(In commemoration of the Mustang’s 50th birthday, we’ll have some posts on that subject this week. Portions of this article have appeared before) Freedom. Does any other word better sum up the aspirations of the sixties? Well, not everyone could drop out and move to Greenwich Village, Haight Ashbury, or hop into the hot tubs at Esalen. Somebody had to stay home and keep the lights on in the split-level houses across suburban America. But the aspiration to break free from certain societal constraints and live just a little on the wild side infected America like a virus, one that swept the land hand-in-hand with Beatlemania.
It hit Elaine Diggs in Towson, Maryland in the fall of 1965. I had watched her get into her dull and dreary hand-me-down 1962 Biscayne six four-door sedan across the street from us every morning, wearing very modest long skirts and a prim haircut, driving off to her secretarial job, looking like a younger version of her uptight mother. But then one day she drove home in a brand new Mustang six coupe, and within weeks, her skirts got shorter and her hair longer. Three months later, she moved out, into an apartment with two other young working girls. I’d see her in town from time to time, sometimes with a boyfriend, riding in her Mustang and smiling. And then I heard she went back to school, and became an art teacher. No, Elaine didn’t end up on a commune in Mendocino, but her life changed like so many others at the time, and the Mustang played a role in that.
Does any other image convey freedom better than a wild mustang running free? The symbols of the ’58 Thunderbird and the ’65 Mustang are perfect reflections of the profound societal 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 Thunderbird was an aspirational car, the Mustang was an attainable one.
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 any secretary could afford. 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, genuine or imagined, seemed to lack borders or a sell-by date.
Conceptually, the Mustang had two significant sources of inspiration: the first was Ford’s own ’55-’57 two-seat T-Bird. 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.
Although Ford continued to dabble with the idea of an updated two passenger sports car to revive the spirit of the original T-Bird, it was Chevrolet that created the catalyst for the Mustang, and practically by accident. The original 1960 Corvair was a stripped econo-car, devoid of any overt flair, luxury or sportiness. At the January 1960 Chicago Auto show, Chevrolet brought a last-minute addition, a customized Corvair coupe that Bill Mitchell had built for his daughter, including bucket seats and a four speed stick. The “Super Monza’ was an outsized hit with the attendees, and a production Monza coupe was rushed into production by May of 1960.
The Monza coupe was a truly a revolutionary car, never mind its rear engine. It re-defined the whole concept of a compact, affordable sporty car with some luxury touches and genuine flair. And sales of the Monza exploded in 1961, as it became the best selling Corvair version, and propelled the Corvair to its best-ever year in 1962, when well over 200k Monzas were sold. This was simply unprecedented in the US market, and was the key pivotal shift that begot the pony cars as well as began the long decline of full-size coupes as market leaders. (Full 1960.5 Monza CC here)
Although Ford’s 1960 Falcon dominated the sales of bread-and-butter compacts, the Monza’s success caught Ford (and the rest of the industry) totally off guard. No one had anticipated that a well-dressed compact with bucket seats could make such in impact. The result was Ford’s 1961 Futura coupe, which followed the Monza playbook very closely, although it lacked its sporty driving character. And everyone else rushed out high-trimmed bucket-seated versions of their compacts in 1961. It’s important to note that in 1961, bucket seats were almost unheard of in American cars except for a very few high-end cars. One could not buy a 1961 Impala, for instance, with bucket seat; even the SS model. It all started with the Monza.
The internal debate at Ford was between a two-passenger sport car, or a four passenger coupe. Budd, who had supplied the body for the two-seat ‘Birds, pushed a Falcon based update, the XT-Bird, using some of 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 Monza had made that decision inevitable.
The process that got them there, Project Allegro, resulted in some intriguing prototypes.
And of course, there was the two-seat mid-engine Mustang I (CC here). 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 (above) 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 ever) and pointed front end.
What really made the Mustang feasible, and madly profitable, was the Falcon, both seen here with Lee Iacocca and Donald Frey, who headed the Mustang development team. The Falcon’s dubious underpinnings were lent to a raft of compact and mid-sized Ford products (Falcon platform history here), 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 ($17,500 adjusted), all of $47 more than a Falcon six coupe. In dollars per inches of hood length, it was a 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; 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 very sporty at all, 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. Maybe a touch better. 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.
I can’t find the production breakouts, but I’m going to guess that close to half of ’65 Mustangs came with the six. Reality check: 101 (gross, about 88 net) hp from the 170 CI (2.8 liter) wheezer, if your Mustang six was built before 9/24/64. Those that held out, or were forced to wait ‘till after that date were rewarded with its 120 hp 200 CI (3.3 liter) successor. Teamed with the automatic, it was a cruel abuse of the term “sporty”. The sole exception to six malaise was the 200 with 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, unlike the the more under-steering front-heavy V8.
This 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. Except for the V8 coupe in some of the shots here, the only gen1 Mustangs still at work on the streets of Eugene are several of these sixes, 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 ponies from a normally aspirated small-block six.
Of course, it was the ready availability of V8 power that really cemented the Mustang’s image, even if not all bought in on it. Just like the early production Mustang sixes still came with the 170 engine, so did the V8s come with the 164 hp 260 CID version of the “Windsor” engine.
These are getting hard to find anymore, but here’s one I spotted in the Bay Area.
Let’s just say the popular base 200 hp 289 CI (4.7 liter) mill made the Mustang reasonably peppy, 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. Never mind the crappy little drum brakes. Sure, the hi-po 289, heavy duty suspension and brakes were all available, but were none too common with the primary target Mustang clientele. The freedom to go fast wasn’t free, or even cheap.
The 289 coupe has the more desirable stick, presumably the four-speed. With a four barrel, and maybe with some aftermarket speed parts, now one had a pretty quick car in hand, even if stopping it wasn’t going to be all that reassuring. But who cared about that back then? Freedom was all about forward motion.
Mustang mania lasted about as long as Beatlemania; by 1969, sales had crumpled by 50%; and by 1973, barely 130k of the swollen 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 was the Mustang’s brief and glorious revolution anymore lasting than the SDS or Tim Leary? It single-handedly created a lasting genre that is still around today, even if in smaller numbers. More importantly, sedans never again had the same prominence post Mustang fever, at least not until the modern Camcordia era. 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: 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. Or at least appeared to be.
I was born in 1967, so strictly speaking I missed the 60s.
But when my mind was formed enough for memories to stick, one of the first things in my memory bank is my neighbor’s purple ’65 or ’66 Mustang. I knew nothing about its cultural significance or of its incredible sales story. All I knew, aged three or four, was that it was the coolest car on the block. Everything about it was exciting and different compared to the Galaxies and Impalas and Fairlanes and Catalinas that filled my neighborhood.
I about died and went to heaven the first time I got to ride in it, even though as the smallest rider of the five people in the car that day I was relegated to “the hump” – that tiny patch that passed for a seat over the transmission hump. But still, the ride was electric for me.
My point: The Mustang was a standout car, and you had to know only a thimbleful about the context into which it was introduced to get it.
I was in kindergarden when the Mustang came out. Even then, I knew that there was something special about it. It was just cool.
The early Mustang was like few other cars in that it appealed to almost every social class and demographic. Young, old, male, female, wealthy, working class – all of them were subject to Mustang-mania. Other than the VW beetle of that same time period, I am having trouble coming up with another car of that 1964-66 period that had such broad appeal.
In 1965-66, the son of the owner of the company my father worked for had a dark green 65 Mustang fastback. V8, 4 speed and black interior. Every once in awhile, he would need to borrow the company station wagon that my father drove. The tradeoff was that Dad would bring home the Mustang. Like Jim Grey, I still remember those rides. I never did figure out how those ventilation louvers worked in the rear sail panels. That Mustang could even make your station-wagon-driving Dad seem cool.
Yes, women did love these cars, and bought them by the bucketload.
I remember when the Mustang came out. I was about 8 and a half years old. I had to content myself with model kits of the mustang, or matchbox/hot wheels versions, or the little plastic toy Mustangs that came in cereal boxes. One of the bachelor brothers who lived next door bought one; suddenly he seemed much cooler than he had been before.
In my mind it’s a sporty car and I’m always a little surprised when I have to really look at the body and realize how square and blocky it really was. It was almost like an anti-streamlined car. Yet it really was sexy.
Good overview Paul. You missed the Falcon Sprint V-8 introduced in the spring of 1963 and continued through the ’65 model year. The Sprint was the interim response to the Monza with a 260 rated at 164 hp.
The Mustang’s Falcon connection was recognized inside Ford. The initial body and electrical manuals refer to the car as the “Special Falcon”. There was even consideration to building a Mustang sedan.
The Blue car photographed in front of the Budd Building (picture 9) isn’t the XT T-Bird. It is a styling prototype Budd tried to sell to Rambler.
A magazine once did a great comparison between similarly equipped Mustang and Falcon convertibles. As you might imagine, the Falcon equaled or bested the Mustang in all categories except the one that really counted: styling.
That’s where the Mustang’s true greatness came into play. For a measly $47 more than the Falcon, you got a great looking car that, while it might not have been anywhere near sporty in performance (it was a base Falcon underneath), made whomever was driving ‘feel’ like a million bucks.
And even without the performance, it was still easy to drive and maintain, and the compromises for styling weren’t bad enough to prevent it from being used as a daily driver.
The Mustang would likely best the Falcon in performance since it was slightly lighter. In addition, if I remember correctly, the ’64 Sprint Falcons were fitted with the 260 2bbl with 164 hp. The 289 4 bbl in the early Mustangs was rated at 210 hp and in June ’64 the 271 HiPo 289 became available.
I don’t believe that the HiPo was ever offered in the Falcon, with the exception of the Monte Carlo Rally cars.
On this topic, I feel the need to remind everyone that Studebaker may have been first to react to Bill Mitchell’s custom Corvair – the 61 Hawk was available with buckets and a 4 speed from the very beginning of the model year. Not that the old finmobile from South Bend was really influential, but it shows that new President Sherwood Egbert had a good read on what was hot, and this would have been some of the first evidence of Studebaker’s all-too-temporary renaissance.
The GT Hawk tried to be a smaller, cheaper Thunderbird. I have long wondered if a shortened version sized closer to the Mustang would have done better. Probably not.
Yes, pictures of the real XT are a bit hard to come by, and I was fooled by that one. I should have known, since it doesn’t look like it has an T-Bird genes.
And yes, the Sprint should have found its way in here, along with a few other things, but it was getting a bit late last night 🙂
I imagine that the Mustang sedan was considered because there already was a Corvair sedan and even a Corvair Monza sedan( and a wagon briefly) by this time, so I imagine that the idea was toyed with.
Nice summary Paul, although I’d love to have a 289 4-speed fastback I’d enjoy a six cyl 3-speed notchback too. Just get rid of those wheels…
For those who haven’t read the last open road series by BS Levy, “The 200mph Steamroller” has a fabulous semi-fictional account of the development of the Mustang (aka the Fairway Ferrett)
And good point about survivors having manual trannys. My manual Focus has about 250,000km (155,000mi) and going strong. My automatic Caravan has about 160,000 km (99,000mi) and shifts are starting to get a bit ragged. Focus definately has a shot at becoming a 20 yr old survivor. Caravan, not so much…
I was 16 in 1964 and had gotten my license a couple of months before the Mustang came out. The first one I saw was at the Ford dealer in the small Indiana town I grew up in. It was a couple of days before they were to come out and a buddy and I saw it inside the dealership. It was a white six banger coupe with a red interior. It had just come in off of the truck. In all my 16 year old wisdom I told my buddy that I liked it, but didn’t think they would sell very many ! I also remember how the Mustang caught everyone’s attention. Later in the summer we were on vacation in Colorado and were stopped on a highway so that Ford could film a Mustang commercial. That is when I saw my first fastback. The film of a red one going up a grade that is often seen in stories about is the Mustang is what they were filming. Now 50 years later I own Mustangs number 5 and 6. That is not counting a parts car and the Mustang II my kids had in high school. Yeah, I like ’em.
“In all my 16 year old wisdom I told my buddy that I liked it, but didn’t think they would sell very many !”
I feel your pain. I had the same reaction to the first Chrysler minivans. “Who would buy one of these – Dodge already offers a short wheelbase van that isn’t much bigger than these but has so much more utility.” Uh – Wrong.
In all fairness, even Ford didn’t think they would sell that many, they were projecting 150K-200K in sales for it to be “a hit” and it blew right by those numbers in a heartbeat.
Whats interesting is that it all almost didn’t happen either, Ford was so risk averse after the whole “Edsel Thing” that they were on the fence about the Mustang.
The only thing I could probably compare to Mustang Mania in my lifetime is the Miata Mania of the early 90’s, of course that was on a much smaller scale, but there was still that insane demand for a product, similar to what happened during the Mustang launch.
You’re so right. With the Edsel fiasco still very much in mind, Henry II passed four times on approving these before finally giving the go ahead, telling VP Don Frey he would be fired if they didn’t sell.
The committee that hatched the idea for the car basically met in secret until they were ready to show management what they were up to. It was called the “Fairlane Committee” because it met at the Fairlane Hotel in Dearborn.
Among the final bits of information that got Ford off the fence and deciding to bring out the Mustang was the usual industrial espionage showing that GM was still going to go ‘family sedan’ with the 65 Corvair. That was the one car that could have derailed the final go-ahead. However GM, as usual, missed a clue and didn’t center the car around the higher performance versions of the Monza.
Not sure what “clues” GM missed, they dropped he pillared sedan, wagon and 700 trim series by 1965.
The high performance Corsa was available 1965-1966, it had the 4 carb 140hp engine standard and the 180hp turbo available, and it came in coupe and convertible, along with the bucket seat Monza, which came in coupe, convertible and there was a hardtop Monza sedan available through 1967, there wasn’t a Corsa sedan, it was the only hardtop compact sedan available, so it was exactly a “pedestrian” Valaint or something like that, though you couldn’t get a turbocharged 180hp Corvair sedan, but you could get at 4 carb 140hp 4 speed Corvair Monza sedan, they didn’t make that many of them, but you could get such a vehicle if you wanted one.
Iacocca’s masterpiece, albeit with more than a little help from then Ford V.P. Don Frey. If Lido had done nothing else in his career, this alone would get him in the top tier of the automotive Hall of Fame. A spectacular 700,000 units in the initial model year (1964 1/2 – 1965) doesn’t begin to tell the story. I was 13 when these hit the streets and believe me, it was a very big deal. Everyone wanted one and even better, everyone could afford one.
No doubt the Mustang was a fresh, attractive car, albeit on Falcon underpinnings. But what really made these rock was a brilliant advertising, marketing and production strategy, perhaps the most successful in automotive history. They were marketed from the start as “sporty” cars, with standard bucket seats and floor shifter (if little else) during an era when people thought anything with bucket seats and a floor shift was a sports car. So what if half were sold with the six, many owners thought of their Mustang like it was kind of a Ford Corvette. It was priced incredibly low, within $50 bucks of a Falcon, so the masses could afford them. The option list was a mile long, with enough available engines and handling goodies to give it some performance credentials and interest the Road & Track crowd. Reports on the relativley few so equipped fed the frenzy and led to even more sales. In future years the car became bloated, the competition caught up and malaise infected the country, but in 1965 $2,368 was all it took to be cool.
Ford’s other brilliant idea was to avoid “cheapo” versions. At least through 1966, there was no three on the tree, no poverty hubcaps, no carpet-less rubber mat interior, and no bench seat (there was one offered but you practically had to special-order it – I have never seen one). Even the base car was nicely equipped and nothing to be ashamed of.
They all had a floor shifter, to emphasize the “sporty” nature of the car, I have seen one with the bench seat interior, but only one ever, I imagine that it must have been pretty rare. I’ve never seen dog dishes on a 1st gen Mustang, but they did make the cut in 1967. Interestingly, the Camaro also had dog dishes on the base models for 1967, I think the Camaro even had a 3 on the tree and an available bench for the first couple of years too.
Yes, the standard shifter location for Camaros was on the column for both the three-speed and Powerglide.
I have seen a few bench seat Mustangs. It wasn’t a real popular option since it did not increase the capacity of the car due to the wide transmission hump and floor shifter.
The bench seat option used the same seat backs as the buckets but added a fold down center armrest. There was even a “Pony” bench available. I think the bench option was discontinued in 1968.
I have a bench seat ’66 coupe that’s been in the family since new, and it was indeed ordered that way, not chosen off the lot. But other than myself as a small child, I don’t think anyone has ever sat in that miserable middle spot in 49 years.
You have to feel more than a twinge of sorrow for the poor, lowly Ford Falcon, since the Mustang obliterated it from the sales charts (at least the sporty hardtop and convertible versions, which would be gone after 1965). Considering the low-line Falcon hardtop may not have been as well equipped as the Mustang (it almost certainly didn’t come with bucket seats), well, the Falcon’s fate was pretty much cast the day the first production Mustang was built.
The same thing would happen to the sporty Corvair when the Camaro finally arrived at GM in 1967, but the Corvair would last a bit longer than the Falcon, staying in production for another two years until it, too, would be cancelled in 1969.
It’s funny, the Corvair launched as a cheapie sedan in 1960, against the the Falcon, which also was a cheapie sedan…the spartan sedan turned into the sporty Corvair Monza coupe which begat the Mustang, which in turn, killed the sporty versions of the Falcon and overall, killed the Corvair as well, since all development of the Corvair was pretty much halted after the 1965 2nd generation and the cash was diverted to the new F-body program.
The Falcon as a nameplate outlived the Corvair, slightly, living through 1970 as a cheapo Fairlane.
Falcon is still in production, just.
In the US is what I meant of course, though the name does still exist in AU, there was the South American Falcon that was pretty much the same car as the 1960 US Falcon too that was made until the early 90’s.
That’s an interesting observation in how the hottest selling Corvairs and Falcons were the sport models and how they quickly overshadowed and outsold the more prosaic models like the station wagons and pickup truck versions.
Still, the Mustang surely took some hutzpah on the part of Iacocca to get past Hank the Deuce. There was already a sporty Falcon (the Sprint), and GM, with the Corvair coupe selling well, certainly didn’t have any kind of new, small sporty car on the horizon. You know that there had to be some opposition to the Mustang within Ford for these reasons and there likely were more than a few high level Ford execs hoping that Iacocca’s ‘folly’ would fall flat on its face.
In fact, there’s the well-known story that the way Iacocca was able to convince Henry II to build the Mustang was by presenting it as a ‘small Thunderbird’ (the mid-engine, 2-seat Mustang I concept was never thought of as a reality and just a ruse to throw off the competition). Fortunately, it didn’t pan out that way, but Henry would get his small Thunderbird version later with the 1967 Cougar.
Chevy completely changed the focus on the Corvair after the Monza coupe started selling well in 1960-1961, after that came the turbocharged Spyder in 1962, the wagons and the FC 95 series Corvan, Greenbrier and Rampside were all already in production or about to hit production when this change took place, which is why the Corvair Lakewood wagon was only made 2 years, 61-62 and then dropped, they got a little more mileage out of the van, which made it to 1965.
The bench seat was a glorified bucket in the original Mustang. I found one a few miles south of me and the middle of the front seat is a lot like the middle of the back seat, except one would also be straddling the shifter.
Not sure if I have pictures or not, but the older gentleman who owned it had just purchased it from the original owner – this was about two years ago.
I agree. Some courage about what the car should be gives it a more distinct personality. This likely provided some manufacturing efficiencies that increased value for the buyer. Strange, but it took some serious thrashing by Japan for American manufacturers to figure this out again decades later.
True. They made a big deal about how you could get one that was basic, but sporty, all the way up to a “luxury” version. I got good examples of this in the first two I drove. The first belonged to my brother’s rich boy friend whose parents bought him a new ’66 GT convertible with the Hi Po 289 , four speed and about every option except air. It was pretty hot for the time. The next one I drove a few months later belonged to a girl I dated in college. Hers was a six cylinder auto coupe with radio and wire wheel covers. Nice car, but no racer. Of course it was still a step up from my six banger stick ’62 Fairlane. At least hers was the 200 six instead of the easily broken 170 I drove.
No Mustang has ever had a column shift, and no Cougar, either, before ’74.
My mother wanted a Mustang as her first car, she told me stories about the “Mustang Frenzy” that was all around when the car was launched, she remembers that the local Ford dealer had a few Mustangs in a coral in front of the showroom with bales of hay, my grandfather however, not one to be lured by some “marketing campaign” ended up buying my mom a 1 year old low mileage Fairlane Sport Coupe with a 260, oh well….
Ford also scored big with a Mustang “sneak preview” in 1964’s huge hit, Goldfinger, when a white over red convertible appeared as the ill-fated Tilly Mastersons ride and then a double whammy when bad Bond girl Fiona Volpe took Sean Connery for 100mph in ride in the Bahamas in a baby blue Mustang convertible in 1965’s Thunderball.
Though I would point out that owning a Ford pony car in an early Bond movie almost always lead to a certain death, it didn’t even work out for Mrs. Bond and here 1969 Mercury Cougar convertible in On Her Majestys Secret Service.
The Mach 1 in Diamonds are Forever didn’t get wrecked.
None of them got wrecked, though Diana Riggs Cougar did get the crap beat out of it, and the white convertible in Goldfinger did get the quarters ripped up, I was referring more to the deaths of the characters that owned ponycars in the earlier 007 movies.
I too was a youngster in December of 1964 when I saw my first Mustang and I wasn’t impressed at all . then as now I knew little about cars .
They’re fun little cars and I like them a lot now , wishing I’da bought a White/red I6 coupe , there used to be Marine cylinder heads you could get for those engines that had _6_ intake ports for mounting six side draft carbys ~ that really woke ’em up .
-Nate
And just think, less than 20 years later Chrysler introduced their Minivans which blew everyone out of the water, but then 6 years after that (1990) Ford introduced the Explorer which blew everyone out of the water again and helped created the modern vehicle landscape of today.
I like the early Mustangs (pre-Foxbody), but so much has been created around them, some of their looks are so-so, and so many have been overly restored or molested my reaction to them is often “meh” But I think the main reason is because they are just there, a decent looking car, but as familiar as lamposts and a semi-frequent sighting, at least in Portland, OR.
I was 7 and a half in April 1964 when the Mustang came out.It took the summer,July I think before I saw one in the UK.No doubt it was from the USAF base near my Grandparents.I thought it looked great,now American cars weren’t chrome dripping behemoths but a sensible size.I would never have guessed it was a Falcon in drag unlike the Barracuda which clearly showed it’s roots.On holiday in California in July and August I must have seen 4 Mustangs for every Barracuda.
Never had one but one day…
Where I grew up, anyone over the age of 18 was a parent. Dads worked factory shifts and moms raised kids. Family practicality demanded wagons as primary vehicles, and used Beetles or other rolling rust buckets as work vehicles. Consequently, Mustangs were on the road around Chicagoland, but not even close to my neighborhood.
So by the time I was aware of their existence, Mustang mania was gone and they were replaced with bloated Torino-ish things that couldn’t decide if they were sporty or Broughams. Then came the Mustang II which was a Malaise-era joke of a Mustang.
It wasn’t until the Fox Mustang came out that I finally felt a surge of interest in them. I had a red hatch back in 1991 that was practical, fun and made me look attractive to girls I didn’t know. I had gotten rid of the impractical red Miata that only seemed to attract guys, for the Mustang which got the attention of girls.
The Mustangs of this era for me were either pampered garage princesses owned by Boomers, or hacked-up hot rods which shouldn’t be on the road owned by my generation. My brothers restored two of them and sold them off to Boomers for real money which they used to keep food on the table for their growing families. Being a Mopar family, we saw Mustangs as gravy for our mashed potatoes, not something to really want.
Now – this new 2015 Mustang? Oh yeah – I would love to have one. On the other hand – have you see the new 2015 F-150? Again, the Mustang is nice – but I got a brood to haul around. My nest won’t be empty for another twenty years. So, I figure I’ll get the 2034 Mustang then.
We returned from vietnam and the buddy that I split ownership of the 50 olds with wanted a mustang. We sold the olds and he bought one. It was early 65. I didn’t get another car till I left the ship. I would like to have had a mustang but felt compelled to buy a vw after the newfoundland and new england winters. From 66 on I drove a number of air cooled beetles.
The Mustang is one car I never have owned and I feel a little silly about that. I think the fastback had a functional hatch. If so, that with a six and a stick would still do just about everything I need. Sometimes when I see them I tend to lust just a tad.
I don’t think the fastbacks had functional hatches until the Mustang II.
I was in college in 1965. Bet I can think of 20 people who had one at some time, everything to completely bas 6 cylinders to really nice 289 convertibles. As with all cars more than a few were bought because the father lusted after one. I think they gave better service than what we were used to in the 6os but still needed much more maintenance and repair than we expect today.
When I-40 opened Memphis to Nashville a friend drove his 6 cylinder the 210 miles in 2 hours. Absolutely crazy. No idea how he missed a ticket. And, the car lasted a lot longer so it must not have hurt it.
These were the first cars that I remember being “everywhere”. Our house was surrounded by them and my aunt had one.
She was the young, fun aunt and the car matched her personality perfectly. ’66 V8, cruise-o-matic, rally wheels, light blue over black. I remember my dad telling her in the 70s not to sell the car because it was going to be a classic and he was right. I think she got $350 for it.
A ride was like a trip to Disneyland. You could hear the engine for a change and you sat low. The buckets, A/T floor shift and super cool 3-spoke sport wheel provided quite a contrast to bench seats, column shift and 225 inch overall length. The only bad part was that the front suspension would always squeak.
I’ve always disliked the ’65. I thought the minor changes for ’66 made it less Falcon, more Mustang. The ’66 grille was more aggressive and lost the busy bar. The side “intakes” looked sportier as did the gas cap and full instrumentation inside. A ribbon speedo in a Mustang, that’s ridiculous!
It’s like the car took off in ’64 and found itself. It knew what it had to be and the changes for ’66 must have planned themselves. The ’66 was my first favorite car and I was barely old enough to walk.
That’s the infamous front suspension squeak on early Mustangs and Mavericks. My 72 Maverick LDO’s front suspension starting squeaking in its second year. According to my maintenance file on the car the dealer’s service manager said that a design flaw allowed the upper control arm bushings to lose their lubrication and a special tool was required to grease them. He said they had to remove the grease fitting plug, install the tool, grease the pivot, remove the tool and reinstall the plug. I remember taking it in again and again for this service and also that not all dealers had the special tool, a real PITA. Not one of Ford’s better ideas.
I wonder if the dealer was BSing you. My Mustang and my buddy’s Cougar and Maverick squeaked too – but shooting the fittings with my ordinary grease gun about every 2000 miles would shut it up. I remember reading an informed opinion here about the cause of that Ford Squeak (Roger628 perhaps?) but have forgotten it.
Back in the ’70’s I had a dealer tell me the same thing. At least they seem to have tried to do it the right way. I took my ’67 to the dealer for this remedy and found out when I got it home that it didn’t squeak any more, but they torched a 2″X 2″ hole in the spring tower to get to the fitting.
The ’66 I have now only does it in damp weather.
The upper control arm fittings were capped. Some owners cut holes in the front and rear sides of the shock towers to place grease fittings. It wasn’t until the Mustang restoration craze of the 1990s that someone started marketing 90 degree grease fittings that could be accessed from inside the wheelwells.
Back in ’65, people were expected to trade up after two or three years. These cars weren’t expected to be on the road 10 years.
My grandmother had a 1962 Falcon sedan when I was really young. When I hear a Ford or Mercury compact with a squeaking front suspension at the Carlisle Ford Nationals, I think of her and that car!
There are two cars that stand out in my mind because of the impression made on me. The first was a 1960 Corvette that stopped at my lemonade stand in 1962 while living in Bogota, NJ. White body, red interior, top off and driven by an older crowd all of 20 years old to my 8 years old.
The next was in 1965 when my father took us to visit a friend of his in Maryland, near the Pennsylvania border, while living in Catonsville. His friend’s 18 year old daughter had a new Mustang convertible, white/red again, took my brother and me out for a ride. Now I am 12 and my brother 10. That ride and car made one of those lasting impressions, a good one given all the bad ones in the 60s, that still inhabit my mind. Never got a 65 but there is a 68 in the garage next to my high school 68 Cougar.
I was in junior high when the Mustang came out and they quickly became the car of choice for many people. I remember friends and family members owning them, cars that ranged from my uncle’s pristine 1966 V8 hardtop to a friends 1965 I6 beater. I have owned several Mustangs over the years but never had a Gen I ‘stang. For me the ideal Mustang would be a 1966 coupe with the I6 and a four speed manual, either that or the 1988 GT convertible I drove for many years and wish I had back.
The story gets it right, the first Stangs were not, repeat, not “muscle cars”. Some kid online once posted “Mustang was Ford’s answer to GTO”. No.
And so what if women bought them? If not, the car would have been gone by 1974 like the Cuda. Have to have base or mid line models to support the sporty, performance oriented ones.
Something forgotten or never learned by today’s car fans.
As the owner of a 1960s Mustang I heartily endorse this article. 😛
“The symbols of the ’58 Thunderbird and the ’65 Mustang are perfect reflections of the profound societal changes that took place in the seven years between them.”
Compare the Beach Boy’s “Fun, Fun, Fun” (till Daddy takes the T-bird away) to “Mustang Sally” (Wilson Picket) and you’ll find the theme is very similar. Actually that song caused my wife to christen our Mustang as “Sally”.
Just a nit to pick re: hp ratings on the 289 V8. Quite a few came with two barrel carb and a 180 (gross) hp rating while the 4 barrel was rated at 200 (gross) hp. The HiPo 289 (K-code) was 275 (gross) hp and Shelby showed that the 289 could be made to rev to 7,000 rpm without destroying it (which is pretty good for an American small block V8 in the 60s).
My car is a 289 2 brrl and it has pretty good get up and go, although with dual exhaust and electronic ignition it is likely making closer to the 4 barrels HP.
Hey Dan,
In ’65, the 289 2V made 200 rated hp, the base A-Code 4V 225, and the K-Code Hi-Po was 271.
Mine was originally a 2 barrel, and now with a touch more cam, Tri-Y headers, aluminum Weiand intake, and a 4-barrel, it’s probably actually making 200 horsepower. 🙂
Interesting, I’m sure those engines actually LOST a little bit of official rated HP during the next couple of years. But then the 289s time was very short before the 302 debuted. Maybe Ford down-rated the 289 at the end because then everyone would go “Ohhhhh look the 302 makes 200 hp in 2 barrel form!”
Or I’ve read so many articles in Mustang Monthly all the #s are running together…
First Mustang I ever saw was a dark green 64 notchback bought used by the garage owner at the bottom of our street he promptly pulled the 289 out and stuffed in a 351 and used it as a family car and for towing his Willys Jeep to off road events that was in 68/69 Ive never seen a 6 and lots of Kiwi petrol heads dont believe such an animal exists. All Mustangs here were privately imported and if yer shelling out that sorta coin nobody brings in the poverty pack.
In 1970, at the age of 21, I purchased a 1966 Mustang GT coupe from a sheriff’s deputy who was the original owner. He had ordered it up with the Hi-Po 289, 4-speed, power steering, front disc brakes and the bench-bucket front seat. It was burgundy with a black vinyl top. He was asking $1400 and accepted my offer of $1200. I will never, ever, forget that car. I can still picture and feel the vibration and rattle of that little cue ball white shifter the day I got it up to 120 mph ( on the 140 mph indicated speedometer), trying to keep up with a Corvette somewhere in Michigan on I-94 between Chicago and Detroit.
American icon does not fully describe this car. I’ve probably seen one (usually several) in the metal at least once a month every month of my life. What other 1965 car can you say that about?
My parents likely just missed having one. They came back from where my dad was stationed in Germany in 1962 and bought a snazzy new Falcon Futura two-door. They were the right demographic, just a few years early. By 1967, they had two kids and upsized to my Grandmother’s early ’60s Buick Special wagon.
My first recollection would have been the late ’60s when our neighbor had one that complimented their ’65 Impala wagon. I recall it as a bit special even to my very young mind. I rode in that car a few times, probably my first ride in a ’65 ‘stang. Dark green, black interior. Interesting, it always seemed to belong to the Mrs., even though they had several kids. It seems like most modern scenes would give the small commuter to dad, and leave the family truckster to mom.
Great write up.
Regulars here have probably begun to notice my writing quirks. Making a word possessive that should just be plural is my way of trying to possess all the World’s apostrophe’s.
So, I’m quite inspired by the typo that Ford published around the world. Ford “dealer” would seem a better choice in the second to last sentence.
I mentally add “place” after that construction, which is how I think it’s meant to be taken.
The oddest thing about the Futura was that it had buckets, console and…a column shift?!? Surely the Dagenham four-on-the-floor should’ve been part of the package – three on the tree doesn’t say “upscale” and a 2-speed slushbox just screams “not sporty”!
Not odd for the time the Futura was introduced (mid-year 1961). And it was just a trim package on a low rent car – buckets, a little console box, polka dot trimmed wheel covers and some trim spears on the rear fender. And a four speed with the 144 or 170 was not in the cards.
The more upscale Fairlane Sports Coupe that came a little later also had the automatic and three speed stick on the column – our 64 had a column shift. I think only the Galaxie 500XL in the Ford line would have had a floor shift in these early years. And it would be decades after the 55-57 that a T-Bird would again have a floor shift.
GM was putting in floor shifts earlier and more often – I recall that a neighbor’s 62 Cutlass Coupe had buckets and automatic on the floor. But this was a more expensive, upscale car.
Actually, there was a time when “at your Ford (Chevy, etc.) dealer’s” was a standard usage. I don’t get it, but look around at all the vintage ads and you’ll see it over and over.
My dad was driving a ’63 Falcon Squire wagon when the Mustang came out. Oddly, the Falcon had the optional bucket seats and console. We were a one-car family at the time. In ’65 dad traded the ’63 Falcon for a ’65 Deluxe wagon (no woodgrain trim). It wasn’t until 1966 when my mom got her first car. By that time we had switched to Chevys and mom got a ’65 Corvair Monza.
The first Mustang in the family was the ’65 2+2 I bought in 1977 for $450.00. It was more Bondo than steel, but I spent my high school years tearing it apart and putting it back together.
The Mustang in my avatar is my. ’64 1/2 (May 7) D-Code 289 4bbl, of which I am the third owner. Almost nothing on the car is original after 202,000 miles and a restomod rebuild with a new remanufactured 289 and T-5 transmission.
Beautiful Wish you would write it up and provide a bunch of pictures.
I have been meaning to get the pics from my scrap book scanned so I can post them. The whole job took 9 months and we had the car stripped down to the unibody. The only original panels are the cowl, doors trunk lid, taillight paney and the floor and trunk floor. The car spent most of its life in Albuquerque, NM so the underside was pretty clean. The fenders and quarters were replaced due more to dents than rust issues.
Very cool Mark, was it originally a manual trans car or an automatic? My 67 has a non original rear axle and the ration is far too “deep” compared to what it came from the factory with. I’ve either got to change the rear gears or get more gears in my transmission, three speed C4 isn’t cutting it.
My car was a factory 4 speed. It was also loaded with options power steering, brakes top & factory A/C. It also came with front and rear seatbelts, day/nite mirror, dual side mirrors, AM radio, exterior decor group (Pinstripe, rocker moulding and scoop trim delete), spinner wheel covers, but no back up lights.
Beautiful car! It’s nice to see one that ISN’T painted red.
It was originally Rangoon Red with a Red interior. The new color is 1965 T-Bird Midnight Turquoise. The restorer who did the paint said it was the first one to come in Red and go home a different color.
Ford had some sharp colors in 1965-66. I especially like “Emberglo” and “Tropical Turquoise.”
Sweet looking car. I’ve always liked the 1964-66 Ford Mustang. I prefer the coupe version and the convertible over the fastback.
I was fourteen and the son of a Chevrolet dealer. You can imagine the opinion of the Mustang in my house. I made the mistake of saying something mildly complementary regarding the car at dinner one night shortly after it came out and was immediately sent from the table.
Just the same, I wasn’t impressed. Chevy had the Corvair Monza, and Monza Spyder, so who needed a dressed up Falcon? That couldn’t perform unless you overweighed the nose with a big honkin’ V-8?
Fifty years later, I’m still not particularly impressed. And I’ll take a ’64 or ’65 Monza (any intake option) over a ’64 or ’66 Mustang any day. Living a couple of years with my late wife’s 64-1/2 260/auto coupe didn’t change my mind any.
To this day my grandfather calls them “horse cars” and complains about the lack of rear traction.
I think he owned a Rambler at the time these were released- which Bill Bryson once described as having the stylish zip of a chest freezer.
I like them. Make mine red, please.
When I was a boy, my sister in law had a 1965-66 Ford Mustang coupe. I thought it was the best looking car at the time. I don’t know what kind of engine was under the hood, whether it was a V8 engine or a straight 6, but at the time, I didn’t care.
Wow, those ‘teardrop’ style wheels on the grey notch really look like ass on that car. I never liked them on ANYTHING…but on a ponycar….NO WAY.
I do like the look of the blue notch. Its a 289 car, my fave color is blue, Cragar SS mags: CHECK, and the overall weathered yet still clean and straight look points to a fun driver.