still a tried-and-true Ford. The Mustang hit a sweet spot for them, as I suspect it did for many others.
And incidentally, they drove it for about 280,000 mi. The Mustang eventually became my wife’s first car, and she sold it due to advanced rust issues in 1995.
The answer is simple, they were sexy! They made the owner feel young, attractive, and free spirited. We all knew about those slinky “exotics” from Europe and England, Ferrari, Alfa Romeo, Jaguar and Triumph. These were the American versions that were cheaper, more reliable, and you had a back seat to stuff your little kids into. Sure, they weren’t real sports cars, it took a lot of care adding the proper options to give them any balanced performance.
These cars came at the same time that the youth culture was taking over America in the early 1960’s and they were attractive to both the young and old. They sold to both groups, the youngsters could get the performance version that they wanted and the grown ups could get the little luxury personal car that they wanted. The young folks could afford them with their low base prices and the older folks could afford to have one as their “second” car.
I was ten years old in 1965 and there was a lot of real excitement about these new Pony cars. Interestingly enough, the Mustang always seemed to be the most accepted car among the different age groups and it was acceptable with the six, the small V8, manual or automatic, and as a real muscle car. Driving one was okay for anybody, and they were acceptable in any social setting.
It was the go-go Sixties, you had to live through it to understand. By the beginning of the 1970’s ‘the Generation Gap” had become a more impenetrable barrier and society changed.
At the time I hated the Mustang “facelift” and thought the Barracuda was a huge improvement over the Valiant-based one. Still, I liked Camaro styling the best. Disappointed to hear about GM quality issues, but It was a rush job. Having owned a ’66 Dodge with the 273/Torqueflite combo, even the 2bbl regular gas version, it was a sweet powertrain. Too bad it is forgotten history compared to the legendary 289 and 327.
The Camaro was a slight inkling of the troubles that GM was going to experience in the next twenty years. Of course, nobody on the 14th floor noticed.
” ‘…In a somewhat confusing last line in that paragraph, R&T says: “we can honestly say we like it.’ ”
Had to make sure that GM would not be pissed off, so that there would be no problems getting GM-supplied cars to test. R&T was no more immune to payola than other rags.
Please provide evidence of your defamatory assertion.
He can’t, but it’s an easy cheap shot.
I never noticed that the ‘67-‘68 Mustang greenhouse is identical to that of the first generation. I think there is a bit of difference on the rear window surrounds, but the interchangeability of the glass is intriguing.
Kudos to Ford for changing the Mustang just enough to make it completely different, while keeping the same car. Back in the day, I, and my motorhead friends were convinced this was a completely different second generation Mustang. Something that the media did nothing to disabuse us of.
That’s what I thought about the 1971.
The “why”. On behalf of the one buyer of an early, new Mustang in my family (my mom) her answer would have been: “it is so stylish”. She cared about style; it showed in her clothing and demeanor. She had been driving a lumpy four door sedan for years. The American economy was great. So she bought a beautiful and stylish Mustang coupe because she wanted to and could.
Thank you!
As to demographics, was your mom college educated? Employed outside your house? Do you remember what her age was when she bought it? Did she use it for hauling you kids around? What did your father think about her Mustang?
Again, thanks!
This was part of the allure of the Mustang. Ford’s marketing targeted a yet untapped demographic: young, single women, i.e., the ‘secretary special’.
It’s often forgetten that half of the Mustangs sold were equipped with a six-cylinder engine. It’s quite likely that the vast majority of those were sold to consumers who didn’t care all that much about performance (i.e., women). They just wanted a good-looking, mostly practical, easy-to-drive car that they looked good driving around in.
In short, women, young or old, really liked the Mustang, and it didn’t have to have to be one with the biggest, most powerful engine, either. A base coupe with a six and automatic was just fine.
The absense of this sort of car is why I think Mustangs don’t sell in anywhere the numbers they did in the ’60s through ’80s.
I think the Challenger’s surprisingly steady success comes on the back of the everyday usefulness sacrificed by fastback only iterations of modern Mustangs. Product planners seem to want it to become a fully niche low volume sports car like the Corvette lately. Ford did a great job creating a car that despite being a 2 door coupe in all forms managed to be all things to a lot of people.
I doubt that the Challenger’s back seat actually switches many buyers from Mustang. The Challenger is a coupe alternative of an actual 4 door sedan that’s styled like a coupe. I don’t think anyone who wants a muscle car with a back seat would feel like they’d compromised if they bought a Charger instead of a Challenger; a 2 door coupe with modern Charger styling would be more appealing today than a 67 Camaro copy, but it wouldn’t make much sense when the 4 door Charger already has exciting, modern coupe styling.
If the Charger and 300 weren’t muddying the water, the Challenger would be significantly more popular than the Mustang IMO, but wouldn’t come near the total volume of the Challenger and its 4 door linemates.
The market doesn’t want small coupes, period. Cute mini SUVs serve the same need, are fashionable, and are much more practical.
My best friend in high school had an older father (in his early 50s) than I did in 1968 and being a Portuguese tuna fisherman was conservative. The family car was clearly the 1963 Buick LeSabre. Of course, Dad, was usually on the tuna boats out of San Diego for months at a time. Both of us teenagers turned 16 in 1969 and were ready to drive. So my friend drove the Buick to high school. What did that leave his mother with? Why, she got a brand new 1968 Mustang in 1968.
Paul, I think that the 67 Camaro had standard buckets. The Camaro essentially supplanted both the bucket seat Nova SS and the bucket seat Corvairs in showrooms, as the Mustang pushed the bucket seat Falcon Futura out of the spotlight. The 64 Mustang was a $100 premium over a Futura, but a 20 percent jump from a rubber floor Falcon sedan. Closed Barracudas had standard bench seats, because Chrysler really never understood marketing like GM and Ford.
AFAIK, all of the pony cars had bench seats available in this period. IIRC the take rate on bench seats in the 64 Mustang was about 10 percent as a no cost option.
Thank you!
As to demographics, was your mom college educated? Employed outside your house? Do you remember what her age was when she bought it? Did she use it for hauling you kids around? What did your father think about her Mustang?
Again, thanks!
Sorry for the delay; don’t read every day.
Anyway here are some of the demographics. Yes, college educated, University of Cincinnati and also a licensed private pilot for several years. Yes, she was employed and was that executive secretary that Ford was looking for. The style mattered; it was a very handsome car. Ivy green metallic, contrasting parchment interior. Wire wheel covers, console. I think it may have been a “Sprint”. But the performance did not matter: six cylinder, three speed manual. Only one kid, me, to haul around. No dad around; her only car.
She was ready for it. She had a Ford coupe during her college years but no other Ford in the interim. The best looking car she ever owned.
Lots of good comments here on why the pony cars were so popular.
I hadn’t yet discovered Road & Track at the time the original article was published, only Motor Trend and Hot Rod. I predicted before reading Paul’s thoughts that the Mustang would be the winner of the comparo, but certainly not for build and materials quality.
Some 50+ years on, I find the ’67-68 Camaro to be bland, and I don’t care at all for the overhyped and over-represented ’69 model. What I do really like is the redesigned ’70 model.
Thanks, Paul, for giving us a convenient chance to read this, and to hear your always-welcome recap of it all.
I think styling and size was a big factor in selling the pony car. The intermediates were getting bigger just like the full size were getting bigger. Plus the draw of something different, while you may stick with the same car company as dad, you may not buy the same car. The decline of the station wagon and mini-van come to mind.
My first car, in 1970 was a 63 Ford 2dr sedan 406/352/390 4 speed. This car made me a mechanic. Lasted 3 years.
Second was a 62 Ford Galaxie 352 auto convertible, total dog, gone in 6 months.
Third is a 68 Cougar XR7 428 Cobra Jet auto. Wanted a Mustang but couldn’t find a decent one and then this mint Cougar dropped into my lap. Wasn’t shopping any other brand, might have considered a Cyclone or a Torino. Definite no for a truck, a compact or a full size or anything with 4 doors.
Then the world changed, gas doubled in price, I got out of school and got a job and became a two car owner.
Fourth car, used 71 Pinto sedan 2.0L 4 speed. Something to cut the gas bill.
The intermediates as a class were invented at the same time as the Mustang. The class coagulated around the 1964 GM A bodies. Over the period that the Mustang went to the moon and came back, the Chevelle, for example, was a steady seller with a floor of 400K per year and occasional great years of 500K or 600K.
Some of my earliest car memories come from the 1967 model year. I was in a pre-school car pool with two other kids, one of whose mothers drove a brand new Camaro and the other a new Mustang, which replaced a Falcon halfway through the school year. From my backseat perspective, I hated the Camaro, because of poor outward visibility, lack of overall space (especially when shared with Marsha and Terry) and the front bench seat, which blocked the forward view. The Mustang, on the other hand, seemed to have more room in back, its notchback shape was more conducive to seeing the world outside and the bucket seats allowed rear seat passengers to see forward through the gap in the middle. Never did sit in the backseat of a Barracuda, though maybe Mom’s 1966 Dart wagon was a good proxy?
The Corvair: “just an economy car with bucket seats and an available four speed stick and bucket seats“. That’s a lot of bucket seats.
But seriously, this is a good read.
Ford in the Pacific region did it differently having no 2 door cars they put the Mustang power train in a Falcon 4 door and went racing it worked and they advertised the car as having Mustang power that worked too, Chrysler AU had an optional 273 V8 engine with torqueflyte and they went well GMH had nothing and just put a twin carb or twin choke single and header option out,
68 was the first local 2 door performance car from GMH with 327 4 speed it raced and won we read about the American two door cars but rarely saw them.
The 275 hp Camaro is about the same weight as the 235 hp Barracuda but the automatic equipped Plymouth was just as fast. I realise that hp numbers of the day didn’t mean much but this is an interesting comparison. I’d wager GM was overstating and Mopar was understating.
Perhaps the shifting of the Muncie Rock Crusher is what slowed the Camaro down. The THM was available for the Camaro in 1968. It would make for a much nicer drive than the horrid Rock Crusher.
The answer is simple, they were sexy! They made the owner feel young, attractive, and free spirited. We all knew about those slinky “exotics” from Europe and England, Ferrari, Alfa Romeo, Jaguar and Triumph. These were the American versions that were cheaper, more reliable, and you had a back seat to stuff your little kids into. Sure, they weren’t real sports cars, it took a lot of care adding the proper options to give them any balanced performance.
These cars came at the same time that the youth culture was taking over America in the early 1960’s and they were attractive to both the young and old. They sold to both groups, the youngsters could get the performance version that they wanted and the grown ups could get the little luxury personal car that they wanted. The young folks could afford them with their low base prices and the older folks could afford to have one as their “second” car.
I was ten years old in 1965 and there was a lot of real excitement about these new Pony cars. Interestingly enough, the Mustang always seemed to be the most accepted car among the different age groups and it was acceptable with the six, the small V8, manual or automatic, and as a real muscle car. Driving one was okay for anybody, and they were acceptable in any social setting.
It was the go-go Sixties, you had to live through it to understand. By the beginning of the 1970’s ‘the Generation Gap” had become a more impenetrable barrier and society changed.
Glad to see disc brakes, but very little mention on handling.
Emphasis back then was on sheer acceleration.