What “Ford families” shopped for in 1965.
I include my birth year in my on-line name, because it can help to explain where I might be coming from in my comments, based on my age. For a car-obsessed child, being born in 1960 was a huge blessing. My childhood, from about 8 to 12, was an unending barrage of all things automotive and wheeled. Tonka trucks, the obligatory pedal car at a young age, the Sting-Ray bike, the Matchboxes and Hot Wheels, the model car plastic kits and pre-assembled dealer give-aways, and the proliferation of license plates, the real ones, the tiny key-chain ones from the DAV that Mom and Dad got unsolicited in the mail (with their own license numbers on them, and that were exactly the scale to fit the front bumper of a Tonka), and the medium-sized ones that came in boxes of cereal. There was all the real car stuff going on, too, the pony cars, the muscle cars, and all the high-profile factory racing programs. Mom would let me pick a car magazine from the rack when we went shopping at the grocery store, to keep me quiet.
As the existing family Ford fleet was getting a bit aged in 1965 (cars didn’t typically last ten years or more back then, or at least one didn’t want to be seen driving a ten year old car in “respectable circles”), that meant only one thing, in a “Ford family”. Let’s go look at the new Mustangs.
Mustangs were everywhere in that time frame, and the Mustang was a cultural phenomenon at least as great as anything Prius or Tesla has been in recent years. Mom and Dad took us to the local Ford dealership, which was an almost unbearable marathon of waiting around and being made to sit still. I was not allowed to rummage in the showroom vehicles or rifle through any brochures or other paraphernalia. It was “sit still and behave” time.
At one point, everything was done, we just walked away from the white Falcon, and went and got into a new red Mustang and drove home. My first impression was that the car was red, very red. “Poppy Red” is what it was called. It also didn’t quite look like most Mustangs, with an arched roof and a big back window. It looked odd at first glance, but I grew to love it, as I got used to it and learned that the fastback feature added bragging points when dickering with the other car-obsessed kids at school, when talking about family cars. The fish-gill louvers, instead of actually being able to see out the side from the back seat through a window, were novel, and also a bit odd to my young eyes.
Fish gills! Who wants to look out from the back seat, anyway?
The ride home was awkward. My sister and I got the back seat, which was not really made for a human body, even a little one. Many “2+2” arrangements, with vestigial back seats, work this way, as I learned later. There were no real back and bottom cushions, but instead a curved arc from the seat back into the seat bottom. Between gravity and slick vinyl, small kiddos immediately slid in a lump onto the floor and partially under the front seat. To Mom’s distress, there were no seat belts back there, nor was there a provision or obvious way to install any.
Not practical, not comfortable, and how does one install seat belts back there?
The back window was somewhat overhead, so that our heads baked on hot summer days. Mom prescribed hats to keep us from sunburning. In the meantime, the side windows were rolled down, as there was no air conditioning, and the wind really blew us and our stuff around. So my sister and I got baked and buffeted, were unable to sit up straight in our seats without conscious effort, could not be strapped in (we were a “seat belts at all times” family), and we couldn’t even see out, forward or to the sides. A little car guy wants to see all the cars and trucks go by when he is being driven somewhere, and even that was denied to me.
But, for a car-obsessed kiddo, the car was cool. I couldn’t see out of the front seat, either, until I got a bit bigger. But watching the working of the controls was easier to see from the front, especially the shifting of the four-speed and the rhythms of the clutch, shift lever, and throttle. The dashboard was tidy and seemed “sporty”. With four forward gears, there was a ton of shifting going on, in stop-and-go situations.
My kiddo self loved the dashboard, the steering wheel, and that simple four-on-the-floor shifter.
As I got a bit older and delved deeper into cars and how they worked, I really liked the idea that the family car had a V-8 and disc brakes. The Fastback seemed perfectly suited to be a full member of all the “cool” cars that I kept reading about and seeing around, from the late ‘60s into the early ‘70s. I grew to love that Mustang, and as I approached young teenagerhood, I began to beg to be able to buy, borrow, or steal the car when I would be old enough to drive.
One other aspect of the thing likely worked magic on my impressionable young mind. The first Mustang was indelibly associated with that running horse emblem, and that logo has carried on, uninterrupted, on new Mustangs to the present day. The running horse was everywhere, all over the car, and all over the advertising for the car. I think it planted a seed, both with myself and with many others. It is likely a visceral, subconscious thing. I found myself drawing Mustang horse logos in my junior high doodlings.
The running horse, a powerful image that likely runs right into one’s subconscious.
The horse was all over the car. Radiator grill, gas cap, steering wheel center, glove box door, front fenders. Even the keys were not the standard Ford fare, but specially made up with the horse on one side.
Horses everywhere! The default was usually running to the left, but, for some reason, it ran to the right on the owner’s manual.
There are two important elements to any car, the aesthetic and the mechanical. As a kid looking at and riding in the car, the Mustang Fastback, aesthetically, was some sort of dream car for me. Actually riding in the back seat was miserable, but looking at the car was a glorious experience.
My experience with this Mustang is not over with, and my family kept it a long, long time, and it came to be a true COAL. But, in the meantime, it is time for me to get my license and actually start driving cars for real, not just riding in them. Driving cars opened up a whole new way of looking at them, at how they functioned, not just how they appeared. But my infatuation with the Mustang colored my future automotive aesthetic preferences in a big way, and it was my touchstone car through my formative years, and later on as well.
It is interesting how the choices of our parents influence our choices. This is a fine example and a good read. Much appreciated. My first family ride was a 1950 Dodge Wayfarer. So, when I bought my first car in 1966, it was a 1966 Dodge Coronet two-door sedan.
Wow did this ring a bell. I was a youngster when our family drove all around the LA area visiting family. I was in the back seat of a new Mustang notchback. The ride was agonizing, at the end of each day my back ached like crazy. I’ve hated Mustangs my entire life.
Yet more parents who put style above practicality . Was the cars “coolness” worth more than child comfort?. To be fair the 2+2 was for the young couple with no kids.. I rode to junior school in the back of a Sunseeker Capri with no discomfort.
In hindsight, “style above safety” (no rear seat belts) appears to me to be the most egregious problem, but not the only one.
The US got them from 68 on ,I think ,in the rear. Uk not untill 1987.
Who remembers setting on mums lap or riding in the rear foot wells or lying on the parcel shelf?. Yes?. We are all lucky to be here reading all this..
We had to wear belts from 83 but I find wearing rear ones a pain.
The Mustang is the single biggest example of people being cattle since…maybe ever. Ford absolutely nailed it: sell sizzle, don’t bother with steak. Overpromise and underdeliver. Use flashy advertising and fancy styling to cover mediocrity. Do this, and people will line up to overpay for a 1960 Falcon.
Actually to be precise the Mustang was based on the revised 1964 Falcon platform with the new 1964 Falcon dashboard. And the styling, while it had some detail compromises to keep costs down was IMO extremely well done – at least the original notchback version. Being 3.5 inches lower than the Falcon made for a different driving experience and handling.
Same applied to the Capri which was based on the Cortina The car you promised yourself”. Which one drove the best. ?. Mustang 2+2 390 cid .4speed or a Capri 2600 V6 4 speed ?.
Probably the capri…since it didn’t have a 700lb lump of iron between the front wheels.
Not sure what you mean by mediocrity. I’m sure it was average for the times.
Interesting comment about the cultural significance of the original Mustang. I’d argue that it had even more of an impact than the original Prius or Tesla (whether Roadster or Model S), which were introduced to a mostly car-buff audience, then gradually grew in popularity and effect on the country. Whereas the Mustang had a massive launch, and was hugely popular the very first year. In hindsight one can say that the Corvair Monza was there first, or even the Falcon Sprint, but to this then-seven-year-old, the Mustang launch and sudden ubiquity as a distinctive car that everyone liked hasn’t been repeated and may never be.
I was nine when the Mustang launched. It was one of three huge “cultural” things I remember from that time, the other two were the Beatles and the mini – skirt. Even in our small rural farm area in downstate Illinois, people lined up at Henderson Ford in Aledo IL to sit in the one Mustang that had been delivered and was on display in the showroom – it was, simply, a sensation. And it was most welcome, as the nation was still recovering from the shock and grief of the JFK assassination… the Mustang the Beatles, and the mini – skirt brought “fun” back to life. And the new “youth culture” really got going…
Did you hang around your local Ford dealer longing for the brown paper to be removed from the show room windows and grab your free hot dog ?, Like Jay Leno .
In the fall of 1965, when I was a senior in high school, my family traded a 1963 Falcon on a 1966 Mustang 2+2 fastback. I can relate to the misery of the back seat, as whenever I gave friends a ride, the ones in the back seat invariably hit their heads on the sloped back window, and had to slouch in the back “seat,” which is a euphemism for “torture chamber.” The combination of the sunload from the rear window, the uncomfortable seating arrangement and the absence of any decent amount of legroom made a ride in the back a forgettable moment. I won’t even dwell on the task of wiping hair oil smudges off the rear window! We only kept the Mustang until the summer of 1967, when it was traded on a new Firebird hardtop. However, I still smile whenever I see an article on the ’65-’66 Mustang fastback.
I’m curious if Dutch and some of the commenters had very young parents. My parents were pretty old (as such things went in the 1960s) when I was born, and would never have considered a Mustang for a family car.
My father did have a beater ’64 T-Bird for a commuter, and I did ride in the back occasionally. Obviously that’s bigger than a Mustang, but it was still pretty cramped. But that was never the main “family” car.
My parents were in their late 20’s in 1965.
Thanks for answering. That’s perhaps a bit older than I was expecting, but not surprising. My father was 40 in 1965 so that explains his different taste in cars.
Pretty cramped sure, but “a coved rear seat – unique in style and comfort – with folding center arm rest”!
I’m surprised at your parents choice of a car at your age. I’m older, so my parents had a Chevy fastback, guessing 1947 or so, then a 51 Chevy. Both 2 door sedans. No back doors for me!
Your story bears a lot of similarities to my wife’s family. Her folks had a Mustang as their primary vehicle too (a ’67 springtime yellow coupe), and also kept it for an extremely long time (27 years).
I her case, her folks were married in 1966, and the next year traded in their aging Falcon for the Mustang. One year after that, they had twins – and decided just to keep the Mustang, even though it wasn’t exactly the most family-friendly vehicle in the world. They did have a pickup as well, but for most purposes, their family vehicle was the Mustang, and remained so basically forever. My wife and her brother learned to drive on the Mustang (289 V-8 w/ a 4-spd.), they took the Mustang to college, and my wife used it as a daily driver up til 1995, when it finally succumbed to terminal rust after 27 years and about 250,000 miles.
The coupe, however, was undoubtedly a slightly more practical choice than the fastback. Great story — and I would have been thrilled if my folks had bought a car like that when I was your age!
2+2″ the front seat is for 2 people. The back seat is for 2 people you don’t ike.
Great! Drive my sister and me into therapy, why don’t you? 😉
The fastback was always considered the best looking of the three body styles. When they were new they were not uncommon, but never as popular as the notch back. The coupe was more practical with a more usable rear seat and trunk. They were also much cheaper as used cars. I bought a V8/4 speed coupe in 1975 in fair shape for 300.00. A fastback would have been 500.00. (That would have been my best automotive buy ever!)
It’s funny but the retro 2005-2009 Mustang coupe/ fastback was actually a very practical vehicle. The backseat is quite spacious for two, it had a large trunk, with fold down rear seats. My teen aged and young adult kids fit back there quite well during the time. The car was used as a family car for the first seven or eight years.The V6 models are a very good buy on the used car market.
My father had a company station wagon. Every once in awhile the owners son needed to borrow the wagon and would swap cars with Dad for the weekend. I have never forgotten the sunny late spring Saturday when we all climbed into a dark green fastback. It was only for a couple of days so I was mesmerized by the coolness of the car and Dad rocking the 4 speed and didn’t get worked up over the lack of visibility from the back seat.
Everyone loved Mustangs.
My parents went from a ’66 Chevelle 4-door to using Dad’s ’79 GMC pickup as a family prime mover (I’m an only child, so only the 3 of us), they didn’t impress themselves on me as much as my early memories of a wide extended family of Brougham-era opera-windowed barges which were being traded in for subcompacts with conning-tower visibility and much less carsick-inducing ride quality. I’ve always liked small cars and drive a Honda Fit now.
In 1970 my parents needed to replace the ‘61 Chrysler Dad drove; the new car would compliment the ‘66 Ranch Wagon already in the driveway. All 5 of us headed down to the local Ford dealer. Us kids heavily campaigned for a Mustang coupe but our parents chose logically and got a Torino 4 door sedan, which we all eventually used for our driver’s test. So close….so close.
2 + 2 = 2!
So did those fish gills really function and breath? The interior shows three corresponding mesh covers but I don’t know. That must have made for some extra fresh air provided the teardrop windows were cracked or the fan was on. This is a beautiful car and fast backs still catch my eye whenever I see one. The reason I like the Mustang oh so much is because it shows restraint and isn’t over stylized. Being burnt, buffeted and squished in that little back seat probably describes every child’s experience in a two 2+2 sports car.
The gills were functional. There is a chrome plated slide, visible as the horizontally oriented element between the first and second interior vent, in the rear seat photo. That slide opened and closed each vent. The two sides could be manipulated independently from each other.
While the early Mustang fastback’s C-pillar vents technically opened, whether they actually did anything (other than make some noise) is open to debate.
Before reading this, I don’t recall even thinking about no rear seatbelts in the 2+2. And I’m with you – as a car-crazy kid, the inability to see cars out of where would otherwise have been a window would have driven me crazy. Great essay.
Late to the party here, but I too was a 1960 baby. It’s really cool, as remembering the years that things happened in your life makes it much easier to calculate your age at the time they happened. A zero year does that for you.
In 1964 when these came out, I was not quite 4 yet, so cars weren’t really on my radar… yet. The Kennedy assassination? – Robert yes (I was 8)… John no (I was 3).
My parents, also young parents, surely were aware of Mustangs, but Dad was a Chevy man, and was happy to trade the ’60 Dodge in on a fastback… a red ’66 Impala. In ’68, he’d get the formal roofline bug, and traded the ’66 in on an Impala Custom Coupe in Grecian Green.
But he always liked Mustangs, and in 2013, at the age of ’75, he finally bought one, a 2014 retro Mustang after admiring my 2007 for years. But then it was just he and Mom, so the 2 extra seats in the back we’re really unnecessary.
Sadly he sold out like Metallica and traded the Mustang in on a 2017 Accord (after seeing how much I like my 2016 Civic). I still have my retro Mustang though.
My only experience with these early first gen ‘stangs was a friend in high school having a few 1966 Mustangs. I don’t really recall them being especially torturous in the back, but I was a lot smaller (and more limber) back then. And he always had coupes, not fastbacks.
My 2007, although it may look like a ’67, has more room in the back, and that was plenty for my wife’s granddaughter, I’ve only ridden in the back once, and yes, it’s quite small. It’s probably why I preferred the T-Bird when I had a teenage stepson back in the day.
I have noticed how close some of the retro details are on my own 2007 are to their 1965 thru 1970 inspiration. Things like the font on my speedometer matching a ’67 almost exactly, but that picture of the steering wheel on this ’65… wow. That center hub is a dead ringer for the faux gas cap on my car!
Nice COAL piece, Dutch!
I’m late, too, so I will join you.
I was a sophomore in high school when the Mustang first came out and had my license for 2 months. I saw my first one a day or two before intro date at our local small town Ford dealer. I was impressed but never thought I would own one. My first ride in one was a couple of years later with a couple of girls. I thought I had broken my tail bone when I plopped down in the middle of the back seat. Several friends owned them over the next few years and I once got to drive a HiPo ’66 convertible. I also dated a girl in college who drove a new ’66 coupe. Finally I bought my first one, a low mileage ’67 in 1971. I owned it for 23 years and it was in good shape when I sold it. As far as the fastbacks go, the headroom in the back was not good at all and it was crowded for two people back there. My ’09 back seat is a lot better, but still not what I would call roomy, especially for adults. What I did like about it was that I could reach my grandsons from the front seat when they were still in car seats.
You are right about all the early Mustang styling cues in your ’07. I see a lot of them in mine too. My ’03 also had a lot of them.
As to some earlier comments, We were young parents when we drove our ’67 as a family car and didn’t think then or now that we were risking our kids’ safety. Later we bought the two door Malibu that’s in my avatar and still own. We never worried about safety in that one either even though it was set up to also be a fun car. At least we didn’t have to worry about a back door opening while we were moving. I almost fell out of one when I was about 6.
Dad was of the same mindset when he bought the ‘66 Chevy. Two doors were safer with kids. I was about 5-1/2 when he bought that car. He continued to buy 2 doors until my sister and I were grown. Truth be told, he preferred two door cars. Like father, like son. 😉
My father a Ford employee, but little likelihood a family of seven would own a Mustang—and I’ve still never ridden in a first-gen one.
The marketing was *everywhere*: local papers, national magazines, tie-in publicity on local TV news, etc. It’s fun to see the range of Ford’s first-year ads, the family magazines being a little different from PopMechanics/Science, the car magazines, etc. (Big Ford presence at NY World’s Fair, too.) This ad is just one of many, with the reminder that bucket seats & carpeting were built into base price, etc.
The fastback enchanted adolescent me–though today I’ve come to better appreciate its functional drawbacks. If you’d told me these cars had anything in common with Falcon other than engines/transmissions, I’d have been flabbergasted!
An advertising effort most of us never saw was the campus newspapers, including several ads targeting young women as buyers, etc. This ad has a bit of MAD magazine goofiness about it:
My parents bought a used ’65 in spring ’68, yellow, black interior, notchback. I6 with 3 on the floor. We loved riding in it and cramming in the back seat. Mainly driven around city and Dad liked to get around in it. Most we did was 6 kids and Mom and neighbor lady to go to church, 4 blocks, could have just walked. No way these days!
Only on short trips to far burbs, the Plymouth wagon was for trips out of state.
Sold in ’73 due to tin worm, but the new owner was just a few blocks away, for a time.
Some say “should have kept it”, but would have needed rust repair, and place to store, and it wasn’t a true collector version, anyway. And to clarify, not all old Mustangs were “muscle cars”, most were transportation.
Your back seat misery reminds me of my experiences in the back of 70s Camaros since the pre wraparound window style was pretty dark. At least the seat was broad and flat which came in handy the day we jammed four 12 year olds in the back of a 76 Camaro. People were still skinny in the 70s. I’ve never been in an early Mustang so it’s on the list of things to experience. My parent were much more sensible, when I was born in 1965 they had a Plymouth Valiant four door with air conditioning no less.
Tank you for this wonderful writing. It brought me back to 1974, my Dad just bought a brand new AMC Matador Oleg Cassini Coupe, complete with a 360 four barrel and dual exhausts. In Switzerland, admidst Europe. This car, its design, the luxury and acceleration was completely out of this world full of rusted out Beetles, Kadetts and Simcas. Most cars back then in Europe needed more time for the quartermile than you and me for brakefast…(except of high priced exotics and muscle cars of course) Today i drive a 2008 Mustang GT. Part throttle, it sounds like the Matador. By the way, i found out recently that the AMC still exists and runs!