Freedom. Does any other word better sum up the aspirations of the sixties? And does any other image convey it better than a wild mustang running free? The symbols of the ’58 Thunderbird and the ’65 Mustang are perfect reflections of the profound changes that took place in the seven years between them. Flying, even the T-Bird way, is intrinsically exclusive. But running free with your mane trailing in the wind? Now that was a truly democratic and affordable dream, just like the Mustang.
The Mustang was the first baby-boomer mobile. Even if they were too young to buy them, the boomers’ influence on the market and their parents was undeniable. Youth and freedom were now the predominant cultural themes, and Lee Iacocca had the brilliant solution to bank it. The Mustang was the breakthrough of style and image over function, at a bare bones price. And although its time at the top of the pop hits chart was rather brief, its influence was enormous. The Mustang became an icon of American culture globally, and changed the word’s automobile market permanently. Youthful freedom and sportiness, real or pretend, seemed to lack borders or a sell-by date.
Conceptually, the Mustang had two significant sources of inspiration: the ’55-’57 two-seat T-Bird, and the ’61 Corvair Monza. Ford had a hard time letting go of the sports car theme, and played with various concepts ever since the ’58 Thunderbird sprouted a rear seat and a paunch. Budd, who had supplied the body for the two-seat ‘Birds, pushed hard for a Falcon based update, the XT-Bird (no pictures available anywhere), using the old body dies. Wisely, Ford forged ahead with the goal to create a fresh, youthful and affordable sporty car, but with four seats.
The process that got them there, Project Allegro, resulted in some intriguing prototypes,
and of course the two-seat mid-engine Mustang I. What its purpose was in incubating the final Mustang is a little vague, given how far it strayed from the definitive configuration. But it generated buzz and got the Mustang name imprinted.
But the 1963 Mustang II (not to be confused with the later Mustang II) was the real thing, almost. It gave a clear indication what Joe Oros’ styling crew was up to, minus the chopped top (like every concept car ever) and pointed front end. Don’t want to give too much away.
What really made the Mustang feasible, and madly profitable, was the Falcon. Its modest but effective underpinnings were lent to a raft of pragmatic compact and mid-sized Ford products, thanks to its many virtues like low cost and…low cost. But the resulting Mustang’s rock-bottom price was revolutionary, and had an explosive effect. A six cylinder coupe like this one was priced at $2368 ($16k adjusted), all of $47 more than a Falcon six coupe. In dollars per inches of hood length, it was a real steal.
In the Corvair Monza’s best year, 1962, Chevy sold some 140k of the pioneering bucket-seat coupes. Although Ford hoped to do a bit better than that, actual demand exceeded supply by a 15-to-1 ratio. Almost 700k Mustangs were sold in its extended first model year. Nothing like it has ever happened before, or since. It was the automotive equivalent of the Beatles. If you were alive then, you’ll never forget the Mustang mania that swept the land. If you weren’t, I can’t do it justice with words. You either experienced the sixties, or didn’t.
If not, you might be tempted to think of first generation Mustang dynamic qualities in terms of its current iteration, or the mythical Shelby GT. Don’t, because it really wasn’t all that sporty, unless you were among the few to check all the right (expensive) options, or shelled out for the Shelby. Think Falcon, with a long nose and a lower seating position.
In Gene Bordinat’s own words: “the Mustang was a secretary’s car”. And every secretary had one or was waiting in line for one. The ad above is for the ’67, and the “secretary” is dressed mighty modestly indeed, for that year of the mini-skirt.
I can’t find the production breakouts, but I’m going to guess that close to half of ’65 Mustangs came with the six, if not more. Reality check: 101 (gross, about 88 net) hp from the 170 CI (2.8 liter) wheezer, if your ‘Stang was built before 9/24/64 (often referred to as 1964 1/2 models, but all were technically ’65s). Those that held out, or were forced to wait ‘till after that date were rewarded with its 120 hp gross (100? net) 200 CID (3.3 liter) successor. Teamed with the automatic, it was a cruel abuse of the term “sporty”. The sole exception to six sickness was the 200 with the stick, preferably the optional four speed stick, and manual steering. That combination, ideally with a set of aftermarket Michelin or Pirelli radials and a quartet of Koni shocks, yielded a distinctly continental flavor and actually handled quite well, better balanced than the front-heavy standard-suspension V8.
Keep in mind that the factory listed weight of a six cylinder coupe was 2583 lbs! Good luck trying to find any new car that weighs that little. Realistically, a six topped off with fluids and license plates attached probably actually weighed in at about 2800 lbs, still a featherweight in Honda Civic territory, or less.
Our featured car is obviously a six from the tell-tale four-bolt wheels. There are actually some very redeeming features about these six-banger Mustangs, the biggest one being that they’re still out on the streets and in decent shape. Most V8s are either restored or retro-rods tucked in their garages, or the abused victims of various ill-advised and under-funded hot rodding attempts and now rotting away in a side yard. The only gen1 Mustangs still at work on the streets of Eugene are several of these sixes (Update: not so), and all in a similar state to this one: essentially original and reasonably well cared for, if not exactly pampered. And not insignificantly, they’re all sticks.
Mustang sixes had a cult tuning following, from the get-go. I remember as a kid reading a contemporary account of the legendary Ak Miller modifying one to ever hotter stages; the final version had four SU or Keihin side-draft carbs and pulled some 200 horsepower on the dyno. I’ve always had a fascination with inline sixes and the tuners that purposely set themselves the challenges of its limitations. Today, on the pages of www.fordsix.com, all manner of collective knowledge on uncorking power out of these fairly rugged mills is on tap. There’s even a new custom made aluminum cylinder head that has the potential to generate 350 genuine ponies from a normally aspirated small-block six.
If the V8 Mustang is getting short shrift here, well, there are plenty of places to go for that. Or maybe I’ll find a decent V8 fastback to inspire me for a follow up. For some reason, I equate that body style only with the V8. Oddly, the “standard” V8 for the “64 1/2” models was the 260 CID version, with 164 (gross) hp. After September 1964, the popular 200 hp 289 CI (4.7 liter) mill became the base V8, and made the Mustang quite peppy for the times, even with the all-too typical Cruise-O-Matic.
But the heavier V8 and automatic combo most likely meant power steering; well, by then you might as well have been driving a Fairlane. That’s a slight, I know. Plenty of folks were (are) all-too happy with that combination. That was the genius of the Mustang: to be able to have it in so many flavors to fit every taste and budget. And most were happy enough with plain vanilla-eating ponies.
Sure, the awesome 271 (gross) hp hi-po 289 and heavy duty suspension and brakes were all available, as well as the GT appearance package, but none too common with the primary target Mustang clientele. The freedom to go fast wasn’t free, or even cheap.
Mustang mania lasted about as long as Beatlemania; by 1969, sales had crumpled by 50%; and by 1973, barely 130k of the oversized draft horses were sold. Until it found new purpose and rejuvenation in its Fox-body reincarnation, the Mustang muddled along under the weight of the seventies like so much of sixties’ exuberance.
So were the Mustang’s brief and glorious revolution anymore lasting than the SDS or Tim Leary? It single-handedly created a lasting genre that is showing surprising strength again today. Sedans never again had the same prominence post Mustang fever. Credit the overwhelming success of the “stylish” Olds Cutlass coupe during the late seventies and early eighties to ex-Mustang buyers. By then they just needed a bit more room for their growing waistline, and that padded vinyl landau roof was just the latest suburban mania. Anyway, relating to the image of a galloping wild horse was just harder to do after a long day at work and the longer commute home; the Cutlass coupe was comfort food to the Mustang’s lean horse-meat chops.
There will never be another ’65 Mustang for the same reason there will never be another Beatles. We’ve fragmented into way too many niches: psychographic, demographic, psycho, and just plain old graphic; your galloping wild mustang is now my political cause. Freedom has become a loaded word. And it’s neither quite as democratic nor as affordable as it once used to be.
Beautiful car and great companion to my Dad’s 67. Personally (and I know I’m being a little biased) I feel the 67 to 69 models were the pinacle of perfection before the bloat set in, but the 64 to 66 models are right up there. Then my personal choice is the 1979 to 1993 version, followed by the 2005 and up models. I actually rank the Mustang II ahead of the soft jellybean versions of the 1990s and early 2000s.
But I wouldn’t look a gift horse in the mouth for any year of Mustang if you get my drift.
The ’70 therefore being the absolute “bergspitze” then!
(I think Dan probably means the ’67-’68 years, a common error. That grille is totally too gaping for my tastes. But then again, Steve McQueen can’t be wrong…)
We all know Paul’s “slippery slope” view on the ’69-’70s.
The blue car at the top isn;t the XT-Bird.It’s the XR-400 proposal for AMC, then Rambler.
It was based on ’62 Ambassador running gear. The XT-Bird looked like a ’57 T-Bird plucked of it’s fins and the wrap-around dog-leg of the A-pillar was hacked to give a more then-current rearward slant. It also had 4 seats, along with the requisite wheelbase stretch to set it on the Falcon platform.
You’re right; that’s the only car that comes up in a google image search for the XT Bird; there’s not one picture of the real thing on the web anywhere.
Try and find a copy of “Mustang, the Car that Started the Pony Car Stampede”,
or something like that. It was one of those semi-annual features that were published by Consumer Guide back in the day. This one was from January 1980. There’s a drawing of the XT-Bird in there.
Another book that should have a pic is “Mustang Does It” by Ray Millar.
http://www.alibris.com/search/books/qwork/4526136/used/Mustang%20Does%20It!%3A%20An%20Illustrated%20History
Does this at the Henry Ford Museum fit the bill? https://www.thehenryford.org/artifact/212457/
Driving video (at Greenfield Village): https://www.macsmotorcitygarage.com/video-driving-the-1962-budd-xt-bird/
Yes. And I did find it since then, which was way back in 2011. Thanks for staying on this.
wow… that ’65 fastback is my ‘win the lottery’ car…. no doubt aobut it. My 90 was purchased out of lust for those old ponies….. i wish I had held out a wee bit, located one and dressed it up a bit… however, i still love my 7 up pony, 250k miles, rust & all.
Mustang up to 67 the only Ford worth buying and Mustangs since 1970 just junk either overweight or no power the real brand only went 5 years, I would guess late model OHC Falcon engines would bolt in early models theres so me cheap easily available hp.
I just wish I could have been there. The closest thing happening here in Europe during my time would have been the GTi -craze that went throughout the late 70’s/early 80’s. And at that time the only car for me was my dads ’68 Taunus wreck (it was 10 years old when I was born, a few years later it was standing in the yard unused, lovely to play in as a child :)9. Only 15 years later did I understand that the Taunus was almost the same as a Mustang. Sort of a dissapointment back then, until I learnt about the advantages of low weight 🙂
My uncle happened to have a neighbor who was restoring a ’65 Ht coupe. Me and my brother went sneaking into the garage and got to see the stripped body (completely , even paint, for rust repairs etc.) and really got a good look at how it was all built. And I could understand how they managed to build a million in the first two years. (hint , it was not by taking their time to check details, like matching drop rails or even spot welds…) under it’s galloping pony skin it was my dads taunus 17m, just sectioned half a foot troughtout.
One other thing I learned later, is that the 1.7 litre v4 engine in my dads Taunus is actually the same as in the mid engined Mustang prototype. Ford US couldn’t think of any application to use it in, so they gave it to the germans, who developed it into a v6 later, (and sold v4’s to Saab) and that V6 ended up back in the Mustang ll, and later, after growing to 4 litres in the Rangers, and adopting SOH-Cams it went back into the Mustang, and followed it until it was replaced by a newly developed engine this year 🙂
So thats where the Transit V4 originated I always thought it was European from get go We had lots of those out here noisy and slow in vans but it made a Saab go ok
There where two European V4s – one was the German “Cologne” engine and the other was the British Essex one. The British Transits at least used the Essex one.
Actually, the Mustang was HEAVY compared to small cars of that era: Austin Healey Sprite, Karmann Ghia and Fiats were all under 2000 lbs! So, for a “small” car, the Mustang was a porker. It is only with the advent of airbags, sidebeams and smog, that we started considering sub-3000 lbs cars as “lightweight”. Our neighbor, Scott, had is mom buy a ’65 Stang… it handled horribly compared to my brother’s Healey, was slow as a stone, and the interior was a plastic overdose (Brit and Italian cars still had real leather back then). So, yeah, it was a “cool” car with some folks… and another porky American car, down in SoCal, where fast, small imports were the way to go.
Most of the small imports of that time weren’t fast. They felt fast because of suspension tuning and lack of sound deadening, not to mention engines that were straining to keep up with the freeway speeds common back then.
Yes, did I mention my dads Taunus 17m, which was a huuuge full-size stationwagon by european standards (3-door even , 5 door was available, as was 2 and 4 door sedan, and 2 door HT) was still lighter ( but taller)than the Mustang, in V4 form, the V6 (which I was lucky to own as a first car) was probably closer to the v8 Mustangs. The smallest 1.7 v4 had 75 hp, the sport version 20m RS with a 2.3 HO v6 had 125hp (net), so they weren’t too slow either, but nothing particularly sporty about them apart from sound and optional striping.
When I was a kid, my dad drove a 63 Chevy station wagon that was a company car. Every now and then, the boss’s 20-something kid needed to haul something, and he would borrow the wagon from my dad. This caused my dad to drive the kid’s dark green 65 Mustang fastback home. V8 and a 4 speed, with black interior. I had no idea that my dad was cool enough to work that clutch and shifter, but he did it very well.
I owned a 68 hardtop with the 200 6 and the 3 speed. It was a very nice driving car, but not that fast. And it drove (and sounded) exactly like the 6 cyl 3 speed 70 Falcon a friend drove in high school.
The 1967 & 1968 Mustangs are the cream of the crop as far as I’m concerned. Just the right proportions all around. The 1964-1966 models are cheaply done Falcon makeovers, but that doesn’t condemn them, and the 1969 model began the bloat.
Still, these are right up there among my favorites.
As an aside…David Hallberstan, in his book “The Reckoning,” presents a quite-a-bit different history of the name and development. By his account, taken from interviews with Ford key people, the Mustang was an Iacocoa project, done outside channels. The Ford Finance people were newly in control of the company, and were killing projects with the all-purpose damn, “it will cut into standard sales volume.” Lido wanted to tap the “youth market” and saw the Falcon as the ideal chassis to start with at low cost.
Iacocoa did the development, including market research, in secret, and supposedly was coy with Henry, constantly inviting him over to Styling to see the “hot car” concept they had a mock-up of. Finally Ford came over, took one look, and barfed…he was coming down with mononeuclos, and left the Styling studio on a gurney. Once back he said nothing to Lee about it…so Lee started leaking it to the press.
Inquiries from the buff books overwhelmed Henry, He finally took Lee aside, and said “I’m sick of hearing about that damn car.”
Lee waited for the hammer to drop.
“Can you sell it?”
Lee allowed as how he could.
“Well, you damn well better.”
The Mustang was off and rolling.
As to the name…Hallberstan reported that the car was originally planned as “Cougar.” Someone in product planning wanted to use “Mustang” for the name…the aircraft, not the horse, was the inspiration. Supposedly at the last minute, the name was changed.
The photos you post here are interesting counter-points to that account. I wonder which is correct, and to what degree?
In the summer of 1979, we moved from Georgia to South Carolina, and I began my Senior year at a completely new high school – didn’t know anybody. Met a guy my first day, and we clicked and became best friends until he passed at too young an age about six years ago.
Billy had a ’65 “box top” which was on its third engine (originally a 289, then a built 302 that he blew up, then the fairly stock 302 I knew so well). I had a ’71 Vega that went through a gallon of oil every two weeks until I had the engine sleeved. Billy, myself and our cars were inseparable that last, and very memorable, year of high school.
We lived in the same general direction from the school, and would vigorously compete to be the first one out of the parking lot after school. If Billy won the hole-shot, he’d leave me in his dust until the curvy part of the road, where the Vega really shone (especially compared to his nose-heavy Mustang). If I got out first, all I had to do was “floor it,” and the resulting cloud of smoke insured my easy getaway.
Lotta good memories – thanks for the writeup.
I try to find the good in all Mustangs. Even the II..
I’ve owned 4 Mustangs and all were Fox cars. 80 Notch with a 2.8, 84 SVO, 86 SVO, and an 82 T-topped GT 4 speed.
The 82 was what really “schooled” me on what Mustang was all about. The day I put the plates on and stuffed the insurance card in the glovebox was like being born again. 3am on a Sunday morning, 4th and floored on I55 somewhere between Joliet and Davenport with the wind beating what was left of my hair into retreat..
I still can’t explain what Mustang really is. When people ask me why all I can say is “You need to get behind the wheel to really get it”. And honestly, if you haven’t driven a V8, 4 speed Mustang (pre EFI)you haven’t lived.
Through a strange twist of fate,the Mustang was mine and my wife’s first car. Mine was a stock ’66 with standard issue 289 autobox and oddly, air conditioning. the A/c was probably a dealer add on unit. Her ’65 was the straight six 3 speed with absolutely no options that cost money. It would have been a mid 60’s penalty box if we had used that term then. The V-8 was an ok car,but the darn thing would nickel and dime me to the poorhouse. There was always something needing attention in order to get to school and back. The build quality was, lets be diplomatic,”uneven”.
IMHO, the weak spot on these cars were the brakes. Big engines and 4 wheel drums meant lots of panic stop fade and ocasionally,failure. The transmission was another headache. I couldn’t keep seals in mine. It would blow out front and rear seals with alarming regularity.
Coulda , woulda , shoulda… I had a chance to buy a cherry ’66 2+2 while in HS,but the guy wouldn’t come off the last $100 and I took a pass. I wish I had that one as a do-over…
It’s my own good luck that I learned to drive in the ur-Mustang. In ’66, my mother bought a 289 coupe. I remember the bliss of sitting in the dealers’ making selections (the cheap ones) from the options form. Imagine, a 15-year-old telling a factory what to build! Our 289 ‘stang seemed agile and human-scaled next to our old bargelike Biscayne. The Firebird that came next was grim and musclebound, so the Mustang trained me to appreciate compact size and cheerful styling, with just enough horsepower.
Take my car nut card back, but I never drank the Kool-aid for this car. My aunt had one and it was one of the most awful things I’ve ever ridden in.
Just today I came upon this May 1964 Car and Driver writeup/test. It’s very thorough re which parts came from which Falcon-Fairlane-Galaxie parts bins (in the name of thrift), with plenty I didn’t know…..some thicker stampings for the convertibles, and so on. How did I miss all this info in 1964?
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15143037/1964-1-2-ford-mustang-review/