We know of the triumphs and foibles of legendary figures, as their fame grows in time. Events turn into myths, and what was once uncertain, it’s accepted as inevitable fate. We eventually take for granted their mythical status. But how did they reach that lofty position? What was it like to experience their rise?
And while few people can claim firsthand acquaintance with human legends, cars can be a different matter. Especially popular ones. With that in mind, let’s take a look back thanks to this R&T owner survey from March of 1971. Let’s revisit and see what was it like to live with the legend.
It’s well known the Mustang acquired its legendary status in short order. In the words of R&T, Ford’s pony car was ‘one of the automotive phenomena of our time,’ and already considered an American standard by 1971. A good number of readers responded to R&T’s survey, with about 140 owners evenly divided between the ’67, ’68, and ’69 model years.
For R&T readers, the Mustang was the perfect compromise car; ‘the car to buy when one can’t afford the desired Porsche, the alternative when one wants a 2-seater but needs a family car, the car to retreat to when the little sports car have proved unduly temperamental or their dealers too scarce, or the first step away from the lumbering American sedan.’ Mustang owners bought their cars for: their styling, performance, size, handling (more on this later), and reasonable price. Attributes not too different from those cherished by import buyers in previous R&T surveys.
All legends have a nemesis, and in this case, it is a curious one: Ford’s dealer service. A rather common pain of the time. Some of the typical comments left by respondents were: “The warranty is worthless”… “gives me heartburn” … “overburdened”. On the other hand, Ford’s poor dealer performance was almost equal to Chevrolet’s.
As for the car itself, surveyors found the Mustang’s best and worst attribute to be its handling. It all depended on what ‘handling’ meant to each respondent. Regular buyers of American iron enjoyed the Mustang’s ‘compact’ dimensions, which made the car easier to park and maneuver, unlike other Detroit offerings. Meanwhile, those who had an affinity for sports car attributes (being R&T readers, a higher number than usual), found much to be desired in the handling department.
Moving on to other attributes, the Mustang got high marks for performance, economy, and styling. Regarding reliability, Ford’s pony car was no runaway star but was above average. Quality control was among the car’s worst features, with rattles, squeaks, and falling knobs being frequent. There were additional issues affecting 5-10% of owners: troubles with front-end alignment, water pumps, starters, short-lived shock absorbers, and a few others. Yet, 17% of owners experienced no trouble with their vehicles. A very good result for the times.
No major trouble areas are mentioned, however, and that sums up the Mustang survey: a reliable workhorse, durable in most of its major components, with a sporty image. Unlike some human icons and celebrities, the Mustang was a legend one could easily live with.
Further reading:
Curbside Classic: 1965 Mustang – Freedom; Starting At $2368
CC Capsule 1968 Mustang – Imagine One Million Mustangs Sold In 2016
This survey seems to reflect what these cars really were back in the day, almost all of the pony cars were equipped with workaday small V-8s or sixes with an automatic. As such they were no fussier than a Falcon, Nova or Valiant.
Big block engines and such were never that common and transformed the car into a single purpose, hard to live with monster if you wanted to even come close to realizing their potential.
If car shows and auctions are to be believed the streets were awash in Boss 302s, Z-28s, Mach 1s and Super Sports but in reality the cars profiled here were what the majority of owners drove.
An early Mustang with a 289/302 automatic was a lively, unfussy, stylish, reasonably affordable car and it’s not hard to see why they sold so many. Interestingly, I still see quite a few stock (ish) early Mustangs around while every F Body or Barracuda I see seems to be a performance model of dubious history (“Tribute”)
I’m sure glad today’s cars don’t go through tires, brakes and shocks at the rates described here though!
An early Mustang with a 289/302 automatic was a lively, unfussy, stylish, reasonably affordable car and it’s not hard to see why they sold so many
It has not missed my notice how far Ford has strayed from that successful formula, as they continue to push prices higher and higher.
Old phartz here may remember the “Night Stalker” TV series. The main character was made to look every bit the loser, with a seersucker suit, straw hat and sneakers. His ride? A 66 Mustang convert, with a 6 and a manual trans. (if you didn’t notice the lack of a V8 badge on the front fender, the sound of the engine was clearly a 6) In 73-74, 66 Mustangs were cheap, old, cars. I was in college then, and the campus parking lot was full of 60s pony cars.
I do see plenty of relatively stock Barracudas and Camaros today, but mostly at the Greenfield Village Motor Muster, which does have strict rules about adherence to original appearance.
There’s simply no market for a ‘standard’ Mustang. 2 doors can’t take child seats, so it’s automatically ruled out as a daily car for young families. It would be ridiculous if a 4cylinder Camry could outrun it, so that creates a pretty high minimum mechanical specification. Most of all
THE JEEP WRANGLER
is the 500 pound gorilla standing on top of the market for a fun, youthful, stylish car. SUVs and personal trucks aren’t racecars, but they suggest a fun, active, prosperous life. That’s what the Mustang was. The only market slice left for the Mustang is actual race car, and race car wannabe.
Or a Thunderbird. With what a Mustang costs today it is covering the price range that the Thunderbird used to.
MSRP of a base Ecoboost Mustang that would jog backward across the finish line and laugh in a race against most Mustangs ever made is less than a RAV4, the most popular car-thing in America.
Most people straight up prefer the RAV4, and the relative uselessness of the Mustang is the final nail in the coffin.
The dealer near me has a Mustang for $68,000. Clearly old Thunderbird territory.
The new Mustang has a base price of $33,160 according to this month’s MT. That’s about 10% more than a RAV4. The Mustang GT 5.0s that were the most popular new cars in my high school parking lot in 1986 cost a bit less adjusted for inflation than the Ecoboost base Mustangs today. What those kids got with their part time jobs in two cases was one of the fastest cars on the new car market. The Corvette was faster, and there were faster cars around the corner, but in 1986 you could hold your head up as having a performance monster if you were driving a Mustang GT.
The Ecoboost Mustang? It is a bit quicker, which it should be after 37 years. It isn’t fast enough to be considered a serious performance car by modern standards. There’s a Tesla at every other stop light that is probably as quick or quicker, as are any number of other family cars, sporty SUVs and imported sports cars. As for the Mustang GT of today, if you see a kid driving one, you know his parents bought it for him.
It wouldn’t be so bad that the Mustang seems determined to end its run when the last Baby Boomer wants to climb in and out of something lower than a 1940 Plymouth, except that they’re endemic of a Ford that is abandoning all affordable offerings. The company that created the middle class is complicit in eliminating it.
MSRP for 2024 RAV4 isn’t on Toyota’s website.
According to the actual Ford website, the base price of a 2023 Ecoboost Mustang is 27770 + 1395 shipping. Ford also hates the middle class in general and Mustang prospects in particular so much that they tell those despicable hillbillies another 2000 of incentives can be applied against the official MSRP.
According to the actual Toyota website, the base price of a 2023 2wd RAV4 is 28275 + 1350.
As Casey Stengel said, “You could look it up.”
An Ecoboost Mustang is significantly quicker than a standard Model 3 (0-60 in about 5 secs vs about 6 secs) although they’re both so quick it’s a theoretical difference on public roads, and most kids don’t care about that stuff now anyway. My standard Model 3 will smoke the tires and spin in its own length from a rolling start, which was fun for the first week.
As Yogi Berra said, “If people don’t want to come to the ball park, you can’t stop ’em.”
The GT500 was the price of a Thunderbird and also sold in the small numbers of today’s 170 mile an hour flagship Mustangs. The difference is that many average Joes and Janes preferred a pretty, glamorous standard Mustang to a boring fuddy duddy Fairlane. Today they walk past the standard Mustang to buy a Bronco Sport for the same money, which is *the car they really want.* Buying a standard Mustang isn’t a treat for yourself. Buying a Bronco or Bronco Sport is a treat, and Ford sells hundreds of thousands. Today’s “sports cars” are SUVs. The Wrangler is today’s most desirable “sports car.” Traditional sports car image is an outlier today, with very little mainstream appeal when it’s time to back up opinions with money.
Ford would be delighted to sell more standard Mustangs. The factory (singular these days) doesn’t run at capacity. The public mostly doesn’t want to buy traditional sports cars.
Ironically, traditional sports car image is the outlier today that 4wd and offroading was in the Mustang heyday.
1967-70 may have been the peak Mustang years. A bit more refined and polished than the first generation, with big block power available. But, without the bulk and garishness of the next generation. By this time every other make had a ponycar so the increased competition dented sales a bit, but Mustang always held its own. Even the dubious Mustang II was a sales winner. Other pony cars came and went, but Mustang soldiered on. Today it’s still a rock solid choice in the sporty car market. A truly amazing 60 year run.
This car ushered in the sporty car fad that lasted for decades until replaced by the SUV and CUV fads still going strong which I think Ford again stared with the Explorer.
SUV and CUV fads still going strong which I think Ford again stared with the Explorer.
You could argue it was Jeep, with the original Wagoneer, or Cornbinder, with the Scout II. I remember a Scout II TV ad that was clearly aimed at women, citing virtues like sitting up high, so the driver can see over the other traffic, a benefit cited by many of my SUV driving coworkers.
When first introduced, in the 70s, the Range Rover was a functional car, not the status symbol it is today.
Ford may have been the first, high volume, American, company to jump on that bandwagon.
The Cherokee pioneered the 4 door category.
The 4 door SUVs from Japan were an accidental hit. They started an an end run around the chicken tax. That’s the source of the traditional hidden rear door handle on the Pathfinder so it could pass as a 2 door, which had been the body style of choice.
The Range Rover was designed às a civilized companion to the traditional Land Rover, but it very quickly became a glamorous lifestyle accessory. Rover had been working on various “Road Rovers” as soon as the Land Rover was an established hit.
The 4 door Explorer was a smash hit but not necessarily predictable. Mazda had decided to put a 2 door Explorer in its line and was chagrined that it couldn’t simply change its allocation to the 4 door body. Ford sold every 4 door it could possibly make and there were no 4 door body parts for Mazda. Mazda had a 4WD MPV and thought that the 2 door Explorer and the 4 door MPV would cover the market.
Of all the cars I’ve had I probably miss my ’67 Mustang the most. Had it for several years until I had to sell it due to divorce. I would still have it otherwise. My likes and dislikes are about par with the survey. I loved the looks, the 289 four barrel engine, and handling was decent enough for me. Did not like the drum brakes. It fit my 170 pound body fine. If I kept out of the secondaries, I could get 20 mpg.
Of course it was reliable, it was a Falcon.
I remember these as being really popular as 2nd/3rd cars for families, whether bought new or used. It was a great choice when parents were looking to add to the fleet for high school/college kids – they were good cars and almost no kid would turn a nose up to a Mustang of this vintage, even when it was several years old.
It would have been interesting to include owners of 65-66 cars, because it would have given a better picture of the cars as they aged. However, many new car buyers back then would never commit to a car beyond 3-4 years before trading it on something new, so data on aging Mustangs may not have been that relevant to R&T readers.
I have unsubscribed from you 39 times. Please stop sending me emails
There’s nothing I can readily do about that; it’s a third party system. Just mark it as “Junk” or block it. Easy solution.
The “yellow fastback” , in the ad, comes across “somewhat cartoonish”. That model, color was my sister, brother in laws, first car when they married in Sept “67”
Brother in law got in May “67” to the best of my memory.
The GT500 was the price of a Thunderbird and also sold in the small numbers of today’s 170 mile an hour flagship Mustangs. The difference is that many average Joes and Janes preferred a pretty, glamorous standard Mustang to a boring fuddy duddy Fairlane. Today they walk past the standard Mustang to buy a Bronco Sport for the same money, which is *the car they really want.* Buying a standard Mustang isn’t a treat for yourself. Buying a Bronco or Bronco Sport is a treat, and Ford sells hundreds of thousands. Today’s “sports cars” are SUVs. The Wrangler is today’s most desirable “sports car.” Traditional sports car image is an outlier today, with very little mainstream appeal when it’s time to back up opinions with money.
Ford would be delighted to sell more standard Mustangs. The factory (singular these days) doesn’t run at capacity. Public mostly doesn’t want to buy traditional sports cars. Ironically, traditional sports car image is the outlier today that 4wd and offroading was in the Mustang heyday.
.
My first car was a ’66 Mustang V8 four speed coupe. This was in ’74 or ’75 and it set me back 300.00. A nice car to drive, My next Mustang was a new loaded, ’07 V6 Pony coupe with auto. Overall a great car in looks, handling, performance, and economy. It was one of our family cars and we took many road trips with our two kids who were growing into teenagers at the time. We held onto this car and gave it to our Daughter, who still has it. In 2010 I got a ’96 GT convertible I used it as a daily for years, and still have it. Even with a V8 it’s still a mellow car like the ’07 six.
I wanted a classic Mustang so I added a ’70 coupe with the big 250 six with auto around 2015. My plan was to restomod it. I fixed it up quite a bit, but found that I just didn’t like it that much, I think that I’ve been spoiled by the later Mustangs, with better power, handling, safety, power assists, a/c and more. I decided that I didn’t want to make the big investment and sold it. Finally I got the ’06 GT convertible that I wanted since before I got my ’07. It certainly feels and sounds more powerful, with Magnaflow exhaust and open air intake. I think that it looks like my favorite classic Mustangs of the past. I have even toyed with the idea of getting a new ’24, this will be the last ICE Mustang and at my age the last new car that I’d ever need, but I think that I’m kinda Mustanged out. I rented a new ’21 GT convertible a couple of years ago, the 5.0 was impressive, but really unnecessary. I think that my ’07 V6 was the best, most relaxing, and enjoyable combination. Those fastbacks are still the most beautiful in my eyes.
So what was the “long” oil-change interval that owners were skeptical about? 5000 miles instead of 3000? Times have changed. And in other ways things have changed too. I graduated from high school in 1973, and a used Mustang (usually 1st gen ‘65-66) was affordable, though still slightly aspirational. A ten year old Mustang was $500 and that was within reach of most teens. If not, you had to settle for Mom’s hand-me-down Falcon or Dart, always with a six. But other than the cost of entry, the running costs for that Mustang (fuel, gas, tires, tuneups) were no different than for the Falcon. Today, kids are probably happy to drive a hand-me-down Camry or CRV. First, there is no late-model used Celica or Prelude available anymore as a sporty alternative Toyota or Honda. Second, I suspect fuel, insurance and tire costs for the Mustang are prohibitive for most kids.
I was all about the Mustang in 1969 when coming up on my 16th birthday. Still have brochures of the 68 which I preferred. Of course my father messed that up by offering a better deal. Can’t argue with that since it was the Mustang’s sister and was trouble free. I eventually did get my 68 in 1984 after spending several years dreaming of restoring one and finally pulled the trigger. With the 289-2V engine it is a peppy, pleasant, and enjoyable car to take out for a cruise on a back highway. Unfortunately the work was done in the 80’s, before digital cameras, so very few pictures of the process like body panels spread out all over the garage and spare downstairs bedroom.
Re “ride and handling” I believe that GM’s Leo Pruneau said ” ride is how soft the seat is under their ass, handling is how light the steering is”
Refering to Jo or Joe Average