(first posted 5/4/2017) Given its role as pretty much the most significant car of the whole modern era, never mind the sixties, the original Mustang doesn’t exactly garner all that much bandwidth or love here at CC. Of course, we do tend to be a bit wary of cars that have been overexposed, and are all about shedding light and love on the overlooked and underloved ones. But every once in a while, I’ll find a Mustang on the street that’s just right, and I can’t help but stop, gaze, get a bit emo, and contemplate just how outsized its popularity and influence was.
Since we’ve already done a more detailed story of the Mustang here, let’s just ponder two aspects of ’66 coupe I found in San Mateo in February. One, is just the appreciation of this particularly fine example, done just the way I would if I had one, minus the little parking lot protection side strip. Other than that, it’s perfect, and the white paint glowing at sunset really makes the most of its chiseled lines.
We’ll get back to it shortly. But let’s ponder just how insanely successful and popular the Mustang was, most of all the ’66, of which there were 608k sold. Yes, technically there were more ’65s sold (680k), but that very extended model year started in April 1964. On an adjusted basis, the ’66 towers of the ’65, and was by far the high water mark for the Mustang, never mind any of its challengers, which never got anywhere close; the closest being the ’69 Camaro with 243K units. Not close at all.
And what does that 608k of ’66 Mustangs sold represent in terms of the total market? The US market for domestic makers was 8.93 million, so the Mustang represented no less than 7% of it. If the Mustang had been a brand in itself, it would have been the #6 selling brand in the country, beaten just barely by Plymouth and Dodge, and coming in ahead of Olds, Buick, Mercury and all of AMC. And since it was a Ford, Mustang sales pushed Ford ahead of Chevrolet for the 1966 sales crown.
Now let’s put those 608k into contemporary terms. The ’66 Mustang had about 6% of the total market; 6% of the 2016 US market (17.58M) equals 1.05 million. That’s a whopping 45% more than the Ford F-Series, which sold 733k units in 2016. Can you imagine over one million Mustangs being sold in 2016?
The Mustang was the car that proved that folks cared more about looks and projecting an image than anything practical about a car.
This shot of a Mom with her daughter in back of a Mustang from the other day’s vintage gallery brought this point home: plenty of kids, including a lot older than this girl, did some serious seat time in the very cramped back seat of one. I couldn’t resist a Google search, and here’s some other juvenile Mustang back-benchers:
But no doubt, they were all undoubtedly quite happy to crawl into the little hard cave back there, especially when the neighbors were looking. The Mustang, starting at $2,368, gave just about every American family the chance to have something truly distinctive in the driveway. Of course, within a couple of years, when there were half a dozen on the block, the Mustang party was over. Which is really what killed the pony car boom. They just weren’t worth the hassle once they weren’t new and distinctive anymore. Folks quickly graduated to a Monte Carlo or Cutlass Supreme Coupe. The Mustang nearly killed the sedan. And it was never about any genuine performance or sporty qualities, which these base Mustangs almost utterly lacked.
The Mustang was the equivalent of Beatlemania, and although we’re all a bit over-saturated on the Fab Four, every once in a while, a certain song of theirs will pop up somewhere, and its sheer brilliance and timelessness makes the whole world stop for three minutes or so. This Mustang had the same effect on me that day.
Mustangs are great cars. Especially today’s mustang. How Ford can pack in all that greatness in a car – esp the flat plane crank engine and price it for the masses is amazing. But that’s also the problem with it. Its not exclusive. There’s a mustang at every red light at every donut shop and…. even my mom has one.
I’m no Mustang expert, but it always seemed to me that market that Iacocca really cracked was the decently equipped and styled (for the times) small call. There really was no stripper penalty box version (again, for the times). This had to represent some manufacturing efficiency as well. Within a few years, the Japanese exploited this playbook to great effect, while it took Ford and the other US domestics forever to figure it out again.
A lot of these were second cars, and those kids weren’t always stuffed into tiny backseats. When I was very young, the neighbors across the street had a ’66 Impala wagon and a ’66 Mustang. They had a big family, and the mister took the wagon to work! The missus watched me and my sister a few times, and I recall being stacked like cordwood with several kids into that Mustang.
You are right about the second car thing. These became even more popular as middle-aged used cars. I knew so many people who bought one (or more) as a 3rd car once the kids began driving. This was a car that was popular with parents and kids alike.
That seems like part of it to me as well. A family down the street from me replaced their Beetle with a Mustang. I carpooled in the back seat of both.
My wife was one of those kids shuttled around in a Mustang. Her parents bought a 1967 Mustang shortly before she and her brother were born, and it served as the family’s primary car throughout childhood.
During that time, her family’s other vehicle was a Ford F-100 pickup truck, so the Mustang was the roomier (cabin-wise) of the two vehicles. The family put lots of miles on both vehicles with all four of them riding along.
Someday, I’d love to dig up pictures and write about her Mustang’s full story — it had a long and interesting life.
He could have done a better job following the body lines with that molding, better yet, leave it off. When we had our 1966 Mustang repainted in 1977, I lost an epic family battle over such a molding. I fought hard to have it left off, my parents overruled me.
I thought, and still do, that it looked like crap.
In a more extensive restoration in 1982, I finally held sway, and also succeeded in having that gaudy quarter panel molding removed, in the hope that a pinstripe outline around the inset sculpture would be applied (this was a factory option, called the Accent Group, some “group”, deleting a molding and adding a $2.00 stripe). Alas, the stripe never did get applied.
Also, the sheer number built means that statistically,
large numbers of them were subjected to ill-advised and poorly funded “modifications”. Case in point, the 1966 GT in the above pic. Why the dumb bumblebee stripe on the nose? Wasn’t the factory rocker stripe enough? Having said that, I would have killed for a coupe with the factory GT package back in the day.
As I was reading, I was thinking that the Mustang was like the Beatles, thanks for beating me to that thought in your last paragraph.
Form over function lives on in the various sizes and flavors of SUV today. How many are used offroad? How many tow a trailer? Carry a full load of people? No, most of them are like the Suburban(s) I encountered on my commute today: spending gas conspicuously where are far more modest vehicle would be the better choice. (Not expressing hate for the Suburban. I have one, but it’s used when going to Home Depot and Tractor Supply and the occasional trip to the drive in. And was only a couple of grand with 200k+ miles on it. I commute in a Ford Focus. Five speed.)
I was in fourth grade in early ’64, and three huge things swept the nation: The Beatles, the mini – skirt, and the Mustang. After that grim year of 1963, all three of these brought excitement and fun — and with the Beatles and the mini – skirt — some controversy to the fore of American life. These ushered in the beginning of the “youth culture” of the sixties. Even at my young age, and in a small rural town in downstate Illinois, everyone talked about the Mustang, people would visit their local Ford dealers to view, and sit in, a Mustang. Everybody loved the Mustang, it was something so brand – new and fresh. The Plymouth Barracuda was sometimes mentioned, especially because of the huge glass backlight,..
I can respond well to this:
“Form over function lives on in the various sizes and flavors of SUV today. How many are used offroad?”
Rarely, but they go well in the snow, climb greasy boat ramps well, and when they do get to place no Camry can or should go, they do it very well. They do make two wheel drive versions for folks living below the snowbelt who just need the towing capacity.
“How many tow a trailer?”
Many, but certainly not every day.
“Carry a full load of people?”
Several times a week, just like they go with just a driver several times a week.
“No, most of them are like the Suburban(s) I encountered on my commute today: spending gas conspicuously where are far more modest vehicle would be the better choice.”
My wife commutes several blocks. Another car for just fuel efficiency would not be efficient. Most people are capable of selecting a reasonable (for them) commuting vehicle. And, why does nobody ever pick on the guy blowing through gas commuting in an S series Mercedes? Is it less offensive somehow?
” (Not expressing hate for the Suburban. I have one, but it’s used when going to Home Depot and Tractor Supply and the occasional trip to the drive in. And was only a couple of grand with 200k+ miles on it. I commute in a Ford Focus. Five speed.)”
Um, you own two vehicles suited to their purposes and yet wrote this comment? I would have thought you’d be the person writing my answers!!
I speak not of my use of SUVs, nor your use (apparently), but of the use of them by the huge swaths of people who purchase them. Their rugged, towing, people hauling abilities are as relevant to sales as any sporting aspects of a Mustang. It’s the image and coolness that sells, not the purpose built into it.
Which is not to say that style is not a perfectly valid reason to buy a vehicle. The difference is that some people will own up to it. I recently purchased a ’97 BMW convertible. Could have gotten several other vehicles at the same price with varying levels of performance, comfort, maintenance costs. At the end of the day, I bought it because it was cooler (to me) than (for example) a Mustang convertible of like value.
That’s a fact, and trust me the people that actually use these large trucks and SUVs bemoan the fact that they have become the “New Mustang.” Case in point, I purchased a 30K mile 2014 Ram 1500 Standard Cab, Long Bed 2WD tradesman back in 2016. $15K off the lot, obviously equipped like that it was destined to be a workhorse, proved 3 days later when I caved half the tailgate in. It was a nice enough truck, but lacked gauges unless you opted for the higher trim packages. The first time I loaded it up good (71 Riviera on my 2000 Lb car hauler my tepid satisfaction with the truck turned into instant hate. The damn truck was almost on the overload stop with the same car on the same trailer as my 1994 K10 Blazer towed with ease 2 months before! A full load of firewood? my headlights would be tracking airplanes. My 1990 D150 takes the same load with much less squat. the modern 1500 series trucks are a joke. the 90s versions of all of them can handle so much more weight. All the capability has been sacrificed for the sake of “Ride Comfort”
Don’t get me started on the useless hunk of overpriced garbage the Suburban has become. The last truly great suburban rolled off the line in 2006. the 07+ became too slick and expensive to be anything but a mall crawler and 2500 series sales tanked as a result. I guess ill never part with my 1995 3/4 ton suburban because what is even comparable as a replacement? nothing made in the last 15 years, and the old ones are getting quite expensive because of it…
Something I alluded to in the NYIAS thread is that chassis-concealing body-on-frame proportions have carried over to unibody CUVs. That, coupled with the ubiquitous dark matte cladding that has the effect of disguising floor-to-ceiling height as ground clearance, results in a car designed for ease of access that manages to project a rugged, outdoorsy image rather than *looking* like it’s built for bad knees and booster seats.
Hadn’t noticed that, but it’s something I may have to investigate in the parking lot during lunch break.
Bingo. My first thought was “Yawn, another early Mustang.” They are so everywhere and so appealing to the masses that they have sort of become “Introduction to Collector Cars.” And we at CC are, of course, all enrolled in graduate level stuff that goes so much deeper than the early Mustang.
But as I read on I remembered my own back seat time in an early Mustang. My father had a 63 Chevy station wagon for his company car. The son of the guy who owned the company needed to borrow the wagon one weekend to move something and Dad brought home his Dark Ivy Green 65 Mustang fastback. It was a V8 with a 4 speed, and it impressed young me to no end that my father was cool enough to shift gears.
I vividly remember the cave-like rear seat in that black interior, fiddling with the C pillar vent control. I was so ready for him to buy one of these for himself. Which he never did. Truly, the Mustang appealed to almost everyone. Still does.
“Yawn, another early Mustang.”
Funny you should mention that. Last week, I found a ’67 Mustang and a ’66 Valiant at an estate sale. I took lots of pictures of the Valiant, figuring it would make a good write-up… didn’t give nearly as much attention to the Mustang. Well, now I feel sort of guilty about that! I think we’ve had twice as much verbiage on Valiants here as we have had on Mustangs.
This particular pair of cars was bought by a young couple in the 1960s and served as their primary transportation until about 10 years ago, when both were parked in the garage and not driven any longer. I still hope to write up the Valiant at some point later this year.
Good, I’m not alone. Yesterday morning I found a very nice ’67 Mustang coupe across the street from where I found the ’32 Chevrolet several years ago. It was quite fetching in a tasteful two-ton blue.
I blamed the deluge of rain on my not getting pictures of it, but I doubt that was the only reason. Now I’m feeling a twitch of regret, just as you expressed.
Two-ton blue! Coffee hasn’t kicked in yet, Jason! 🙂
Not that any Mustang back seat was roomy, but the fastback model removed half the headroom.
Nice write up Paul on a very nice find.
As a Mustang fan, one wonders if the party will continue when you put the numbers in perspective like that. In 1966, 7% of the whole market for one model of car is amazing. I’m not sure of the production numbers, but my own 2007 only sold like 40K – 50K, IIRC correctly from something I read. I’m sure the commentaureate can correct me on that stat.
But I wonder if besides the lack of practicality of a Mustang, VALUE has anything to do with it not being nearly as popular today as it was in 1966. Consider $2368 base price. That’s about $18K in today’s 2017 dollars. The base price for a plain jane Mustang these days is $25,185 according to a quick glance at Ford’s website.
I suppose the party will continue for a at least a little while longer. After all, Chevy discontinued the Camaro, and then thought the better of it and brought it back. And the Mustang has never gone away, although there were a few years in there where Ford was likely contemplating it.
Again, nice write up, as is your article for the Mustang’s 50th Anniversary that you linked.
Today’s Mustang has a different mission from the first generation. Of course most people under 50 probably conflate “pony car” with “muscle car”, The original mustang played to a much wider “audience” It could be a muscle car, a personal “luxury” car or even “just” a stylish economy car. Today it’s playing to just one crowd, the price and image go to the “muscle” market and the wanna be muscle market.
You could even say it’s doing double duty covering the high dollar coupe niche in the absence of the Thunderbird in the lineup.
Funny you should say that. The reason I even HAVE a Mustang is that they don’t make the Thunderbird anymore. I had SEVERAL of those ‘Birds from ’83 to ’97 when they flew away. The Mustang was the closest thing I could find to a personal RWD luxury car in Ford’s line-up when I came back to them after my only GM car, a Grand Prix GTP Coupe.
How do insurance rates compare on Mustangs 1965 vs. 2017?
Not sure about the two years you mention here, but my 2007 isn’t bad premium-wise, but I’m almost 57, and my ‘stang is only a lowly V6, not a Shelby or anything ridiculous to insure.
When I was buying a new commuter car last year, my 2016 Civic Coupe was quoted only a few bucks lower than a 2016 Mustang V6 would’ve been, but then when the actual bill for the Civic came in, it dropped even further.
But when I was 34 years old (1994), and my then wife was contemplating a Mustang instead of getting another T-Bird, the difference was significant; That MN12 (with a 4.6L V8) was $100 CHEAPER semiannually than a then all-new Fox-2 model Mustang (with a 3.8L V6), despite the higher replacement cost for the Thunderbird.
When I asked the agent why a more expensive car was cheaper to insure than a less expensive car, she said it was “all about demographics and statistics”.
I suppose that’s true. The cheapest car I’ve ever owned was my ’79 Fairmont Futura. It was also the most expensive premium I’ve ever had to pay. But I was 19 when I bought that car. Young guys get hosed due to those ‘statistics’.
Insurance premiums can be odd. Back about 2 years ago when I sold my 1999 Pontiac Firebird with a V8 to CarMax and bought a 1995 Caddy Deville, I expected the insurance rate to go down because I was getting rid of a fast sportscar for a wallowing barge. However my rates went up and I actually paid $100 more a year for the Deville with only liability then I did with the Firebird which had full coverage. When I called up Geico, I was told that the Deville was bigger and would hurt folks more or cause more property damage then the Firebird
Go figure
I know what you’re saying, but it’s pretty hard to directly compare prices on a value basis between a ’66 and a contemporary S550, or even S197 Mustang. Just the safety, emissions, and electronics content of today’s cars alone, which didn’t exist in 1966, add considerable cost — and value — to the equation. A wreck in a modern Mustang that you’d walk away from might have been fatal in a ’66. And compare the 5.0 “Coyote” all-alloy DOHC TiVCT electronic port injected V8 mated to an efficient 10-speed auto trans, to an iron block/heads OHV carbureted 289 V8 mated to a an FMX 3-speed trans…there’s no comparison. Then add in the vastly superior engineering, manufacturing, materials, etc. that go into a modern Mustang (or any other modern car) and comparisons become pretty moot.
That is a very valid point, Dave, especially the modern engineering. Also, just look at the efficiency of today’s cars and what you can get out of them. Just for fun, I looked up acceleration numbers for a 1969 Boss 429 Mustang. 0 – 60 in 6.5 seconds. My ‘lowly 4.0L V6’ 2007 Mustang? 0 – 60 in 6.5 seconds. And mine is the LEAST powerful of all the S197(s). Ain’t modern engineering grand!
That said I would still love to have that ’69 Boss 429. ?
Yes but it’s pretty common knowledge that the Boss 429s were DOGS, detuned homologation specials. You want to go fast in a 69 Mustang(by 1969 standards) you get the 428 Cobra Jet, with a 5.7 second 0-60. 🙂
All cars have advanced in every last one of those respects, as they should after 50 years(the 65s came a long way from 1915 cars too). The Mustang today roughly occupies the same price slot as it’s Mercury Cougar cousin did in the 60s, and even then the new car is still more expensive. It’s much more of a grown up’s toy than a youthful car for the masses it used to be.
I think that the Mustang is actually more practical than most give it credit for. For one thing, it is an aspirational car that is pretty affordable. Its always had has four seats, even if the back seats were better suited to smaller children. The back seat is also useful for packages and luggage. People with younger children can own and drive this car, in contrast to two seat vehicles like the Miata, Nissan 370Z, or more expensive cars like the Porsche Boxster, (this would probably be a used example). My 2007 coupe is very comfortable in the front seats, the back seat is much more spacious than my ’96 or ’70 were. The ’07 has a much bigger trunk with fold down rear seats, giving it a lot of flexibility. We put over 100,000 miles on that car with my two teen aged kids in the back. Admittedly they aren’t that tall. Plus over the years most Mustangs have been good looking, fun to drive cars. My ’96 GT returns 25 mpg. at 70 mph. While my ’07 V6 returns 27-28 mpg. at the same speed, both on regular gas. Yes, it wouldn’t be the best bet for the snow, but it makes sense in a lot of places and situations. I still hope to have an earlier fastback some day.
Mine too is an ’07, and since it’s just my wife and I (and the dog sometimes) it’s big enough. Once in a while we have our granddaughter with us; she’s about to turn 13 and not being very tall (yet), fits in the back just fine.
And yeah, the rear seat fold down does make it ‘more practical’. Whenever my friend and I go skiing, we always take my Mustang for that reason… we can fold the seats down and put the skis in the back. He has a 5 Series BMW that can’t even do that, so his car stays home.
Segue… today’s Mustang is MUCH better in the snow than their classic predecessors. When I first got it, after being used to larger cars for years, I was a little afraid to drive it even in the rain, knowing of the Mustang’s reputation for being light in the back. Like XR7Matt has pointed out many times about the retro-stangs is that they are big compared to the classics. That added weight probably helps them for winter driving, although mine is now retired from such folly. ?
I always enjoy your pieces, and this was my favorite car ever as a child in the 1970s.
One question—8.93 million vehicles.
I presume that is cars AND light trucks, yes?
A lot of 1960s sales numbers cited are car only.
Still, to your point, even at 10 or 11 million sold, the Mustang then was bigger than the F-series today (however, the Mustang as moderately priced compared to big Fords and Fairlanes, whereas today, the F-series is high priced)
“And light trucks, yes?”
Probably not, because as you say, most sales stats readily available don’t include them. Back then, most light trucks were commercial vehicles, unlike today, and their numbers not nearly as great.
Finding comprehensive and accurate apples-to-apples numbers for comparisons is a recurring problem for me.
Even if there were 2 million light trucks in 1966, your point that the Mustang was a sales giant is very valid–and very thought provoking!
It may not have been a BMW 1600/2002, or even a fast car (Falcon six and 2-spd auto, lol), but it looked good–no, it looked GREAT and stood out, and definitely did NOT feel cheap.
Stylish and affordable is always a winner.
I was a Chevy boy, so I had to work really hard to not like the ’66 Mustang. And now I turn my head and risk an accident to stare when I see a nice one in traffic. It really was an iconic car, in style as well as in standard fitment-I like the comment above that noted how every Mustang, even a base model, looked finished, not a “stripper” on the lot.
Question: The Mustang in the picture has what is now considered proper stance. It is slightly higher in the rear. The old pictures clearly show that, at the time of sale, a proper Mustang had a slight rearward slope. I recall several really nice black ’65-66 Mustang fastbacks that were clearly lower in the back, especially when you crammed a bunch of teenagers into them. When did proper stance change? I think it may have started when we jacked up our old cars and put big, fat off-market white-letter (probably hopelessly dangerously under-engineered) bias-ply tires on the back, mounted on chromies, so we could pretend we were drag racers. But when did this teenage affectation become the standard, and how?
I’m gonna go out on a limb, and guess the jacked-up look started in the mid-70’s. When I was a kid I remember seeing lots of ratty 60’s/early 70’s cars with 2-foot wide “meats” on the back, and usually the stock rims on the front. Oh yeah, don’t forget the air shocks, 6-foot CB aerial and the homemade side pipes (actually hooking them up, was optional)
The Mustang was always flat and level, as you say, but the ’63/’64 Avanti was slightly raised in the rear, to provide a similar, ready-to-pounce, stance.
So not really a ’70s idea, but a designer choice by Raymond Loewy. (The mustang also stole that door-scallop from the ’53 Studebaker Starliner, another Loewy-backed design that failed to save Studebaker, flat-in-stance, but body designed to appear raked).
As the Avanti continued in independent production, and moved first to Chevrolet V-8s on Studebaker frames, then alternate frames and underbodies as well, the stance flattened out, the wheels moved out of their correct position in the wheel-openings and the car lost a a lot of its early looks.
Mustangs definitely seemed to have weak rear springs, since my memory of many, as you noted, were of the wallowing rear tails, especially when loaded down.
I’ve had lots of seat time in early Mustangs. They always had somewhat weak springs in the rear. It didn’t take much of a load to make them squat even when new. When I bought my current ’66 Coupe in 2008 it rode OK but did have a slight rearward tilt. Of course, it got worse with any back seat passengers. A couple of years ago I replaced the rear suspension with reproduction parts. It raised the rear end 3 inches initially. Since then it has settled down to slightly over 2 inches. It gives the car a slightly pronounced forward rake just like I like. It has really changed the visual impact in my opinion. In fact, it matches the factory rake of my 2009 Mustang. However, it rides a lot stiffer than before. That’s OK with me as I never have been one for cushy suspensions.
Back then my parents had a ’63 Falcon station wagon. Same chassis as the Mustang, although they were on a slightly improved 1964 version. Because it was going to have a family and luggage in it overload shocks with the spring around them were installed. Without hurting the ride noticeably this also reduced understeer by stiffening the rear spring rate and made it flat when loaded. Cheap and effective.
Leaf springs also often sink over the years. My decades old ’62 Lincoln came with those rear overload shocks and was on spec for ride height. I checked under another one and it had helper leaves added. I understand truck service places can retemper them if new replacements aren’t available. I’d just go with the overload shocks if they are still a thing.
It started in the late 60’s-early 70’s. In 1970 I had a ’63 Rambler V8 that I installed the heaviest springs I could get all around, air shock in the rear-HD in the front, 6″ chrome reverse wheels and oversize tires(don’t remeber the exact size) and dual exhausts. It had a very definite(3″) difference from front to rear. It handled good for a car of the time(Seaside to Portland in 55 min)and I got more compliments on it than jeers.
The family story was that, my grandmother took delivery on the first Mustang sold in Saginaw. It was past onto my older brother, after she remarried and moved to Fort Meyers.
I eventually got the car in 1975. It was somewhat tired out by then. It was white W/red interior. 289, 3 speed auto on the floor. As kids we thought we had the coolest grandmother in the world, the first time she drove it across the state to visit. What a neat car.
Very nice classy example of an early Mustang. Not pretending to be anything it isn’t. Like you said, just the way I’d want one, although I think I’d take a four speed with my 289, thanks.
I’m happy to be non-denominational when it comes to cars, so I can admire this just as much as anything else.
I’ve never really thought of Mustangs being everywhere, maybe because I grew up in a rural area with a practical Dutch immigrant family & community. I didn’t know anyone with a Mustang until I was in high school in the mid 80’s.
I think it has more to do with your being in Canada (as I believe you’ve stated before). Big, powerful vehicles are common among the Dutch Americans–in fact, the more conservative they are, the more expensive the vehicle they drive (same applies to the Motherland). A Mustang WAS a more practical choice back then. Fast cars and freedom. Boys and their toys. Dutch dealer wouldn’t sell the biggest engines to the young guys back in the 60s as a matter of fact.
That young Mom in her Mustang was my aunt exactly. Same age, same hair, same beautiful eyes, same cigarette. I remember thinking how great it smelled when she first lit up and how bad it smelled after that. She was several years younger than my Mom and more stylish. Not to sound creepy or anything, because she was a good 19 years older than me, but it was like being on a date having a ride in that Mustang with her on the weekends.
She had great taste in cars. Her first was a used ’55 Chevy that I don’t remember. Then a ’63 Beetle. Then a repo’d Mustang my Dad found for her — a light blue ’66 with the 289 and Rally wheels. My sis and I were always thrilled to ride in the back seat. It was not cramped at all and you were part of the action. The sporty 3-spoke steering wheel, all those gauges and the chrome floor shifter were something for all passengers to behold.
Paul does not exaggerate when he says there were half a dozen on the block. The cars were instant classics and people spoke of them as such by the early 70s, at least in LA where they held up well except for the squeaky front ends.
I found out recently that my best friend’s aunt, who was same age as my aunt, also went from a Beetle to a Mustang. It sounds like that happened a lot and it’s not much of a stretch to say the Mustang, on its own, put off the import invasion by six or seven years. Don’t forget that took hold only after they did their own Mustangs, like the 240Z, Capri and Celica.
You guys did a great job on 60s week and I’m glad to see Mustang cap it all off. No drug can compare with the “high” it must have been to be Lee Iacocca in the mid-60s.
I concur about the back seat, at least in the 65-66 hardtops. As a kid, I had seat time in all 3 generations of the original (pre-II) It didn’t seem cramped at all back there, and the low back seats only contributed to the airy feeling. And, the quarter windows might have been tiny, but they DID roll down. The 69-70 generation was not as good in this respect, but still tolerable. The headrests didn’t help.
As for the ’71 Coupe, now those really did feel cramped, especially with those gawd-awful high-back seats.
Mind you, I was taller in 1971 than 1965, so there’s that.
The rear seat in my ’66 has more apparent room than my’09 and is far easier to get into. In fact, unless the weather is bad, I always use it to haul my grandkids around town when more than one of them visits because of the convenience.
I don’t know if I agree with the idea that lack of “exclusiveness” helped to kill the Mustang, I think Ford itself can take some blame. My aunt owned 3 of the 1st generation Mustangs, but by the time she let me drive her near new 69 Grande, I could see that Ford was “losing the plot”, so to speak. The Grande spelled Ford’s usual drift into a sort of Broughamification that nearly all their models eventually drifted into. Not that they were totally alone.
My BIL and sister wanted a Cougar XR7 in 1974 when the Cougar “split-off” from the (then) Mustang II. They wanted the sportiness of the Mustang but in a slightly larger package. They did go home, however, in a Mustang II equipped almost exactly like their “dream” Cougar because the gas “crisis” scared them into a more economical car.
The success of the Mustang was built largely by the success of the secretary/librarian models, but nowadays Ford has turned it’s back on those lower-priced, V6 models and instead is trying to push…very hard, the Ecoboost and V8 models. Seems to be working, though.
As I’ve posted on here before, my Pop was an early Mustang buyer, getting one (Sunlight Yellow 289 Hardtop) in late Summer of ’64. Though the arrival of the car pre-dated me and I don’t remember it at all, the Mustang made a huge impression on my family. Pop absolutely loved the car, as did my older siblings and my mother. Even though our “family car” at the time was a big Buick sedan, the Mustang was the one everyone wanted to drive and/or ride in. According to my brother and sister, I “ruined things” because after my arrival, my parents mostly used the Buick in order to tote “the baby.”
My mother still loves to tell how when Pop first took delivery of the Mustang, the family piled in and drove all over New Orleans. She said it was like being in a Mardi Gras parade–people were smiling and waving and shouting (nice things, not obscenities). She recounts it as an automotive experience unlike any other–an amazing part of the early Mustang Mania. The car really connected with Americans from all walks of life, and was a wonderful unifier for a brief period of time, which is a pretty amazing feat.
Heh, the gold Mustang in the old picture with the two boys must have been owned by someone aspiring for a Camaro SS with the bumblebee stripe 🙂
The 65-66 coupes never quite got followed up right, by 67 it seemed the stylists began to favor the much less practical fastback bodystyle and the coupe gradually went from carryover(1967) to plain afterthought (1969 and 1971) The original hardtop coupes were a real sweet spot I think, they looked stylish and weren’t wholly impractical. The size was right, trunk opening was actually quite large – they make modern sedans look they have mail slots by comparison – and the greenhouses were airy with good visibility. For an individual that truly rarely has more than two people in their car on any given day, you can see how the Mustang would be such a massive hit. As Muscle car trappings creeped into the pony car segment, sleek aggressive styling was applied to match the punch of hotter engines the Mustang gradually became a bigger cheaper sedan based Corvette, which is exactly what it is today.
I assume when you say ‘bigger’ you mean ‘bigger than the Corvette’ rather than ‘bigger than the previous Mustang:
Wheelbase:
1965: 108″
1971: 108″
1974: 96″
1987: 100″
1993: 101″
2007: 110″
2010: 107″
And they’ve been sedan based since day one: Falcon, Pinto, LTD II…
What I’m saying is the Mustang became a sleek *almost* 2 seater in the vein of the Corvette with each update. Ergo bigger than a Corvette, cheaper than a Corvette and sedan based unlike the Corvette.
Also the Fox Mustang was based on the Fairmont platform, the LTD II was based on the body on frame 72 vintage Torino platform. Unless you mean the 83-86 Fox platform LTD(not II)?
That makes sense, and I can now see how you were writing that in your Corvette comparison. Would you say that is a post-Fox body development, or earlier that it was more in the vein of a Corvette?
And mea culpa on confusing the LTDII vs the Fox LTD. I could have sworn the latter was the LTDII. Maybe I meant Grenada?
Referring specifically to the first generation, each update, 67-69-71, emphasized sleekness for on the fastback bodystyle, which gradually compromised even the hardtop coupe’s practicality.
Post-Fox definitely as well though, I think Ford only bothers putting a back seat in there for insurance purposes.
The Granada (and it’s siblings) are more related to the first Mustang as they were both Falcon based. (So was the Maverick and Comet).
The sedan platform Mustang “genealogy” went from Falcon to Pinto to Fox in order. The Mustang was always based on whatever was considered Ford’s compact, or in the case of Mustang II, subcompact platform. This got skewed when the “Fox” went from being considered a compact to being considered a mid size platform. In the 80s Mustang and Thunderbird shared a platform (Fox). That never would’ve happened in the 1960s on 70s.
Seeing the original one at the World’s Fair in 1st grade led me on to own 5 of them, 64 ragtop, 67 GT, 70 Mach, 86 GT, 90GT ragtop. You’re welcome, Mr Iacocca.
Another thing that occurs to me about the original Mustang phenomenon was its geographic breadth. The car was cool from coast-to-coast, as desirable in California as in Michigan, hip in Manhattan New York and in Manhattan Kansas, big in Texas and big in Rhode Island. The Mustang resonated everywhere: small towns, big cities, North, South, East, West. I can’t think of any modern vehicle that comes close to that sort of broad-based iconic appeal. Some best sellers of today, like the F-Series, skew to rural/suburban/Southern/Western audiences, while more recent “cultural” phenomenons like Mini, Prius and Tesla are most popular in trendy cities and suburbs. I suppose appliance cars like the Camry are ubiquitous everywhere, but totally forgettable. Just reinforces the incredible impact of these first Mustangs…
Perfect proportions.
When I was small some neighbors had a purple ’66 Mustang. I can’t remember a time when I didn’t just love the original Mustang. But I got to ride in the back seat of that ’66 many, many times — and even from about age five I didn’t enjoy the experience. It was cramped back there, and riding on “the hump” was bone-jarring. I longed to get shotgun; alas, it never happened.
My uncle Jack bought an ’80 Mustang new. Its back seat still wasn’t fabulous, but even though I was a lot bigger by then I remember it being a better place to be than the ’66’s back seat.
when I was a young driver the first Mustang was the 57 chevy of our time
what I mean is everybody loved mustangs just like 57 chevies which means that
they always cost too much used that’s why didn’t buy one You know a falcon
sprint was a sweetie But it wasn’t a mustang You told your coworkers you bought
a mustang! whoop de doo You told them you bought a falcon they would yawn
in your face
I was a Chevy guy in the 70’s when 60’s Mustangs still seemed to be on every block.
I STILL remember the excitement when they came out, though, even though I was only 8 in 1964. It must have been the print advertising, because we didn’t have a TV in the house then.
I miss my well-used ’67 Cougar. I sold it way too cheap in the late 70’s-early 80’s, and it didn’t have anything majorly wrong with it (I thought it did).
If I could find another with the manual 3 or 4-speed transmission in decent shape, I’d pick it up.
Fantastic CC find of a Mustang, Paul. Ford never bettered the look of the original generation, IMO. Coupe, convert or fastback, it was just *right*. This coupe, in Wimbledon White with later Magnums and perfect stance, is dead-on perfect (aside from the cheesy rub strips and center console). Would’ve stopped me in my tracks, too, and for more than just a few minutes. Thanks!
Thanks for a realistic perspective on this car that may seem surprising to younger readers. Though we never had one nor even knew anyone who did in the ’60’s (my friends only started getting them when we reached driving age in the early and mid-70’s by which time used ones were cheap and plentiful), my childhood recollections were indeed that they were everywhere, very quickly after launch, and visibly so, since they looked so different from anything else (whether VW Beetle or Galaxy) on the road at the time.
no mustangs in my fam history. am I seeing things? cup holders in an oem center console in 60s?
It’s an add-on.
DAMN fine looking car! I was 15 when they first came out,always liked the coupes,NEVER the fastbacks.
If I hadn’t bought my ’90 Miata….
Agreed! ?I’ve always liked the notchback coupe better. Hell, The notchback styling even helped the Mustang II look better (more like a Mustang..) than the overused fastback form.
Disagree… these days (2023) the ’60s fastbacks are the ones in most demand by far, and they sell for more than converts.
Parents would never let their kids ride in a car like that today.
When I was a kid (late ’70s-early ’80s) many friends and neighbors’ families had 2-door cars, many as the primary family car. Next-door neighbors had 2 kids; dad drove a Buick Century colonnade. Mom a late ’60s full-size Pontiac 2-door. My buddy’s parents had a 1975 Eldorado. There were thee kids in that family. Another friend’s dad had a Lincoln 2-door Town Car as a company car; the only car in a family with three kids. I saw many classmates being dropped of at my elementary school in Cutlasses, Monte Carlos, Cordobas, T-Birds, even a black and gold Trans Am.
My parents owned several 2-door cars over the years (’67 Cougar, a couple of VW Beetles, a Vega) and there were two of us kids. My dad would often alternate between 2-door, 4-door and sometimes even a wagon, I once asked him about this and he said it was not a conscious decision.
Now most two-door cars are sales poison.
I wonder if the issue with a CC on icons like the original Mustang (and the recent CC on the sales leader ’57 Chevy sedan) is that their very proliferation means there is a wealth of information online to find out virtually anything one could want. This makes it a bit more difficult to find an interesting slant to the story.
There’s nothing wrong with articles on popular, classic cars, but CC seems to be at its best when the much more rare ‘unicorns’ are featured.
My parents bought a used 67 coupe in 1970 and I remember spending a lot of time in that back seat, It was fine for my brother and I. I remember 2 trips well, a drive to Detroit to see The Henry Ford and a week camping near Indianapolis. We rented a folding hard top trailer and my dad installed a hitch. Anyone following us could see nothing of what was towing the trailer, folks thought it very funny.
As a grown up I have looked at lots of Mustang coupes and really there is more room than my 2015 Mustang–I had a 2001 Mustang that my kids didn’t mind sitting in the back but no one will sit in the back of the 15. I went back there to clean the window and there is no way an adult could get in.
The Mustang is an iconic vehicle during my lifetime. It has left a mark across global cultures. It could be one of the most recognized automobiles around, along with the Beetle and the Toyota Pick up. So commenting on it is like commenting on one of the major saints in a church. Proof? What I’ve read going through the 2017 postings above often sounds like how witnesses experienced miracles they attributed to St. Mother Cabrini.
It was THE car of the Silent generation who first bought them, as Boomers were too young to cough up enough dough to buy those millions. It was the car for the Swinging Sixties, the soon-to-be-empty nesters. It was the car for the white boy rockers from Britain who kept teen radio from becoming darker. It played the soundtrack made by The Wrecking Crew – musicians hidden anonymously behind nearly every California pop group hit.
I grew up in my Grandma’s church, which started in her basement and included shockingly, African American and Hispanic families. My beloved babysitter was Myrtle, a high schooler who after graduation, worked at the Ford Stamping plant in East Chicago Heights. Myrtle went to a Bears game, where she won the Grand Prize – a new 1966 Ford Mustang. Everyone at Grandma’s church talked about Myrtle’s Mustang for the entire time she had it. She wasn’t just a beloved baby sitter and Sunday School teacher – she won a Mustang. Obviously, she pleased God. It was a glorious black color – just like Myrtle herself.
So to me, the Mustang was downright holy.
My older brother restores Mopars. But he restored a black 1969 Mustang fastback with all the performance bells and whistles on it. After restoration, he sold it to bring his young family to Colorado. So to me in this case, the Mustang was like a sacrificial lamb to bring my family to St. Mother Cabrini’s Shrine on Lookout Mountain Colorado itself.
The Mustang is an iconic car. For some of us, it is even bigger than that.
> It played the soundtrack made by The Wrecking Crew – musicians hidden anonymously behind nearly every California pop group hit.
I can often pick out Carol Kaye’s distinctive plucked electric bass and Hal Blaine’s drums. But yes, they were all over ’60s and ’70s California pop (and deservedly so). The other great yet anonymous backing band of that era was the Funk Brothers, heard on nearly every Motown hit.
I think a big reason why modern Mustangs don’t sell like the old ones is because they have become high-performance cars that appeal to muscle-car fans only, rather than just using the hi-po versions as image-builders for rank-and-file Mustangs. Most of the 1960s Mustangs were not Boss 302s or Mach 1s or 389s. In 1974 there were no V8’s at all yet they still sold 385,993 Mustangs IIs. In 1979, the first year of the Fox body and almost 15 years after it debuted, 369,936 Mustangs still found homes. Again, many of these had a four or six cylinder engine and were not even close to being muscle cars. And Mustangs still had the cost-savings advantage of sharing a high-production platform with other Fords, Mercurys, and now Lincolns too. The current Mustang coupe is a niche vehicle that doesn’t share a platform with anything and doesn’t have any low-priced models to help inflate sales figures.
What if the proposed 4-door Mustang was turned into a Lincoln with Euro-vibes? It would have been easy to put a Lincoln front/rear cap, coach doors and convertible sedan treatment.
Great Beatles comparison, I feel the same way. While maybe the greatest ever, 50+ years of hearing them have sort of blunted their impact.
The Mustang was likely the greatest auto marketing phenomenon, done on the cheap, ever in the industry, propelled by brilliant styling then priced in range of anyone with credit. While the option list did make possible a pretty good facsimile of a sports car, of course the primitive suspension precluded it being the real thing, but the Hi-Po 289 and right tweaks made for a fun drive for anyone but those who felt a Porsche or other hair-shirt “pure” sports car was required.
In Dec 1970 we had come down to a choice between a ’67 Volvo 122s or a Flame red ’65 Mustang 2+2 289 auto for a car for wife’s first job, post college. We went with the 122, as time proved it was the right choice after 10 yrs of service, but the ‘Stang was my heart’s first choice, for sure!
We just got back from a week-long camping road trip that included a few ill-advised days in Death Valley and the Mojave desert. 105°F in Death Valley at 4PM and only a few degrees cooler in the Mojave a few hours later. But in those few days I saw a lot of Mustangs. Current generation of course, mostly convertibles with their tops down in the blazing sun, almost certainly rentals being driven by European tourists. I wonder what percentage of current Mustangs are sold to rental fleets; I bet for the convertibles it could be north of 50%. By the way, the other common rental I saw in droves was the Charger.
Truth. Many if not most converts are v6 previous rentals sold on the used market at 1 or 2 yrs old. Our Torch Red ’07 v6 convert is just such a car, bought used and now up to 64k miles at 16 years old, always garaged, never driven in rain or snow and still looking nearly new. The German-designed sohc v6 is a marvel, economical yet still faster to 60 than the original Hi-Po 289.
Did Ford do a repeat of the Mustang’s incredible success with the Explorer in the ’90s? The Mustang ushered in an over 20 year love affair with impractical two door sporty cars like the Explorer did with SUVs and CUVs. Like in the past, today’s crossover craze is more about image than practicality. People rag on Ford but a few times they really did have a bright idea and managed to put it on wheels.
I’ve said before that I wasn’t a fan of the Mustang when it was introduced. The first time I saw one up close I remember a sinking feeling in my stomach, as it suddenly seemed clear that it was actually a very generic Ford product pretending to be a sports car.
It felt like betrayal. I think The Who song ‘Won’t Get Fooled Again’ came out a few years later. But of course they were English, so it probably wasn’t about the Mustang.
But these pics demonstrate how timeless the design has turned out to be. I hereby eat all my words.
The original Mustang wasn’t a hard edged competitor to a 327 Corvette? Uh, I think most buyers knew that, at the very least in stock form. But for short coin they could get a cool, sporty looking car that in pre car seat days they could shoehorn a couple of kids into the back of, and have it look good in the driveway, way cooler than a slightly less expensive Falcon.
They were built to be a cheap, disposable car, except everyone liked the styling so well they became a legend.
I was 10 when the Mustang came out, it was my second favorite car, unfortunately my favorite is, and still is a Ford GT, any vintage, I’d even grab one of the better kit cars. I was 19 when I got my first pony car, a 68 Cougar, 428 Cobra Jet. I wanted a Mustang but couldn’t find a decent one, Minnesota winters are not kind to cars. Didn’t get my First Mustang until 2008. Bought a new 2008 GT Premium, 4.6L automatic Vista Blue. Very nice car, lacked a bit in the power dept. The automatic was for the wife so she could drive it. Later on she stopped driving it, she wasn’t very good at modulating the throttle, its too fast. OK, should have kept it for a cruiser but, a 2012 Boss 302 was calling.
The sales success of the Mustang was phenomenal also because it wasn’t a jack of all trades vehicle.
Take the current F series, three different cabs, three different boxes, 150, 250, 350, 450, diesel, gas, elec, fleet sales, work vehicle for all the trades, versatile 5-6 passenger capacity and room for all their baggage, pickups are the towing vehicle for darn near every RV trailer out there.
A Mustang wouldn’t work for any of these jobs yet they sold like crazy.
So what that they were based on the “lowly” Falcon chassis, it was a home run. That chassis seem to work just fine under Shelby’s GT350 with only minor modifications that could be easily be done in your own garage. That’s like calling the 1st gen Corvette junk because its basically a fiberglass tub sitting on a ’52 Chevy chassis. It was a widely used chassis, it wasn’t perfect. I do hate shock/strut towers. You could rag on about truck chassis’, they are all basically the same.
I just wanted to put in my two cents about early Mustang advertising. Some of it stressed the performance aspects, but a whole lot was fun and whimsical, aimed at men and women, younger and older. As a kid I knew this was all cartoonish fun, but I sure thought of it as savvy “Mustang is for everyone/anyone” marketing:
Living in San Francisco, not many Mustangs wandering the streets, a Grande here, a Mach I there… I saw a first generation notchback recently and noticed just how small it appeared next to the SUV, CUV, crossover, and compensator pick ups that make up traffic. Having spent time in that same generation Mustang in high school, it was striking to see how it had shrunk versus automobile inflation and their inflated owners. Personally I would have loved to have seen a greenhouse with good visibility, rather than the long hood short rear deck style, but that is just me…