When I saw this red Mustang parked in front of a neighbor’s house the other day, I was pretty surprised. Was this an actual Mustang Mach 1 casually parked on the street? My surprise turned to skepticism pretty quickly; after all, it’s relatively easy to turn an ordinary Sportsroof Mustang into a Mach 1 or a Boss 351 “Tribute” car.
The hood scoops on this particular car are just for show, but that doesn’t prove anything. Not every 1972 Mach 1 came from the factory with functional Ram Induction hood scoops; that was an extra-cost option. If you paid for the Ram Induction option, you also got twist-to-lock hood pins.
Nice interior, but that’s obviously not the original steering wheel. And those three small gauges in the center of the dash would normally be a bit farther down; they’re occupying a spot where an air vent should be. The yellow thing on the steering column is a screwdriver. The placement of it makes it look like a left-over from a botched theft attempt. A more likely explanation is that the owner has a sense of humor. While I was taking these pictures, a neighbor who was walking his dog asked me if it was my car. All I could say was “I wish!”
The seats look good and have obviously been reupholstered. But are those the correct door panels?
This shot taken from oldcarbrochures.org shows what you got when you checked the box for the “Mach 1 Sports Interior Option.” (The console was a separate option.) Note the little chrome bands linking the two stripes on the seats; they’re missing from the featured Mustang. Although most Clydesdale-era Mach Ones that I’ve seen have this fancy interior, some don’t, and in spite of the name, the Mach 1 Sports Interior Option was available for any Sporstroof Mustang, not just an actual Mach 1. I suppose it was possible to order a car with the Mach 1 Sports Interior Option and a straight six. Maybe somebody somewhere did just that!
Another shot from oldcarbrochures.org shows the woodgrain missing from today’s car.
That’s a heck of a profile! The steep angle of the back glass on this Mustang makes rear visibility problematic and renders the passenger-side rearview mirror a necessity. When I was in high school, I had a classmate who had a Mustang Sportsroof of 1971 to 1973 vintage. As was fashionable at the time, he had the rear of the car jacked up in order to achieve a “California Rake.” On some cars, a California Rake looks okay, but on this particular Mustang, it looked ridiculous. The back glass on that jacked-up Mustang was perfectly horizontal; a sunroof for the presumably legless rear passengers. I like the stock look of this red Mustang a lot better! Note the Magnum 500 Chrome Wheels.
Adding insult to injury, my old classmate’s car had the standard Mustang grille as seen on this notchback model, and it was even painted the same disagreeable shade of brownish-green.
I can’t see the point of having a Sportsroof Mustang with the standard grille, when the mesh grille from the Mach 1 was available as part of the Decor Group.
Back here, we see why I decided that this car was a 1972 and not a 1971. A 1971 Mach 1 would have a special pop-open gas cap, which this car lacks. And we can also see why I’ve come to the conclusion that this is a tribute car, and not a “real” Mach 1. That “Mustang” script on the right side of the trunk shouldn’t be there; for whatever reason, Ford put that script on base model ’72 Mustangs and Grandes, but not on Mach Ones. And while I’m putting everyone to sleep with Mustang Trivia, I might as well let you know that a similar rule applied to 1971 Mustangs: Base models and Grandes had “MUSTANG” spelled out in block letters across the back of the trunk, but ’71 Mach Ones and Boss 351 models did not.
Actual 1972 Mach 1 For Comparison
This car is also missing the honeycomb-pattern filler panel that echoed the Mach 1 grille. It looks a bit naked without it.
Actual 1972 Mach 1 For Comparison
Of course this car could simply be an example of a less-than-perfect restoration, or a perhaps it’s a genuine Mach 1 that came from the factory with different door panels and the wrong trunk lid However, odds are it’s a tribute car. There’s no way to know for sure without taking a peek at the VIN (“05” for Mach 1 and “02” for not), but the evidence so far is pretty conclusive.
Many of us put a high premium on originality, myself included, but I think I can make an exception for this particular car. The owner of a genuine numbers-matching Mach 1 might be afraid to drive his car, but the owner of this clone showed no such fear. As I am fond of saying, “Cars are made to be driven.”
It’s GRILLE, not grill. You can’t cook on the front of a car.
You can on a series 1 and 2 Land Rover, when the series 3 came out with it’s plastic grill (e) there were complaints about no more bbqs on the road.
Yep. Did that with my Brother-in-laws’ series II SWB. Steaks tasted fantastic and it did no harm to the galvanised grill.
Fixed! Thank you.
the Jeremy dude on Top Gear did some poached egg and a bacon strip once.. you can cook a nosh-up!
(just need a flattish engine and plenty of iron manifolding and silver foil)
The old Detroit axiom of “longer, lower and wider for 19xx!” taken to it’s most illogical conclusion. Destruction of an icon complete. Shinoda and Knudsen’s worst hour. Now, I ask, does not the Mustang II now make sense and represent a breath of fresh air after looking at this body style for 3 years? For myself, this was the Mustang’s darkest hour, a car lost in the wilderness. The rear end was impossibly light, with the car losing traction on a damp road and the flat rear window was better suited for a solar hot water heater supplement for your home heating system. Compared to the Firebird and Camaro, the Mustang came off looking like a bread van whereas the 2 GM F bodies hinted at Italian exotic.
They should have killed the name plate and called this Torino II.
Actually Mike: Nice catch of a car not often seen. Great write up, too!
The Mustang II represents an OVERREACTION to this short lived bodystyle to me. 3 years of a Mustang too similar to a Torino followed by 5 years of a Mustang too similar to a Pinto isn’t much of a breath of fresh air, it’s more like running from a burning room into a smoldering room.
Thanks for the compliment, but I can’t take all the credit for this one. Our editor Perry added the photos of the Mach 1 in the museum and made a couple of other improvements. Good job Perry!
I’ll admit, I like the fastback version of the Clydesdales, although having driven one 40 years ago I really don’t have all that much desire to actually own one. All the styling effort went into the fastback, the coupe and convertible were kinda like afterthoughts.
I 2nd that; yes, an utterly impractical, unsporting yet beautiful barge, better-proportioned than the coupé. It seems that Mustang stylists could rarely have it both ways; the 1st-gen Fox coupé looked great, like an MB SLC.
I would take this car over a Mustang II any day of the week.
Even an original Mach 1 from this generation isn’t really very valuable, at least not yet. It isn’t uncommon to see them daily driven, parked on the street, etc. Maybe if it was something very rare but most are not. Maybe it’s a clone, maybe not, Ford ran fast and loose with the options in this generation.
This is the only generation of mustang that I prefer in the coupe model. Those sail panels look much better than the almost flat fastback.
I agree on the coupe vs fastback. Looks a lot lighter, trimmer and ‘performance car-like’. IF you had 2 in the same bright color/black stripe/magnum wheels look, of course.
Regarding the notchback versus the fastback, I think I’d choose option C, the convertible, since this generation of Mustang is more of a boulevard cruiser than a true ponycar.
When I told my neighbor “I wish,” I was oversimplifying, since in-depth discussions shouted across a two-lane road aren’t really possible. A more complete answer would have been, “It’s a nice-looking car, but I’d rather have a 1967 or a 1968 convertible.”
I’ve never been a big convertible fan, but I can see the appeal for others. But in every other generation of Mustang I always prefer the fastback… 67/68 being my current personal favorite. But if I happened to find a 1-2-3 coupe for a steal I could be tempted to pick it up. But it needs a good color and larger than stock wheels. Not too big but 17s probably.
For Actually Mike :
Hey, cool!
That shot appears as though Ford designed the ’71-’73 Mustang to be a convertible first and foremost. I love the lines on this even with the top up!
The spoilers look so tacky on these though…especially on the sports-roof models.
I wish the coupe had the “top up” roofline of the vert, that profile is so much more attractive than the LTD buttresses.
I prefer the notch in this and the original generation, but not the II and Fox; the fastback came into its’ own with the hatch.
For you MoparRocker, the ’71 Special Spring hardtop. It’s likely the closest thing you could get to the look you mention :
Nice! Put some Magnum 500s on it and giddyup!
Value is of course relative and no a Mach 1 is not a 6 figure car at this point but good ones can fetch substantial money, easily twice as much as a non Mach 1 Sportsroof and near 3 times a coupe.
From what I’ve seen a plain old Mach 1 with a 302 or base 351 is easily in the mid teens, and a driver quality can be had for around $10k. But you are probably right in your 2x-3x estimate, that speaks volumes as to how cheap the coupes can be if you can find a good one. But for a extremely low mileage original or a Cobra Jet, something with unique options or whatever can still command a pretty good price. Not much compared to earlier ones but still.
My only point was that daily driver Machs are not hard to find.
I agree.. the ’69 Mach 1 is collectible in capital letters (with the rear ‘air scoop’) and the friendly meek frontal appearance of a bull shark in mid-bite..
..also the ’70 Mach 1 is collectible though perhaps a tad less so, even though it has numerous ‘actual improvements’ under the skin, such as a collapsible steering column (really useful in a decent head-on) ..really any fastback (sportsroof) Tang is collectible right through to 1970 ..particularly Boss and Shelby versions
All cars sold in NA since 1968 have collapsible columns. You are thinking of the locking ignition column. This change killed one of Mustang (and T-Bird)
coolest options, the Tilt-Away wheel, offered on Mustangs from 1967-69.
I agree that the coupe was the best of this generation. The sportback was the antithesis of what makes a good design, offering neither visibility, utility nor esthetics. The coupes made for nice secretary cars, but the Mach 1s were synonymous with undesirables by the close of the ’70s. Boss Mutangs and Shelbys always had a good name, but the Mach 1 was Ford’s Chevelle.
I wasn’t a fan of these when they came out,I preferred the Camaro and Firebird at the time.Now they seem to have grown on me,it looks good in red.
I think the 70-73 Camaro and Firebird are worlds better looking than these.
I’ve always liked the 1-2-3’s, especially since I accept them for what they are and don’t get wrapped up in what they “should” be. Agree that the red/black combo looks fantastic.
Oh and for all the complaints about rear visibility, I’ve owned a 70 Mach 1 and you can’t see out of those either but for some reason no one complains
I had the opportunity to drive a ’71 Mach 1 four speed when I worked for Towson Ford. It was the owner’s kid’s new ride; he had been driving a ’70 Mach 1, all year as a “demonstrator”. he put a lot of hard miles on the ’70, and the dealer rolled back the mileage on the odometer. They ended up getting called on that, and one day I went in to work, they had the odometer :machine”, an electric motor with a long cable, running in reverse to get the miles back to where it had been.
Anyway, I got to drive the ’71 Mach 1 out to the body shop, which was quite a distance away, including a lot of curvy back roads. That car was a bit of a monster in more ways than one, the first being its wretched visibility. One had little idea where the corners of this thing were.
It was of course fast on the straights, as fast as anything I’d driven then, but in the narrow winding back roads, it was more like riding a bucking bronco; plenty of understeer, poor rear traction, the whole thing would crash sideways on rough pavement when powering out of curves. A beast….
That trip was much more enjoyable in a Pinto 2.0 stick shift.
In high school I was friends with a Pontiac dealer owner’s son. Spoiled unappreciative little sh!t wrecked not one but TWO 20th anniversary turbo T/As not to mention a couple Vettes, at least one GTA and a Formula 350 built up for drag racing. Cool thing was he let pretty much anyone drive his cars, and he got us all jobs as lot boys so we got to play with a lot of cool cars.
I wonder what it is with dealer’s sons? I’ve see your description over and over again.
Nice find! The color scheme and Magnum 500s really set this car off. As I mentioned above, I always felt that the coupe version made it look much less bloated. I absolutely agree on the Mach grille treatment which is simpler and blacked out vs the busy and chromed ‘standard’ piece. This isn’t my favorite Mustang but I do genuinely like and appreciate it for what it is. The Mustang II is obviously an abomination and while its performance is up to par (for the times), the ’94 to ’04 is a total eyesore as well. The bloatstang might be a ‘Fat Elvis’ caricature of a Mustang, but it at least gives itself away as a pony. M II is obviously a pinto in a clown suit and the ’94-’04 could have just as easily passed as a Toyota.
An acquaintance of mine has a 1971 Mustang Mach 1 “tribute”. Dark blue metallic, black vinyl top and a white interior. He bought the Mustang in 1993, then he and his brother completely stripped it and restored it. About 3 years ago it got a new engine, he assembled the new Mustang heart in the pantry (where else ?). He’s a very fanatic Mustang guy.
Lots of pictures and a video on his website: http://mach1.swaff.nl/
Never saw a fastback with the vinyl roof, I like it. It seems to soften the lines and not look so oddly raked.
Thank you for this interesting find, and I agree with your observations Mike. Especially with the notion that the owner is having some fun, and would likely be the first to admit it’s a faux Mach 1. I like the color choice as well. My brother had a base Maverick bought new in ’74, in a very similar red/orange. That color looked great for several years, then faded badly.
I actually like these…my dad had a ’71 in Grabber Lime with the Cleveland 4-barrel. He’s kind of looking for another one now.
ah, “pony cars “. first they were based on economy compacts and powered by sixes and small blocks..then they grew to be short midsizes intended for big blocks..then nearly went extinct..now are practically full-size, powered by the last v8s..the term means nothing beyond “I know it when I see it” lol.
As much as some of you might question this ‘tribute’ car, there was a fellow at my high school that had a 72′ Mustang (in this color combo, no less) that was supposedly a Mach 1, and it looked it pretty well on the outside.
Later I learned it had started life as a base model that the kid’s father “made” into a Mach 1; but he kept the six-pot in it! The five Cutlass Cieras that littered the parking lot could probably outrun it.
I think one of the most important things to the look of this generation of Mustang is the rake. They have a tendancy to go “nose-high” and I think that looks terrible.
It is critical to the look that the door-sills be perfectly horizontal.
Back in the day, Richard Tharp drove Harry Schmidt’s Blue Max funny car that had a body based on a series of Mustang shapes (Plymouth Arrow for a while, too). The version that used the ’71-’73 Mustang was quite good looking.
I don’t know why, I just realized that the Mach 1 has a different roofline than the others. Not sure why I never consciously noticed it.
When I saw the picture of the copper one, I noticed the slight downward angle before the trunk (3 box design) and went up to the Mach 1 and it made sense lol.
I do prefer the Sportsroof fastback. I love this generation Mach 1. Would be my choice if I were to get one from these years.
The 1-2-3 Mustangs the comments reference above are the coupes?
The copper one is a coupe, it has a different rear roof. The sportsroof is the fastback. All Mach I’s are fastbacks, but not all fastbacks are Mach I’s. The term 1-2-3 means 1971, 1972, 1973, those 3 years the Mustangs were essentially identical. I am not sure if this would be considered the 3rd or 4th generation, since 65/66 and 67/68 are very similar, but I am sure one of the others knows. 🙂
I’ve always thought of the entire 1965-70 period as one generation (the same styling themes ran thoughout), and 1971-73 as the second. One could argue that 1965-66, 1967-68 and 1969-70 should each be considered their own generation, though.
I notice that Wikipedia lumps the entire 1965-73 period into a single generation.
That’s because generations are based on chassis architecture, and not styling cues. Despite the size increases the basic architecture is still 1960 Falcon just like all the previous Mustangs.
Do you check the VIN to see what engine it had? If I were shopping for a1972 Mustang, the engine code would mean more to me. A R-code was basically a smogger Boss 351 solid lifter car, but a Q-code would be alright too. These engines would run pretty neck and neck with a 1972 LT1 Camaro. But a H-code 351-2bbl is a Mach 1 is nothing to write home about.
That said, I do like the Mach 1 stripe/paint package, but I’d still take a 1972 Camaro first.
No, unfortunately I have no idea what motor this car has, and I didn’t look at the numbers!
I think it’s a tribute based off a regular Sportsroof car. The leading edge of the matte black hood patch doesn’t match that of the real Mach 1. I think a real Mach 1 would have had cut-outs for the dual exhaust, as well.
Still a nice car, though, even if it is a fake.
It might not have been the mustang’s finest hour, but it’s still an impressive looker. Although I can’t help but think it’s one of the most inefficiently packaged automobile designs ever in history. A far cry from the simple, light, and universally appealing pony car from only half a decade earlier. Time and trends must have moved at a much faster pace in the sixties!
I will confess that I have a soft spot for the Grande model. I view this generation of mustang as more of a soft boulevard cruiser than a sporty pony car. So from that perspective I think a Grande would have made a fine sporty-looking personal luxury coupe. Make mine medium metallic brown with saddle trim please. I’ll even let you throw on the vinyl top!
I understand you’re trying to be polite, but its not a ‘tribute car’, it’s a FAKE!
And I wish we’d get around to calling them what they are. Fakes. Especially to the owner’s face at a car show.
Yeah, I’m tired of fake muscle cars while the (originally more numerous) lower end models are rapidly disappearing from history.
Unless the historians would like to pay to have the original pot metal base trim and hubcaps restored(that just happen to be HIDEOUS on this bodystyle), along with having the car reshot with the period shit brown and piss green paint, I won’t be one to criticize the way someone rebuilds their old car. 😉
…Unless they’re trying to pass it off as real.
Legless back seat passenger, reporting for duty! At least that’s what I felt in my high school classmate’s sportback. It was a real Mach One-with all the missing touches from your featured car-and in addition to no back seat legroom, the back seat cushion also had none-just a little bit of foam on top of what felt like a 1 X 12 in. board, underneath the requisite vinyl. Lovely. At least I was short, so I wasn’t banging my head on the glass roof like other temporary prisoners did. And then there was ingress/egress. But it looked good, for the time, and the engine made nice sounds, even though it couldn’t deliver on the promise. Why did it take us so long to see that the original was so far superior?
Too funny. It takes a brave man indeed to sit in the back of one of these Mustangs. It might also help if you’re a controtionist.
Bunkie joined Ford Motor Co, and wanted Ford Division to compete with Pontiac. Also, ‘let’s make Mustang bigger to compete with GM.”
Story goes that a lady stockholder told Lido at a meeting, “The Mustang is too big, bring back the smaller ’65”. And he green lit the M-II.
At first I thought Paul wrote this and was thinking “Wow, this is very complimentary to the 1971-73 coming from him!” Then I saw that Mike wrote it. Oops…
owning one now for 14 years and still enjoying every mile in it.love this car