I learned pretty early on in my fitness journey that nutrition is just as important as what you do with resistance training, among other things. I was in my mid-twenties around the turn of the millennium when I had decided to make some significant life changes in that regard. I quit smoking cigarettes for the first time (which took three times to “take”), gave up alcohol for several months (my first run at that), and joined a local gym.
This was after months of regularly doing crunches and pushups in my apartment to see if I could stick with some sort of fitness routine before signing on the dotted line and putting money down. My body type is long and lean, and ectomorphs like me typically have challenges with putting on any kind of bulk. It’s probably better that way, as I’m healthy (the main thing) and I like the way I look and feel. At the time, though, I dreamed of no longer having a body that looked like a taller version of Ren the cartoon chihuahua. With consistency and self-discipline, I eventually succeeded in filling out a little bit, and the right way.
I paid to work with a trainer at the beginning, someone who knew what they were doing and could “teach me to fish”, so to speak. Outside of some books I had read, I had precious little knowledge of fitness and how to achieve any of the goals I had set for myself. Though my father had played football (American soccer) in his youth, his sons simply weren’t athletic. There was never any “tossing the ol’ pigskin around” or anything like that. My older brother ran track and played tennis for a while, and while I also played tennis for five minutes as a high school freshman, that was the extent of it.
I had liked the mandatory weight training that was part of gym class during my sophomore year of high school. I remember recognizing how strange it was that skinny, gawky, broody me actually secretly enjoyed working the machines in the weight room – especially the lat pull-down machine, where I felt like I didn’t embarrass myself. It makes me smile to think of my beloved, defunct high school as having been the place where those seeds had been planted.
Each trainer I would hire periodically at this new gym would have basically the same advice in terms of the kinds of balanced, more frequent, smaller meals that would best suit what I was trying to achieve. Included among this was a recommendation of bananas for bulk. Please, nobody take this as official dietary advice as I’m just a guy who likes to write, but at least in my mind and as part of everything else I was doing and eating, the bananas worked.
Is it so far-fetched that when I had seen our featured car when walking to the train after work that the first thing I thought of was a banana? The exterior shade of what looks like factory Grabber Yellow is complemented by a white vinyl interior, so there you go. I love a yellow 1971 – ’73 Mustang, and the original “Eleanor” from 1974’s Gone In 60 Seconds will forever remain one of my automotive heroes. The ’71 had bulked up quite a bit from its original ’65 incarnation, with comparable models being roughly eight inches longer (at 189.6″), six inches wider (75″), and six hundred pounds heavier (3,100 lbs.). That’s a lot, and on a wheelbase that was just an inch longer, at 109″.
1965 Ford Mustang convertible. Wicker Park, Chicago, Illinois. Saturday, September 21, 2013.
Interestingly, the thoroughly refreshed ’71 models posted a 27.5% sales drop from the prior year, with just 149,700 sold versus 190,900 the year before. The decrease in Mustang’s popularity was due, at least in part, to the general drop in demand for this type of car by the dawn of the 1970s. I was able to confirm the model year with one of the car’s occupants, so this example is one of just over 6,100 convertibles produced for the model year.
I didn’t ask what was under the hood (whoops), but given its nice, unassuming condition and presentation, I’d wager that there’s either a 210-horsepower 302 V8 or a 240-hp 351 powering this pony. Mustang convertible sales kept ascending over the three-year course of this design, increasing to 6,400 units for ’72, and exploding to almost 11,900 cars for ’73 with the news that the drop-top was going bye-bye, which probably seemed like a permanent thing at the time.
While exercising in the morning these days, I sometimes think of myself like a five-liter Fox-body. From a fitness standpoint, I feel like I’ve got more than enough to get the job done, much like one of the cars most universally loved by my cohort when we were teenagers. Without too much extra bulk, the strength that’s there can be used with maximum efficiency to get from point A to point B. Different strokes for different folks, though, and I’m not about body-shaming any person or Ford Mustang, for that matter. I may be too skinny for some, especially those who like ’em bigger. There’s plenty of meat on this yellow ’71, which at 3,100 pounds to start, still weighs 600 pounds less than its new 2024 counterpart. Here’s to celebrating Ford Mustangs of all body types.
Downtown, The Loop, Chicago, Illinois.
Thursday, July 18, 2024.
The 1971 Ford Mustang brochure pages were sourced from www.oldcarbrochures.org.
The ’71 thru ’73 Mustangs don’t get the luv they deserve. However, I’ve always liked them. The Moto of “bigger is better” was still in effect at this time as well as the bolder color scheme. The 70’s has its own flavor!
The owner has got himself something special. Hope its garage kept in the winter and drops the top in the spring and summer.
Nice catch!!
BYT, if anyone makes fun of the color of the Mustang, just look at the Ford Escape taxi in the background.
Kermit the Frog would be envious!!
I agree that these seem to be underprized. This one has southern plates on it (which I redacted out of respect for the owner). Given that and the car’s good condition, I’d assume it’s kept out of the elements. What a fun road trip taking this one would be, barring frequent refueling, at least compared to my recent rental compact.
And yes! That Escape is definitely a “Muppet” shade of green! “It ain’t easy… 🎶”
Nice article Joseph! I too am a lover of bananas, and these Mustang convertibles. The SportsRoof too. In fact, like this gen more than the previous gens except for perhaps the ’69 SportsRoof. The bulk suited them well, for the most part.
Thanks, Paul! Aesthetically, I like the SportsRoof fastbacks. Having sat in a couple of them, they seemed like a claustrophobic environment. I don’t recall having sat in a regular hardtop, snd certainly not a convertible of this generation. I’d be curious to know how the interior of rhe notchback compares with that of the fastback.
Every time I see one of these, I am reminded of the Mary Tyler Moore show episode (season 3, episode 24) where Rhoda buys Mary a car…a 1973 Mustang convertible in yellow (which later mysteriously turned into a blue Mustang in the credits). The yellow in the car you photographed really pops and seems even more yellow than the one that Mary wound up with.
Great looking car!
Such a great clip, Jeff! Thanks for posting it. Mary Richards went from a 1970 Mustang hardtop to the yellow-later-blue convertible. I always appreciated the friendships depicted on that show. And was that Craig T. Nelson as the mechanic at the end? Great from start to finish.
I have come full circle. I thought these were cool when I was a kid and they were new. Then I hated them as I got older and my tastes matured. Now I love them again. Just because of their early 70s excess.
I can appreciate that you have boomeranged back to liking these, as have I. In fact, one of my favorite die cast 1:24 scale purchases has been of a red, ’71 Mustang. In my mind, these were never super-popular, so they were never overexposed.
See the photo with the door open? See how low the arm rest is mounted? That is how low you sat in these cars, and one of the things I liked least about them. The dash loomed at your chin level, you rode with your legs nearly straight in front of you, and the belt line was too high. I used to feel like I was driving a bath tub.
These cars had no rear traction. The V8 engines put all the weight over the front end and there was nearly no weight over the rear. This caused these cars to be dangerous when the streets weren’t dry. The weight hanging over the front end seemed to cause the front end alignment to constantly need tightening.
There was quite a bit that needed to have been done better with this generation of Mustang and sadly, that didn’t happen for another seven years until the arrival of the Fox Mustangs. The MustangII fixed the overall size of the Mustang, but was still quite a mess, and it wasn’t until Ford started from scratch with using their new Fox body that things finally got sorted out.
No – I definately would not want another one of these generations of Mustang.
“See the photo with the door open? See how low the arm rest is mounted? That is how low you sat in these cars, and one of the things I liked least about them. The dash loomed at your chin level, you rode with your legs nearly straight in front of you, and the belt line was too high. I used to feel like I was driving a bath tub.”
Maybe so but that is now one defining feature of most cars today. I am 6’1″ tall and when I first sat in my wife’s 2018 Mazda 3 I was really bugged that my shoulder was at the top of the door and with me peering over the top. I had to crank the seat all the way up to the max height before I felt somewhat comfortable. One thing I hate most in cars is having my 360 degree view limited. Seeing is everything on the roads today.
I’ve been saying the same thing about the low seat/high beltline of new vehicles for a while (mainly the CUVs), and it really does harken back to not only the 1971-73 Mustang, but all of the new, early seventies’ ponycars. The 1971-74 Mopar E-bodies and Javelin were exactly the same way.
The least bad was the GM f-bodies, and I dare say it was a reason those managed to stay in production with essentially the same body far longer than any of the competitors. They were simply the last original ponycars that were easy to see out of and drive (at least until the Pinto-based Mustang II showed up).
I remember test-driving a ’79 Camaro Berlinetta and remember how it had what seemed like a very sled-like driving position – arms and legs out, sitting low. It seemed doable, to your point, and the interior, as seventies as it was, did seem way more airy and comfortable than the bunker-like interior of a second cousin’s ’71 Mustang fastback.
To your point on traction…on the afternoon of November 11, 1977 my friend Dale got his drivers license. At about 7pm his Dad threw him the keys to his 73 Grande with the 302 and the two of us hit the streets. At about 9pm, he accelerated from a stop (in the form that 16 year olds do) on a damp surface with a slight curve, leading the rear end to step out. He then immediately let off (that inexperienced driver’s reflex) and the back came around to 90 degrees landing us against a utility pole on the right sidewalk. The driver side fender was badly crumpled and the suspension was a complete mess. Fortunately, we were only going about 20mph at impact.
Months later, after the repair, I would have the pleasure of taking it for a spin. To this day I can feel the shocking lack of rear traction, that feeling that you’re sitting just ahead of the rear wheels, the steering feel of a 70’s Lincoln or LTD, and a hood that you can barely see over. Easy to understand how a new driver could get into all kinds of trouble.
No driving pleasure to be had here. Best admired from the outside.
That sled-like driving position you describe would definitely not be my favorite, especially given that the hood seems so long. The real-life experiences that others have had and shared with cars on my list of interest have been enlightening, or minimally, have provided food for thought.
Great reflection as always, Joe. You really can weave a narrative.
The ’71-’73 series is where the Mustang lost me, coming after the beauty of the ’69-’70 models. These were definitely the Fat Elvis stage. And while everyone loves to shred the following Mustang II series, it was a welcome, timely respite from watching the fat boy die. And the II set the stage for an even superior car, the Fox body.
You have to hit a low before you can try to reclimb the mountain. This was the Mustang’s low in my opinion.
Thanks, Dave! It’s actually a push for me between the Mustang II and these, and I find things to like about both. From a livability standpoint, a Mustang II fastback would be my pick as I’d want to be able to see out of it, and this feels safer. Aesthetically, I like the ’71 to ’73 fastback and its dramatic style.
I love bananas and one goes into my big bowl of fruit every morning for breakfast. And while I can appreciate these for the period pieces they’ve become, I was not a fan at the time.
I drove many of them during my time as a lot boy at Towson Ford in the fall-winter of ’70-’71, including a Mach1. I just have never liked cars that are bigger than they need to be, and these were the poster boy of that. Keep in mind that under their external skin, there was still quite a bit of the original ’65 Mustang inside, including the key floor panel. All that extra length and width added over the years was utterly useless except to add to bulk and terrible visibility. And although the interior was essentially the same size as the ’65 (the extra width was in the doors), the higher belt line, dash and rear window made it feel like sitting in a cave.
The new Pinto’s interior wasn’t exactly ideal either but I vastly preferred driving a 2.0 4-speed one of those over any of the Mustangs, including the Mach1. And the basic Mustangs drove no better than a Torino sedan; not a hint of sportiness.
The Pinto’s interior, though I’ve only seen a few of them up close, doesn’t seem that objectionable from an airiness standpoint. I get that the dashboard is minimalistic and the rear seats aren’t that comfortable, but it seems like could actually see out of one. And in your earlier CC article about driving an early 2.0 liter, it actually seemed like a fun, tossable, little car.
It’s kind of depressing that a base Mustang would drive like a Torino, but that’s where the size was creeping. I think the 1971 – ’73 models that work the best for me are the ones that are all-in in something, like the Mach I models or the Grandé.
I always love a callout to the original Eleanor. The yellow Mustang that she is, like for you, will always be one of my top favorite movie cars.
I love that movie so much. I feel like it has been long enough since my last viewing that I could watch it again soon.
Like so many Mustang fans I did not like the ’71 restyle. The fastback is so flat that visibility out of the rear window is very limited. Now you can have a rear camera that displays it’s view in the rear view mirror, and that problem is solved.
I like these a lot more now, even the base hardtop. I would love to have a ’71-’73 Mach One, though I wonder how improved it is over my old ’70 coupe.
Jose, I know you know that the flat rear backlight in the fastback must be experienced to be believed. It is not hyperbole to say it feels like less than two vertical inches of rear visibility from any seat in that car.
I do appreciate the “flying buttress” roofline of the 1971 – ’73 notchback hardtops of this generation. I thought that was a cool, stylistic detail.
I never hated these, in fact I liked their styling. But I did get to ride in on once as a passenger, and immediately noticed the visibility problems.
Although I like the Sports Roof styling better, if I were getting one, I’d prefer the Hardtop or Convertible.
My favorite Mustangs were the ‘67 restyle of the original, the first larger ‘stang… the 1969, especially in fastback form, and of course the 2007 that these cars inspired (with admitted bias of course 😉).
RS Rick, I’m also a huge fan of the ’67 & ’68 models. I can imagine someone having left the U.S. for a few years starting in ’66, and then returning in the fall of ’70 to find this generation as the latest Mustang, and windering what else had changed so dramatically in that same time period.
I remember seeing my first one of these, a bright blue though stripeless fastback. I’d have been fourteen at the time. I was stunned at the roofline, with the rear window so horizontal, and I noticed how low the seating position was. My first thought was ‘How do you see out?’ Even though I was below driving age, I had been jockeying the family car around in the back yard when I washed it every week, so I was well aware of the need to see out to be able to place the car accurately and avoid obstacles like the stairs, and the tree stump, and the veranda posts. Three-quarter view from the driver’s seat is so important in a tight yard. And that ridiculously long front overhang just looked silly, all the more so when I became aware that much of it was empty space. How do you tell where the front of your car is? It’s like it was designed as a piece of sculpture then handed to the engineers to make it mobile as a secondary consideration.
But I do like the look, when considered as sculpture. Just not as a car I would want to drive. So of course I’ve built some. Even in yellow. This one’s the old MPC kit.
“Designed as a piece of sculpture” – I really like this assessment, Peter. And what a dramatic-loomimg piece of sculpture the fastback was.
I recently returned from summer holiday and had to parallel parking a newish rental Corolla in my neighborhood before returning it on Monday. Visibility was great and needed, even with the cameras. I can imagine that many Mustang fastbacks of this generation that needed to be street parked were looking sort of raggedy after a few years, especially with those blade bumpers.
People rag on the Mustang II, but people also forget that they were probably a lot easier to live with than what they replaced.
There was a this-gen vert Stang in the same colour combo that lived around the corner back in the 1980s, quite the exotic and your cover pic evoked memories of this time.
My first taste was the red version in Diamonds Are Forever before a late adolescent discovery of the original Gone in 60 Seconds. Fun fact, the US District Court overturned the IP protections over the name ‘Eleanor’ a couple of years ago.
The Mustang fastback in Diamonds Are Forever is a other one of my favorite movie Mustangs, ever. That whole chase scene combines so many things I love – the Mach I, vintage James Bond movies (with some allowances made), downtown Las Vegas, and a terrific movie score.
Those *big* early seventies Mustangs, the convertible is the only really good looking configuration
Bananas, of course, were famously known to have been invented by well-intentioned but evil parents for the imposition of an impending chunder upon their young offspring, to whom it had just before been insisted that they consume what appeared to be stiff mucus in a tight yellow suit because it was “good for (them)”. (The offspring should have used its instinct for danger arising from the awful, sickly pong that arose immediately upon the unzipping of the yellow suit, but in good faith, did not, but I digress).
Not a huge fan of bananas, me. I keep it to myself.
These Mustangs have always seemed to me to be a Chad, and not the hanging type. Dull, heavy browed, big dumb eyes, clearly about to become overweight instead of the muscly look they sought: boorish, mouth-breathy expression, as ill-proportioned as a body-builder, loud, crude, and, grindingly, irritatingly, seen as good-looking, and generally popular.
These couldn’t be helped with any trainer, I might add, other than adding stupid-wide tyres so they might make it round a 20mph corner without scraping their massive noses. No, they deserved only a good banana up the exhaust, and perhaps one in the intake, to silence them for good, but if one must, these are nice photos anyway, Mr Dennis.
Justy, your visuals always kill me. 😆🤣 Thank you for the laugh.