posted at the CC cohort by Thomas Jarvis
The 1971 – 1973 Mustang is one of those polarizing cars; love it, or don’t. It’s a bit easier to find the love for a cherry red 429 Mach 1 or a Boss 351. But when it comes to a rusty base Mustang, even a Sports Roof fastback, it can get a wee bit harder. The Mustang’s golden days were well over, in more ways than one. Ford VP of design Gene Bordinat admitted: “We started out with a secretary’s car and all of a sudden we had a behemoth”. So it was back to a secretary’s car for the 1974 Mustang II.
But how many original dented and rusty ’73 Mustangs are still left roaming the wild plains of the West, Colorado in this case? This was once someone’s pride and joy, and even if those qualities may now be a bit less conspicuous, this faithful Mustang undoubtedly still has its owner’s devotion as well as his butt in the saddle.
This would have been hot stuff in the high school parking lot in the mid-late ’70s, or even the ’80s. When I see low-budget old pony or muscle cars in this kind of condition, I can’t help but wonder what their story is. If only they could talk, or their owners were around. Have they owned it since it was an affordable first used car in 1979 and then stopped driving it regularly when the kids came along? And now money is a bit tight for a proper redo? Or more likely a kid is driving it, having bought it from that very guy? Or?
A closer look reveals a shattered windshield. Hmm. Maybe this Mustang and its owner live a bit on the edge?
Old Paint is rusting, and in a way that I’m not so familiar with. That’s not just patina.
In case you’re not familiar with it, I Ride An Old Paint is a traditional cowboy song.
What little rearward visibility there is from the inside is even more compromised by the spoiler. If it were a 429 or Boss 351, it wouldn’t matter much, as one could mostly just leave the world behind.
I tried to do that, back in 1971 when I was a car jockey at Towson Ford and had to drive the owner’s son’s new hot Mach1 out to the body shop via a narrow twisting country road laid out in the 18th century. But reality kept encroaching; I was all of seventeen and didn’t know how to make that big stallion behave on that road. It charged and snorted in the straights but it was all I could do to hang on in the tight curves. But you’ve heard that story once too often.
I ride an old paint
I lead an old dam
I’m going to Montana
To throw a hoolihan
They feed in the coolies
They water in the draw
Their tails are all matted
Their backs are all raw
Related CC reading:
Curbside Classic: 1973 Mustang – No Apologies Necessary by PN
Curbside Classic: 1971-73 Ford Mustang Grandé – A Missed Opportunity? by W. Stopford
Curbside Classic: 1971 Ford Mustang Grande – Como Se Dice Brougham? by T. Klockau
These are an acquired taste, there was a lot of complaints about them when they were new. Then the Mustang II arrived and there was even more complaining!
Looking back as a Mustang fan I can see how Ford arrived here. There are a lot of late ’60’s Shelby-esque styling cues in the front end and the roof line profile hints at the GT40. Then the car was widened to make it easier to fit the big block engines under the hood.
Most detractors say that the car is too big, though it’s about the same size as a ’70-80 GM F body. If you see one at a car show, parked next to a 2005 or newer Mustang, it looks quite diminutive in comparison. I would love a ’71-’73 Mach One, I’d improve the suspension a bit and add some modern wheels and tires. And a back up camera of course!
Weird how the paint is lifting on the roof, looks a bit like the way bridge paint comes away from old iron but on a larger scale. I get the feeling it definitely has a checkered past and possibly present. Maybe that’s just me. Can you actually see anything out of the back window at all?
I wonder if the roof was repainted with an incompatible paint/primer combination.
I really did not like these growing up but my opinion has softened. I still likely would not buy one myself but certainly treat to see a survivor.
Possibly, but I think most likely they didn’t sand or barely sanded the roof. It’s kinda hard to reach, and Earl Scheib would just do the bare minimum. My dad has an Early Scheib painted 64 Impala that did the same thing just on the roof
Good to see this survivor .
I recently had a similar rusty roof issue and hand sanded it as best I could then used chemicals to kill the rust in the many many pits then I masked it off, primed and painted it, looks okay, they car is a beater much like this one .
I too would enjoy meeting whomever owns it .
-Nate
the top engine option was a 154/156 hp 351.
The top engine option in 1973 was the “Q-code” 351-CJ, rated at 266 net hp. This was actually one of the stronger engines offered by any manufacturer in 1973, and was one of, if not the highest hp/ci for that that year for American V8s. There was no 351 HO in 1971, that was a 1972 only option and was a slightly watered down Boss 351. It was very rare, more so than even a Boss 351. I’d guess the 1971 Mustang you drove was likely a 351-4V M-Code or a early 351-CJ Q-Code.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/engines/the-ford-335-series-engines-it-couldve-been-a-contender-part-2/
Like the Mopar 340, the later, smogged Cleveland 351 gets ragged on due its lesser horsepower versus the initial, screaming Boss versions.
But I would prefer the later, low-compression engine since it meant it would run good on regular gas and be a much more agreeable street car.
Obviously my trusty old Standard Encyclopedia of American cars is incorrect. And the 1973 Mustang brochure doesn’t help either, just referring to a 4V 351.
I will amend the text. It did seem a bit surprising when I read that in the Encyclopedia.
These early seventies ponycars that were enlarged in response to the big-block sixties’ musclecar heyday are definitely lookers, but with about the worst outward visibility, meaning not much fun day-to-day. The Mustang SportsRoof topped the list in that regard, but none of them were as easy to drive as the smaller sixties cars.
The envy of many young, single females in the early seventies, Mary Tyler Moore, started out with a not-too-bad 1970 Mustang Grande, but soon moved to the bigger 1971-73 car. She was tall enough to see out of that one, but I can imagine a lot of shorter-stature young women having quite a bit more trouble.
Count me among the haters. Too bloated for my tastes. I’ve always been under the impression that Mustangs got larger (in part) due to Ford wanting to cram in bigger and bigger engines. It just looks and feels ungainly.
I have come around on these, though more on the Sportsroof than on the coupe.
That non-stock color tells me that this is a repaint, so the poor condition of the finish is less surprising. A lot can go wrong when you paint a car. But the poor paint job is a lot easier to fix than the massive rust holes that affected these in my universe.
“I have come around on these, though more on the Sportsroof than on the coupe.”
Fully agree- The coupe looks like the stylists started with a fastback and removed the back window using an ice cream scoop.
As a third option, the convertible avoids the weird scoop backlight and looks very nice. I’d probably go that direction and maintain some rearward vision.
Count me among those who liked the 71-73 fastback styling. I begged my father to purchase a black-primered ’71 Mach 1 a flew blocks from my house that was for sale for 800 bucks (this was 1988). He could see the Madmax desire in my eyes and gave that a hard pass. Instead I had to be the warrior of the wasteland in a 79 Turbo Mustang. Still cool, but not the same.
Like some others here I’m coming around on these, specifically the fastback. The big problem for me at the time was that these had outgrown (or plain discarded) any pretense to real sportiness or even Mustang-ness. This was a PLC and could have been badged TBird or even Lincoln Mark, with a few styling tweaks.
I like em, but they are angle dependent, which funny enough these pictures capture the best angles, especially the last pic! Other angles the butt looks saggy, the nose too long or just kind of bland(in the sense that it looks like a regular old Ford, rather than a mustang due to its unadorned body sides(something the latest S650 similarly suffers from). Put me in the love camp.., in fact I loved this bodystyle at first sight… but I certainly have grown to notice and acknowledge the bad and never bother to defend them like some cars I’ll die on a hill for. I get it with these. I’ve actually come around liking the sportsroof flat back less and less and find the Convertible to be the most handsome, it takes away the so much of the visual heaviness that comes with the fastbacks and buttressed coupe’s thick pillars and just has a nice sleek coke bottle profile like a first gen Camaro or mopar E body convertible. This red one caught my eye recently
There are some fairly objective pros to these over 65-70 Mustangs; the Saginaw steering box in place of the very rupe goldbergian leaky and numb ram rod setup, and the full steel trunk floor. The structure is in fact the stiffest of the first gen Mustangs with the full array of bracing and torque boxes people often add to early Mustangs during restorations(which was part of the weight gain). And while this is kind of a niche custom car aspect that doesn’t really matter, the wider engine compartment(shock towers) do allow pretty much any engine family to fit without cutting out the towers and converting the whole entire front suspension to aftermarket Mustang II. Even the super wide Modular’s and coyotes fit in these.
Agreed; and yes, that convertible is quite nice. I’m not really in neither camp; I find them to be an interesting period piece now. What made it harder to like them at the time was the new Camaro and Firebird; they were just in a totally different league. It made the Mustang look a bit dated from day 1.
I recall spending a lovely hour at a car show talking to a long time owner/restorer of an awesome ’71 sports roof ram air 351 Cleveland and really looking closely at the car. In the flesh/up close they are not nearly as big as they might seem in pictures. Interior is very sporty and cool. Roofline is shocking – just a few degrees from horizontal. I walked away from that a HUGE fan of the ‘Clydesdale’ Mustang. Would LOVE one. Meanwhile making due with a New Edge ’99 – another design that truly deserves more respect than it gets today – to my perhaps smitten eyeballs anyway.
These always annoyed me. Why bother with a rear window. Just make it steel like a panel wagon and save some weight. I don’t care a lot what my car looks like, as long as I can see out of it. There are some low volume Alfas that have a flat back window, but they are for aerodynamics.
I was always dubious about the rear spoilers in these fastback ‘stangs. Early models were user-adjustable, and I never saw one that was tipped up in the rear, like a conventional spoiler. They were always tipped back level with the trunklid. I didn’t have a wind tunnel to prove it, but it always looked like wing, made to create lift. Was that so?
Rear spoilers on street cars are a pretentious affectation which serve zero useful purpose except (maybe) as a parking aid to determine the rear corners. One of my favorites was the Toyota Tercel ‘Nighthawk’ series.
An exception might have been the 1991-96 Caprice 9C1 police car. IIRC, there was some sort of high-speed handling issue with the rear end where the solution was the addition of a rear spoiler. I have no idea if this actually cured the problem and I’ll be damned if I can find an image of a ‘bubble’ Caprice 9C1 with a factory rear spoiler.
I think this one has sat outdoors during the winter. It has an older poor quality paint job that has adhesion problems. Then you let snow accumulate on it. The snow melts and refreezes as the weather fluctuates allowing the moisture to get under the paint which causes the rust and more lifting. You can see the drip drain trail from the roof down each quarter panel. You also can see the poor adhesion where the right quarter is damaged.
To me these don’t have the appeal as a basic beater as the older one, especially the ’65-’68’s. As Paul alluded they look good when optioned well and are a nice color. I drove a few back in the day and they are about like driving a truck as far as visibility goes except trucks have better mirrors. For me this one is too far gone, but of course it would depend on what’s under the hood and the price. It certainly looks to be savable with lots of TLC.
I love Ronstadt so much, even if I don’t own a copy of “Simple Dreams”. I was not at all expecting that musical tie-in.
This Sportsroof reminds me of the one my mom’s cousin’s son had back in the late-’80s. Though his wasn’t green, the rest of this car seems remarkably similar to Andy’s was back then. My appreciation for this generation of Mustang fastback really took off not that many years ago after having rewatched “Diamonds Are Forever” and the original “Gone In Sixty Seconds”. That is, from an aesthetic standpoint.
However, one look back through what looks like two vertical inches of rear vision kills the fantasy of owning one. I don’t think I’m particularly claustrophobic, but wow. I feel like Ford was brave to greenlight this. I honestly think I could live better with a smog-choked ’75 MII with a 302 over a ’73 with the same engine.