I seem to be stumbling upon 1971-73 Mustangs lately, and found this one Sunday afternoon, not ten feet from the ’78 Town Coupe. While this particular Mustang needs just about everything, it does show off the cool tunneled rear window that was a feature of the 2-door hardtops.
When the new, larger 1971 Mustang came out, the Hardtop, Fastback and Convertible returned, as had been the case with the prior two generations.
The Fastback traded sportiness for limited rear visibility. Yes, it had a large backlight, but when backing up in one of these, the area you could see out of was about the same as looking out of a mail slot. My uncle can testify to that rear window’s uselessness, as his first car was a base-model blue ’71 Fastback. A classic case of form over function.
The hardtop came in standard trim and a luxury Grande version, complete with whitewalls, vinyl roof, fancier interior and extra sound insulation. That cool rear window recalled the 1968 Charger and 1966-67 GM A-body two-door hardtops, and with the Grande package, you basically had a 3/4 scale Thunderbird. Quite a departure from the high-octane Boss 351 that was available the same year.
Ford’s pony car was considerably different from its original compact 1965-66 iteration during the 1971-73 period, and in 1974, Mustang fans would have to deal with the Mustang II for a while. But all was not lost, for the Fox-body Mustang was waiting in the wings. It would be worth the wait.
I really hated these fat turds.
I always thought of the backlight on the Sportsroof as a rear seat sunroof. The Grande and coupe never lit my fire. They looked truncated somehow.
Unlike most I love the 71-73 Sportsroof Mustangs. Dress it up in Mach1 or Boss livery and it’s a tough looking machine. I still vaguely remember my dad’s Mach 1. He sold it around 76 to buy something a little more family oriented, we ended up with a 76 LTD with a 400.
These seemed to be going the fat Chunderbird route back in the day and pretty well marked the end of interest in US performance cars for many of us here better looking cars were being made locally.
They weren’t as “big” as people seem to think.
Compare a 71-73 Mustang to the vaunted 73-76 Falcon XB
Mustang
Height 50.1″
Length 189.5″
Width 74.1″
Wheelbase 109″
Weight 3560lbs (351 CJ)
XB Falcon
Height 51.9″
Length 189.3″
Width 77.5″
Wheelbase 111″
Weight 3500lbs (351 Cleveland)
The Falcon is a good looking car but it aped all of it’s interesting features from the Mustang.
I’m sorry, there’s more than a passing resemblance here..
1965 Mustang for comparison (change to 71 in brackets)
Height 51.2″ (-1.1″)
Length 181.6″ (+7.9″)
Width 68.2″ (+5.9″)
Wheelbase 108″ (+1″)
Weight 2700lb (289) (+860lb)
The increase is basically the next market segment up, if they could have capped it at the 67-68 levels I think it would have been better.
The Falcon hardtop was not a ‘pony car’ of course, being designed to have a proper rear seat and trunk for starters, even if the hardtop compromises both of these.
For kicks, the 2013 Mustang
Height 55.8″
Length 188.1″
Width 73.9″
Wheelbase 107.1″
Weight 3603lb (GT manual)
The trend was upward and onward by 67 with almost every car on the drawing board for the 70+ models.
If you want to go apples to apples, the 70 Camaro carried almost the same dimensions as the 71 Mustang.
70 Camaro
Length 188
Width 74.4
Height 50
Weight 3313 (402)
But somehow the Camaro/Firebird seemed to wear it so much better. It was the styling.
It wasnt Fords i was thinking of but john has pretty much answered the question the Mustang had outgrown its segment. In NZ the Valiant Charger ruled the tracks and the roads and it was not a big car in OZ the GTHO was the car to have the Falcon coupe had the looks but not the pace cache
Fair call
Valiant Charger
Height 54.5
Length 179.7
Width 74.2
Wheelbase 105
Weight 3030lb (3230 V8)
Note the 6cyl could be had as a triple Weber 265ci with 302hp
Sean – I was discussing it in a historical sense, much like the Mustang II a few weeks back. I wonder perhaps if it didn’t get so big, perhaps they wouldn’t have cut so far? Not that it matters now, but it would be interesting to see if there have been more recent interviews with Ford people discussing the decision process and what alternatives they looked at.
Well, in OZ, the Falcon was a full-size family car. The initial Falcon GTs were all four-door sedans, and even a lot of racers had four-doors.
I love these things. Awesome design. Looks super fast and super tough, like the Lincoln Mark VII later. I think my non-car guy upbringing had a lot to do with my taste in cars not being influenced by the typical favorites. I never got stuck on the original 65-69 ponies, and never drove any Mustang, so the 70’s fatness was never a factor to me.
Same here. I wasn’t around to witness these cars new to see how off track they were from the original concept, only hindsight. They were just rare childhood encounters at car shows that looked exotic compared to the typical favorites as you put it.
Although one thing I do remember about growing up is that I didn’t identify the 71-73s as Mustangs initially. I had to dig through magazines and books to figure out what they were. A particularly damning aspect to this generation since Mustangs are typically easy to identify. Even the Foxbodies with their lack of typical identifiers (C scoops/sculpting, taillight design, ect.) immediately “look” like Mustangs to me. The size, proportions and layout have always been distinctly “Mustang” and I think the 71-73s were just different enough to not look right for the name(but still look great on their own IMO).
This is also the only generation of Mustang I didn’t like the coupe version of either(maybe the 69/70 too but to lesser extent). I can’t stand the flying buttress concept on these. It makes the body look much more bulky than it is and reduces visibility (to much lesser extent of course) like the fastback does but in a much less attractive manner.
Another dissenter here: I think the 71-73 coupes look great and even though I can understand how some might view the sportsroof as “fat”, I’m fairly certain that the dimensions were not all that different from the GM F-bodies of the same era.
I’d love to get my hands on a 71-73 sportsroof and Bullittize it.
Like if Bullit had been filmed 4-5 years later?, get a matchng whale sized early 70’s Charger to match.
Aside from the unloved Mustang II that came immediately after, the ’71-’73 is the object of the greatest Mustang aficionado scorn and derision. Yeah, it’s aircraft carrier size, but relative to the day’s competitors, it wasn’t so bad, although some sales were surely lost to the better executed GM f-bodies. But compared with Chrysler’s E-bodies and the AMC Javelin, the biggest Mustang ever built was okay.
In fact, the worst of the period may go to the Mustang’s sister of the same timeframe, the now-bloated Cougar. Considering the direction Ford took that car in 1974 (making it a full-fledged intermediate in the land-barge T-Bird class), the Mustang came out relatively well.
Beside the ’69 Thunderbird with the tacked-on beak (to make it look like a Pontiac), the ’71-’73 is Semon E. ‘Bunkie’ Knudson’s most remembered folly during his short tenure as Ford president. He just had to have a Mustang large enough for the biggest Ford engines. Too bad that version (the ’71 Boss 429) would only last one year.
A good friend of mine answered an ad in the local paper for a ’71 Mustang 302′ about fifteen years ago.
No price, no phone number, just an address in a town 120 kms away.
Turns out it was a genuine ’70 Boss 302 for $7000 in unmolested original condition. He still has it and has refused six figure offers.
I used to really hate these… looking at them now, I think I’ve softened on them a little bit over the years – but I still don’t “understand” them at all. It’s not the size (perceived or real) that bugs me, it’s something about the proportions that I can’t exactly put my finger on. Front overhang, perhaps? IMO, it’d look a lot better if that nose ended about a quarter length closer to the front wheel wells. From a quick glance, it looks like the ’69-’70 Mustangs were about the same, but it worked better with the dramatic taper on the fenders. With these ones, there’s less taper on the sides and a lot more downward slope on the hood… to me it looks “pinched” shut and awkward.
I’m not a fan of the inboard turn signals on the grille either. The simpler grille with the smaller units mounted below the bumper (believe these were only on the base models) looks a lot better to my eye – though in general I think all these grilles were pretty weak.
Maybe it’s just that the ’65-’70 Mustangs were such good looking cars and these are kinda unremarkable in comparison? I dunno.
“Front overhang, perhaps?”
Bingo. It really needed more wheelbase to visually support the long hood. The car looks ok from back and side, but there’s a Dustbuster quality to the gaping front end.
It is the high beltline that bugs me about these cars. I never drove one but rode in a couple, and the beltline was up by my shoulder.
As an early Mustang guy, I used to dislike these ’71-73 ‘Stangs, but have grown to like them more in recent years. IMO, the exterior has aged pretty well, and the Mach 1 and Boss 351 still look great in almost any color combo. I especially like the Grabber Blue/Argent paint scheme.
Never liked the interiors, though… another example of form over function, it took the worst elements of the ’69-’70 interiors and made them, well, worse.
Performance wise, the ’71 Boss 351, among the last of the high-compression V8 muscle cars, was the pinnacle of 60s-70s Mustang performance. Hugely under-rated at 330HP, they look great and combine big-block acceleration (low 13 sec 1/4 mile from the factory) with good handling. Although, I wouldn’t refuse a 429 SCJ Mach 1, either.
In any case, these cars were still born in that they came out at the end of the Detroit muscle car glory days and never received the refinement and racing pedigree that the earlier Boss cars received from the factory. They slipped into malaise-era oblivion starting in ’72 with the drastic reduction in compression ratios and resulting horsepower.
Although prices seems to have increased in the last few years, Boss 351s and 429 CJ/SCJ Machs are still good buys compared to Boss 2s and 9s in comparable condition.
Most reviews seem to agree that the Boss 351 was one of Ford’s best performance engines (for the street, anyway). It’s a pity it was only available for one year (1971), and then surrounded by the biggest, heaviest Mustang.
That engine, alone, would probably be reason enough to put up with the big Mustang’s flaws.
I never minded these at all. I actually preferred the 71-73 sportsroofs as a kid to almost all of the “classic” Mustangs. Plus I like the departure from the traditional Mustang look. Especially now that the 1965-1968 styling has basically been rehashed for the last 8 years. Do they handle great? No. But really, neither do any early Mustangs by today’s standards. Hell today’s Mustang weighs more and is bigger than a 71-73.
My roommate in university had one of these, in slightly better condition. His father owned a body shop and the ’73 Mustang hardtop was received as payment for work on the former owner’s other car.
It had a 302 and a pretty nice interior, but the body was shot. I don’t know if he ever got it road-legal or not, but man, did it sound nice without mufflers.
It was a vast improvement over the 1st-gen Tempo he was driving at the time.
I like these better now than I did then. Actually, I kind of like the looks. My biggest problems were the cave-like interior made of Ford patented cracking plastic, and the fact that these were some of the biggest rustbuckets ever made.
Sometimes I wonder if Bunkie Knudson’s real mission was as a GM mole to sabotage Ford. He was quite effective before HFII caught on and fired him.
These things were awful in every single way. Now why did I pretty much hate almost everything Ford made again? Oh yeah…those…things…
I love Fords, but for some reason, perhaps it is some kind birth defect, I don’t like the earlier Mustangs that much, however I do like the 71 Fastback. Perhaps I have been watching too much of the original Gone In 60 Seconds and Diamonds are Forever and not enough Bullit. Mustang II, forget about it. Early Fox Mustangs with the rectangular headlights, cool. Like the new retro ones though, which is weird, because they are styled off the originals that I am not so crazy about. At the end of the day I think a really good 1985 Fox 5.0 Liter GT might be the go, like our local Aussie hero Dick Johnson used to race …..
“Like the new retro ones though, which is weird, because they are styled off the originals that I am not so crazy about.”
That may be so, but the first time I saw a MY2005 Mustang, my thoughts were that it was a “best-of” design. It looked to me like they’d tried to incorporate every notable design cue they could from earlier generations of Mustang. Then with the 2010 facelift, the back end started to look less like earlier Mustangs and more like the 1971-73.
The MY2005 nailed it, as far as I was concerned. When they first came out though, the lack of the hipped side profile over the rear wheels annoyed me.
That thought changed when the current model came out – now it looks like a 1970 model on steroids. Too many odd chamfered corners and such. The earlier ones look so clean, linear and sleek now. Shoulda kept what they had.
My favorite classic Mustang remains the 1967/68 models.
Always loved the look of the ’71-’73 fastbacks. I’ll never forget the disappointment of my first ride in one though — the tiny, cramped, super cheap interiors just ruined the whole thing.
Saw a movie years ago starring Steven Segal, in which his character drives one of these (hardtop,not fastback IIRC) — a couple of scenes of him exiting the car while trying not to look like a contortionist are pretty amusing to watch. 🙂
So many look back and say “Why didn’t Ford keep the 65 body all along?”. In reality, ‘annual styling change’ was the rule in Detroit, and nothing stayed the same or else.
Ford wanted to counter the upcoming all new 1970 Camaro and Cuda, and no one had a crystal ball to see OPEC and all in 1968.
The 71-73 cars are not as derided by true Mustang fans, they are part of the original National Mustang Association and same Falcon roots too.
Ford was taking the same approach as Mopar: taking their Pony cars from a compact chassis (Falcon/Valiant) to intermediate (Charger/Torino). Why? Costs of course.
And Big Block engines! Til OPEC everything was “Bigger is Better” The 429 CJ wouldn’t fit, and the 428 was on it’s way out. Of course that ended up being a 1 year only engine. But imagine if OPEC hadn’t happened and 429/460 had developed (as seen in the crate motors now).
I had hoped Ford would make a Maverick Grabber/Comet GT with the Hi-Po 302/351s since the Mustang and Cougar had moved up. (Hello! Nova SS 350) Alas that never happened -(
Someone mentioned the cheap interiors. Standard, they were….down to the two spoke Pinto steering wheel. But “cheap chic” ala Road Runner was OK to most budget performance buyers. But the Grande, Mach1 and Deluxe interiors were nice. You could even get Power Windows in a Mustang now.
OPEC had nothing to do with it. The big block was dropped in 1972, which would be the autumn of ’71, the first oil crisis was October ’73, 2 full years later.
The real reasons were more likely a combination of factors. Insurance, emissions and the withering market for these types of cars all conspired in this. Only 1865 cars out of 151,484 total 1971s (.012 percent) had the 429. Similar goings on at camp Mopar (no big block E-bodies after ’71) and camp Chevy (1972 last year for 402 Rat).
Yes of course. Duh. In 1974 I had a 71 Demon 340, in 1975 I had a 74 Mustang II Ghia V6, so I was there LOL
Performance cars in recent years has eclipsed the halcyon days of yore. But insurance hasn’t been that much of an issue. How did the insurance companies get to exert so much clout with expensive rates back then? My next door neighbor had a used 71 Corvette and paid $1000 a year for insurance in 1973…that’s about 25% of the car’s value! (new 71 Vette was $5496). Today, Imagine paying $10,000 yearly insurance on a 2012 $40,000 BOSS 302.
Speaking of Mustangs, in High School (grad 74) one friend had a black 69 Mach1 (351/auto) and another friend had a new 73 Mach1 that his dad bought for him, a 302 in a brown/bronze color.
Didn’t Mary Richards drive one of these hardtops on The Mary Tyler Moore Show back in the ’70s?
@Btrig-
The movie you’re referring to is “Marked For Death”. In it, Seagal runs afoul of some Jamaican gangsters. Seagal escapes unscathed, the car gets written off 🙁 .
A grey-market 5 or 7 series BMW also gets trashed.
I’ll be the white trash sector today. The Mustang II hatchback was a huge improvement in handling and maneuverability.
/no, I’m not trolling.
Of all the older Mustangs, I’ve always liked the ’67-’68 bodies, especially the fastback variants, the ’69 and 70 were iterations of the 67-68 models, just with different treatment in the very back panel area where the taillights were.
The 67-68’s had the curved taillights to mimic the center panel, the ’69 had the curved panel, but with larger taillight lens that poked through to create a flat lens surface, the 70’s went back to a flat panel, but with even larger taillights, but they ALL mimicked the original in shape and design.
The next best would be the 71-73 ‘Stangs, with the ’71 being my fave of the 3.
The early Fox body mustangs would be third and then the 05 to present Mustangs
But then again, I was in kindergarten when the 71 Mustang made its debut most likely so I grew up with these though I didn’t know anyone who had one until HS when a fella at my school, I think a year behind had a brown convert, forget which year though of these large mustangs and this was in the early 80’s.
I have to agree, the outsides, while nice in their bigger way, the interiors, not so much. The Boss and Grande Interiors were better, but still it’s that dash that I think didn’t belong.
Still though, these were emblematic of the times that was the early 70’s and if they played into the stylistic ethos of the early 70’s, then they did that well and there is something to be said for some of the stylistic choices of that period.
Add me to the small (but dedicated!) group that really like the ’71-’73 Mustang – and especially in fastback form. One of our nearby neighbours in my small (population 3,000) hometown had a silver Mach 1 – it really stood out in rural New Zealand in the early 80s, and I loved it. Our house was on the town boundary right where the speed limit changed from 50 km/h to 100 km/h, so I’d often sit in the lounge watching and listening to cool cars accelerate. And in 1982 when I was 8, nothing was cooler (or louder!) than that Mach 1! I like the ’65-’70 Mustangs too, but the ’71-’73 was the epitome of muscle car style/size/sound to me. The Mustang II was a travesty by comparison…
You remind me that when I was in high school, a friend from down the street bought a 71 Mach 1 (I believe) fastback. It had had rust repaired and was repainted when he got it, and was dark green with that green interior the color of radioactive bile. I think his was a 351/automatic. I sort of liked it, but at the time (late 1970s) my interest level in most cars cut off around 1967-68, so I didn’t get all that familiar with it. I would like it a lot more now than I did then.
Never saw too many of the 1971-73 hardtop Mustang, and also never cared for the looks of them that much. The fastback is a whole different story. I turned 16 in the fall of 1970 when the ’71’s came out. I was really taken – you might even say smitten – with the looks of the 1971-73 fastback Mustangs. Someone only a few houses away had a brand-new 1971 Mach 1 in blue with the argent stripes. Really, really liked that. Then, in 1973, a classmate was lucky enough to be given a new, red Mach 1, which I also really liked. Have never ridden in one, though.
My other favorite Mustang was the 1967-68 fastbacks. And, of course any of the Shelby Mustangs.
I wanted a Mustang and when I was in high school, these were new. And our local Ford dealer was a family friend. So I was able to get a test drive. Cured me. A mess of a car. Wrong in so many ways.
You could make up a car name, say the Ford Fakemobile, and someone would say “they test drove a Fakemobile and they were junk”….”crappy interiors” blah blah blah.
……all that equals is “I don’t like the car, so I’ll act like I drove one before and put it down”.
My complaint about these is that they always seem to sit nose-high. I don’t know if the rear-springs collapse with time or if it’s the styling, but I never liked it.
I always like the Blue Max funny car of this vintage Mustang:
http://public.fotki.com/434499/drag-racing/funny-car-reference/bluemax74.html