(first posted 7/28/2015) The 1971-73 Mustang has probably never been called “ahead of its time”, but this sometimes forgotten, sometimes maligned generation could have been just that. With just a few tweaks, Ford could have fielded an immensely popular version of this big Mustang… as a personal luxury coupe.
Think about it: this Mustang had an increasingly luxury-oriented focus and poor space utilization. The 1970s was the nadir of performance but the zenith of cushy, luxurious personal cars.
By 1975, the market was saturated with mid-sized, personal luxury offerings: Elite, Monte Carlo, Cordoba, Grand Prix et all. It was America’s hottest segment, and although these cars often had large footprints, packaging efficiency was no priority. It was all about style, a smooth ride and plush trim.
And then there was the Mustang. Its even more maligned successor, the Mustang II, coincidentally arrived in time for a fuel crisis that had Americans rushing for more fuel efficient cars. The Mustang nameplate’s sliding sales had been arrested.
But while Ford’s Mustang II launch proved to be serendipitous, they had been caught embarrassingly behind in the mid-size personal luxury segment despite having created, or at least popularized, the personal luxury concept with the Thunderbird. The Thunderbird by now was too large and too expensive to hit the market sweet spot that GM had harnessed with the Monte and Grand Prix. The Elite was a day-late, dollar-short attempt, a placeholder until the 1977 Thunderbird would arrive and quickly become one of the segment’s best-sellers.
Across town at Chrysler Corporation, the Dodge Charger had fallen behind in an increasingly luxury-oriented market. Its attempts, like the ’71-74 SE, were striking in appearance but not what most buyers were after. They wanted upright rooflines and opera windows. When Dodge finally delivered, Chrysler’s Cordoba stole all the thunder and the Charger line withered and died. Dodge would make further attempts with the Magnum and Mirada but for various reasons could never field a successful personal luxury car.
The Mustang had experienced a similar sales slide in 1971-73. The bigger Mustang – albeit only eight inches longer, six inches wider and on an inch longer wheelbase than the 1970 – had been developed in the big-block crazy late 1960s to pack a variety of thundering V8s. With rising insurance premiums, that era came to an end (and even if it hadn’t, the gas crisis would have killed it). But the Mustang nameplate had very quickly captured the public zeitgeist, not just with performance offerings but with humble six-cylinder coupes and convertibles. Shareholder Anna Muccioli may have famously complained it got “fat”, but are we to believe not a single first-generation Mustang owner ended up buying a Monte or some such personal luxury car despite their girth?
Ford had recognized the need for a more luxurious Mustang and launched the Grandé option, which carried over into the ’71-73 generation. Although the Grandé option added niceties like Lambeth cloth trim, chrome mouldings and unique wheel covers and mirrors, perhaps Ford didn’t go far enough.
Imagine this: a 71-73 Mustang with a formal roofline, instead of this swoopy, flying buttress hat. You have the allure of the Mustang name with the more formal appearance and luxury accoutrements of a Thunderbird. Given the basic platform carried on until 1980, Ford could have eked out a few more years of this Mustang, too. There would be Mustang II and Mustang I (Mustang Grandé?), exploiting the power of the name and tackling two immensely popular segments. Engine offerings could have been limited to the 250 six and the 302 and 351 V8s. The fastback would likely have been dropped – after all, there would probably have been a “sporty”, tape-striped notchback trim – and the convertible would have been history because of the proposed rollover safety standards that the government never implemented. But this bigger Mustang, as sacrilegious as it sounds now, could have been a golden goose. Ford had the “right” idea, they just didn’t execute it fully.
Or, maybe, like the Charger it might have been a ‘near enough, but not quite’ offering. However, one must consider the reason the luxury ’71-74 Charger SE faltered was because of its wild coke-bottle styling that Chrysler just couldn’t conceal. When they did, shoppers could buy the same car for slightly more but with a more prestigious nameplate: the Cordoba.
Mustang sales had fallen with this generation, dropping 40k units for 1971 to around 150k units. They fell by a further 20k units for 1972 before rebounding slightly for 1973, but that may well have been because Ford was targeting the same, sport-oriented customers that had bought Mustangs before. Those seeking cheap performance could now be served by the swoopy Maverick, or they were off buying Dusters.
The Grandé trim’s proportion of Mustang sales dropped each successive year in this generation, too. But many of the features that came standard with the Grandé were available on the lesser Hardtop, which was the lineup’s best seller by far, outselling the sportier fastback by a comfortable margin.
Would the Mustang I have needed more than a Thunderbird roofline? Was a Rolls-esque grille a pre-requisite? We will never know for sure whether this dual Mustang strategy would have worked, but it’s entirely possible it could have. Cougar sales rebounded when Mercury dropped all sporting pretenses and slapped the name on a Montego, and the Cougar name was younger than the Mustang and nowhere near as popular. Ford could have advertised a range of personal luxury coupes in the “Thunderbird tradition”: big daddy T-Bird, Mustang I and Elite.
Nothing lasts forever. The Mustang I could have stuck around until the Fox-body, and a fancier derivative could have been made on that platform. As the personal luxury segment started running out of steam in the 1980s, Mustang Grandé could have been retired and perhaps returned to being a trim level on the regular Mustang. After all, Chevy had the Camaro Berlinetta and Pontiac had the Firebird SE but Ford eventually deep-sixed its Mustang Ghia and GLX trim levels as well as mystifyingly axing the six-cylinder option.
Cars like the ’74 Cougar and Mustang II tend to be anathema to enthusiasts, despite their immense popularity at the time. It’s likely the Mustang I/Grandé would be held in similar regard today if it had existed, but would it have experienced the same success as the ’74 Mustang II and Cougar? Or would it have been Ford’s fat folly?
Note: I photographed this gorgeous Mustang Grandé not ten minutes from my current home here in Brisbane. Bravo to the enthusiast who had a 71-73 Mustang imported here instead of one of the ubiquitous 64-66 models. Neither generation was officially sold here, and yet the early models are so common I don’t even turn my head to look anymore.
Related Reading:
Great ads! I enjoy seeing the image the manufacturers were trying to project in the 70s for these types of cars. I’d love to see inside the minds of the people who bought those personal luxury cars. The Maverick ad is amusing, too.
The featured car seems suitably Queensland to me, and it’s even the right colour.
The photo of the driver’s side brought back memories of working in Australia. I had to hack off bonnet catch loop thingies and rivet new ones onto about a hundred new Mazda utes because somebody in NT had the bonnet fly up in their face at 130 km/h.
I have found this by accident while looking for paint scheme ideas. The maroon mustang is my car. With my work Ute behind it.
It’s getting spruced up a bit at the moment.
Nearly as bad here Mustangs of all models are nearly as common as Falcons the later retro models have really caught on with Kiwis and none of them were sold here new, they are all private used imports prices on late models are crashing though with talk of sales finally begining from Ford.
“Cougar sales rebounded when Mercury dropped all sporting pretenses and slapped the name on a Montego,’
I am SO thankful they never put the Mustang name on a Torino!
+1
Amen to THAT!!!
Actually William, Ford did officially sell two batches of first-gen Mustangs here, to promote the so-called “Mustang bred” XR Falcon. They brought in 48 1965 models, all automatic hardtops, mostly 200 sixes with a few V8s. The RHD conversion was done at Ford’s Homebush plant, with a Ford Australia ID plate fitted. Another 161 1966 models came in later. Us kids knew there were Mustangs around – they were THE cool American car – and it was a real treat if you actually saw one.
Ahhhh…. CC. Such an amazing repository of information. Thanks Old Pete.
Same in the UK.. A few Gen1 Mustangs were converted using a RHD Zephyr steering rack buy a dealer in North London. Did you now that Ferguson imported
a 289 Hard top and converted it to 4 wheel drive pre dating the FF..
Think I remember reading about the Ferguson job in one of the English classic car mags in the past year or so. Just amazing!
I think that the flying buttress, tunnel-back roof was an attempt to balance out the rear of the ’71-’73 Mustang coupe with the long, long hood. It simply didn’t work, at least not as well as with the more rounded Cougar of the same vintage, and really may have been a missed opportunity for Ford to get a jump on the formal roof bandwagon that was just around the corner.
You have to wonder if the coupe’s roof was, again, something Bunkie specifically wanted. Everyone knows he was a big proponent of the Pontiac beak that he had tacked onto the front of the Thunderbird and Montego. Was he also a champion of the tunnel-back roof that first appeared on the 1964 Ferrari GTO, then on GM’s intermediates in 1966?
I think an element of the personal luxury coupe was its size. The other cars mentioned, Grand Prix, Monte Carlo, Cordoba were larger than the Mustang. It also plays into the American idea that size = luxury. Carmakers have always had a hard time here selling small luxury cars. Cimarron, Versailles, etc.
Likely too that some buyers previously had Mustangs, Camaros etc. and wanted to show that they had arrived, had more money to spend, and didn’t want to buy the new version of the car they used to have. Plus, coupes always look better than sedans, especially of that area. Compare the Cutlass coupe versions to the sedan, for example.
I appreciate the 1971 – ’73 Mustang notchbacks (including the Grande) probably more now than ever. I kind of like their heft. I don’t know if a more formal roofline would have pushed sales past those of, say, the Camaro Type LT.
That said, the front of that Ford Elite looks like someone with bug-eyes and a bad overbite. I never noticed that so much before.
“With just a few tweaks, Ford could have fielded an immensely popular version of this big Mustang…as a personal luxury coupe.”
I think they actually did that. They called it “Granada.” 🙂
A personal luxury coupe has to have a certain level of exclusivity, otherwise it becomes just another Ford (thinking of Jim Cavanaugh’s piece from the other day). The Granada does not measure-up.
The Granada was also sold as a 4-door sedan and wagon, not just a 2-door. To me, a personal luxury coupe has to be only sold as a 2-door coupe and optionally convertible to retain its cachet. Ford realized this after they tried offering a 4-door T-bird for one generation (1967-71).
Also, the Granada had a badge-engineered twin, the Mercury Monarch. Where is the exclusivity of the marque when anyone can tell that another car shares the exact same sheetmetal? Same problem as the Cimarron, but not such an egregious case.
The longer 109″ wheelbase 1971-73 Mustang along with the 1971-73 Mercury Cougar actually shared the same chassis for the later Falcon based 1975-80 Ford Granada/Mercury Monarch/Lincoln Versailles. Although same can be said with the 1971-77 Ford Maverick/Mercury Comet 4 Door Sedan as well since they also had the 109″ wheelbase. The Maverick/Comet Coupe might be a shortened platform version of the sedans since their wheelbase measured at 103″ and 6″ shorter in overall length 187″ for the coupe vs. 193.8″ for the sedan and for the Mercury Comet, 189.4″ for the coupe vs. 196.9″ for the sedans (only less than an inch shorter than the Monarch’s 197.7″ sedan and coupe).
Pedro, don’t let the wheelbase lengths throw you off. The track/width is an important consideration, and there were three variations of width in the “Falcon Platform”; the original narrow, which the gen1 Falcon and Mustang used as well as the Maverick.
The Granada used the medium-width chassis, along with the ’66 up Falcon, Fairlane, and the ’67-’70 Mustang. The ’71-’73 Mustang and Cougar use the wide track version.
The Maverick is more closely related to the original falcon than the Granada; despite the fact that they both used the same 109″ wheelbase.
Paul, Thanks for the information. It appears that the original narrow Falcon platform carried over to the Maverick/Comet series but its an interesting Falcon family tree though which can come in three width variations. I read something to this effect on one of the past Curbside Classics feature regarding about the wide uses and variations of the Falcon platform. I was even surprised that the earlier but larger Fairlanes also were based from one of the Falcon platform variations.
It’s all here: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-fords-falcon-platform-from-falcon-to-versailles-in-18-different-wheelbase-lengthtrack-width-variations/
The Mustang was sort of a hybrid of the two, the chassis was nearly identical from 65-73, the track widths changed through the use of different components and pickup points(presumably sourced from the wide Fairlane/late Falcon chassis). You’re correct though, the granada and Maverick are quite different underneath, pretty much the same kind of difference between the 65 and 66 Falcons.
The front end compnants are useful from the Granada/Monarch. That way the disc brakes can be used to update the front end of the 66 Mustang. That is what we did to my brothers 66 Mustang so it would stop from 160 mph in less than a 1/4 mile.
Pedro, I don’t really care if they all shared the same chassis or not. That’s “platform sharing” and all manufacturers do it. Since personal luxury coupes are all about image and not performance, they actually lend themselves well to platform sharing to reduce manufacturer R&D costs.
However, when two vehicles actually share identical external sheetmetal, the part that everyone sees, that’s when they cross the line into “badge engineering”. When someone who doesn’t even follow automotive news that closely can see that they’re the same car, it’s going to be a bad day for whoever bought the expensive version.
“The Granada was also sold as a 4-door sedan and wagon, not just a 2-door.” Two door and four door only on the original platform. The Granada wagon didn’t show up until ’81 on the Fox platform.
First, it is great to see such a well kept Mustang Grande, and it is clearly thriving down under.
Interesting hypothesis… but… I think the Mustang name was (and is) so deeply associated with sporty, youthful imagery that it could never have pulled off the personal luxury schtick. Yes, it needed luxury trim packages to stay relevant, but it was always primarily seen as a fun, small(ish) car. These “clydesdale” Mustangs veered pretty far from that formula, and the sales reflected the misstep. While there is little love today for the Mustang II, I do think it was an appropriate 70’s style interpretation of the theme, and was phenomenally successful as a “cute” car. Performance was being stifled then in general, and there’s no reason the Mustang would have been an exception.
I would argue that Ford did in fact do a personal luxury car on this platform, even if they were rather muddled about it. That car of course was the ’71-’73 Cougar. Longer than the Mustang by 6 inches, with a 112″ wheelbase (GM mid-size coupe territory), with the formal “Mark-inspired” grille, it had a lot of the necessary elements for personal luxury success. Would a more formal roofline have helped make it a stronger seller? Quite likely, and along with more focused marketing, the Cougar could have successfully morphed into a personal luxury champion even before its switch to the Montego platform.
Good point about the 71-73 Cougar.
The 1971-73 Mercury Cougar was also closer in size with its indirect competitor the 1970-72 Chevelle Malibu Coupe. 196.7″ for the former and 197.5″ for the latter and yet both cars have 112″ wheelbase.
These were just too big. Perhaps the exteme size flexibility of the Falcon platform was to blame. This let the Mustang get bigger, more expensive so value buyers head for Maverick and then Pinto giving Iacocca 2 great first year successes has he was pushing aside Bunkie Knudsen for the Ford presidency.
The true combo of lux and sport in my opinion was done best with the first 67-68 Cougar XR7. Real lux interiors with leather and power assists and Jag style woodgrain. H/O small blocks available with four speeds and a nicely sized, well styled package. It was a hit but perhaps held back a little by being a Mercury. Since that package was commanding higher prices, it might have been kept around and developed into something world beating. IRS, rack and pinion steering, 4 wheel discs DOHC injected 6s and small displacement V8s. William I see you are afflicted with my propensity toward what ifs, Thanks for stirring the imagination.
Great piece William. I’m not so big a fan of the coupe but not sure a formal roofline would have worked with that body. Those swoopy lines needed that buttressed c-pillar, but having said that I remember CC featuring a convertible with roof up that didn’t look so bad.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1973-ford-mustang-convertible-motorized-malpractice-or-just-what-the-doctor-ordered/
In 1969, my aunt traded her 68 Mustang (her 2nd, the 1st being a 66) for a 69 Grande. When I got a chance to drive it I was quite disappointed. In my view, the 69 Grande was a small attempt to create a smaller “personal luxury coupe”. The engine in that 69 was barely audible and the interior appointments also leaned more towards T-bird than, say, Boss 302.
My sister “traded” her 74 Mercury Cougar for a Mustang II Ghia before taking delivery of the Cougar. I drove that Ghia and another sister’s 74 Capri….both with V6s and I felt that Ford had delivered yet a smaller “personal luxury coupe” with the Mustang II Ghia.
When the Mustang II was at the dealer for one of many attempts to correct assembly faults, my sister was given a 74 Torino 4 door sedan as a loaner. She wouldn’t drive it, so I became her chauffeur. She said it was too big and she felt like she was piloting a boat….a BIG boat.
I think Ford did reasonably well fielding the Mustang II and Granada/Monarch as “smaller”/trimmer coupes (and sedans), it’s just that they really weren’t personal luxury vehicles, just gussied-up small cars.
This is an interesting and inciteful article, but My perceptions (unencumbered by anything but having been a car enthusiast about to buy my first new car in 1972) are slightly different.
First, What’s in a name? I think the “Fat Pony” was an attempt to keep Mustang customers as they matured. That is, the first Mustangs were economical but sporty commuter cars with a performance halo…theoretically ‘a young person’s car’. The thinking by Ford was that the performance era was dying as the 20-something baby-boomer muscle car buyers of the 60’s matured into more comfort-seeking 30-somethings. However, in the event, the Mustang name was so firmly imprinted as a small sporty car, that people rejected the move of the name from ‘sports’ to ‘grand touring’.
So, I believe the reason that this vehicle failed in personal luxury coupe arena was the name, not the vehicle.
Another small point is that I think you are mis-interpreting the Maverick as an intended replacement for the Mustang. The “old paint” Maverick ad you show is probably referring to replacing a faithful reliable economy beater with a new low cost Maverick. The ‘upscale’ ‘performance’ Mavericks only appeared later as a car for people who found the Mustang offensively small.
Mavericks were not marketed as sporty cars (although there was the ‘Grabber’ model) but a sort of new Model T which was cheap, durable, reliable and which could be repaired by the owner himself. It was a VW fighter, NOT a Mustang with a new name.
The Mustang II was actually a recognition by Ford of their failure to move the name upmarket and a return to the Mustang’s successful niche as a sporty commuter. Times having changed (read insurance premiums and especially gas prices) the performance element was down-played somewhat. The Mustang II’s market place success demonstrated the power the Mustang image still possessed.
TL/DR: The fat Mustang would have sold well if Ford had called it a Granada or something other than Mustang
I wasn’t saying the Maverick was a Mustang replacement, just that the subset of buyers who might have bought a Mustang because it was an affordable, compact performance car (or rather, could be optioned up as one) only had the Maverick Grabber as an option in Ford showrooms.
The Grabber trim was available from 1970 and the V8 from 1971, well before the Mustang II launched
Actually, the Maverick HAS become a sort of Affordable Mustang replacement in its old age. Go to any good sized show and there is a decent chance you will find a tricked-out Maverick or two. Rodders quickly noticed that the Maverick accepted most of the same performance upgrades that you can bolt onto an early Mustang
The “Goodbye Old Paint” ad was advertising the available high-impact colours you could order on the Maverick. Look closer, the 5 colours are listed in the ad. They were trying to position the Maverick as a young person’s car, which is Mustang territory. Certainly so, with not just loud colours, but names that are both puns and double-ententes like “Anti-EstablishMint” and “Freudian Gilt”.
A very interesting “what if”. I don’t know how well it would have worked to *just* put a formal roofline on the existing body, but I could see a more thorough freshening (with updated front clip) taking the place of the Elite for ’74. The Elite was not far enough differentiated from the Torino Brougham, so something based on the Mustang might have worked. A little small for the class, maybe, but as big as these ‘Stangs were, I don’t know if they would have been too far from a colonnade Monte.
Also a good point about the Thunderbird–I’m not sure exactly what or who they were aiming at with the “Big Bird” in ’72. It was almost exactly the same size as the LTD of that year, and heavier to boot. Unless they expected Chevy to inflate the Monte Carlo to the same XXL specs, what was their target for that car? I suppose they wanted to reap the benefits of platform-sharing with the Mark IV, but it seems overkill.
The 70-72 Big T-Birds were aimed at Riviera, Toronado, and even Eldo. But, they were failing since they were too much to compete with true mid size and had the ‘low price’ Ford brand to compete with lux makes.
It took the Gas Crisis to convince Ford HQ to downsize [not by much] the T-Bird.
I actually like the Mustang II. I found it more attractive than the 1971-73.
Although I liked the looks of the 71 through 75, driving them was another story (at least the fast back) it was like driving a tube. You couldn’t see cars in the blind spot that basically was from the back of the side window to forever. Personally, I have driven all of the mustang generations, but my favorite is the 64 through 66. They had lots of leg room, handled well, and looked good. Not a lot of fancy stuff, just good and dependable. My brother liked them so much, we built an 8 sec street car out of one. It even passed 1980 emmissions testing (to his surprise)
Very appropriate name. “Grande” in Italian means “big”, “large”, “huge”,”enormous”,or even” fat “in some circumstances and that sure was a good description of this generation of Mustang.
So, you’re seriously suggesting a Mustang Brougham?
Why do you hate the Mustang so much? Wasn’t the Mustang II enough of a blot on the marque, an attempt to get away from what ‘Mustang’ meant?
Of course, if your 71-73 Mustang Brougham had actually happened, then to today’s collectors the Mustang II would have only been the second-most embarrassing model in the car’s 50 year history. And it might have been more acceptable at Mustang gatherings.
Actually it is great that Ford built the Mustang II. Where else would all those street rodders gotten front end suspensions? Now they are fabricating them new, but initially, they came from the boneyards.
The very first Mustangs had formal roof lines, the fastbacks came later. The Grande’ wasn’t the “first” formal roof Stang.
Also, the main reason for bigger Mustang was the simple Detroit mantra of ‘bigger is better’. Upper brass thought that every ‘newer’ car should be larger, until there was backlash.
So, Lee Iaccoca ordered a smaller Mustang in 1970, to come out for 1974 MY, 3 years to design. No, Ford didn’t “whip up the M-II over night when gas prices went up”, contrary to Urban Legand.
That depends how you define a formal roof.
The first Mustang coupe’s roofline was average for the time, there was nothing formal about that in 1964-5. The slope was what you’d expect, the rear window was about the size you’d expect. It fitted in with pretty much every other vehicle in the Ford family.
The smaller-rear-window-as-an-indicator-of-luxury thing really took off a few years later. As did the move to boxier rooflines.
The 65 hardtop roofline emulated the Thunderbird roofline, which was unquestionably formal. The definition of formal rooflines gets somewhat murky with hindsight because the 75 Seville brought the bolt upright look in fashion that later 70s PLCs adopted, as well as many GM sedans during the 80s, but prior to that “formal” was the Collonade Monte Carlo/Cutlass supreme roofline, yet apart from the formal opera windows was MORE rakish than the original Mustang’s roofline
Hmm. You have a point, bringing in the Thunderbird. Yes, it’s C-pillar was thicker than usual at the time, but I hadn’t equated that with being ‘formal’. Being outside the US, I was thinking of the other cars I saw around at the time. Dad’s ’62 Falcon, the Mark 3 Zephyr, EH Holden, AP5 Valiant….. The Mustang’s roofline didn’t stand out particularly. I’d just thought of it as normal.
The Seville’s bolt upright rear window was like a visual slap in the face. Unmistakably different – until they putting it on just about everything save the Corvette…
Not sure I am buying into your argument on this. Ford certainly needed a mid-sized personal luxury coupe after the Monte Carlo planted it’s flag and became a success. However, I don’t think the Mustang would have been right for the job. We gripe today about how Mercury and Oldsmobile abused the Cougar and Cutlass names to cover so many different cars over the years so as to suck almost all of the life out of those nameplates. A Mustang personal luxury coupe would have done the same.
The smaller Thunderbird hit the mark here, and the name worked because Thunderbird had always been seen as a personal luxury car. Selling a cheaper one cashed in on the name, but at least it remained on a coupe body style. Too bad Ford didn’t think of this sooner and kill the Mark IV Bird before 1976
The 1971 – 1973 BIG Mustangs have always been favorites. I remember the Grande and it’s what I would have wanted had I been a buyer at the time – or old enough to drive. Thought then and still do…a bigger car is a better car.
The Elite was the real missed opportunity, it should have been named a Thunderbird, it should have launched in 1972, and it should have received bespoke sheetmetal from the getgo. The personal luxury market was clearly headed in that direction and was already deep into it by the time the huge 6th generation debuted, The 69 Grand Prix was a harbinger for this shift and it proved a respected luxury nameplate could successfully downsize if executed just right.
I think the problem with the Mustang is had it gone the personal luxury route it wouldn’t have made such a recovery in the market later. The Cougar was a good analog to this, pretty much from 71-82 is was pure personal luxury, it was a big player in the segment in 77-79 in particular, and from that point on the Cougar never was able to recapture the sporting pretenses in the eyes of the public, despite the valiant attempts with in the Turbocharged and Supercharged XR-7s. The Mustang at it’s purest was a car that anyone could own, with no one exactly like another – sectetary car, sports car, muscle car, luxury car. The Mustang really could pull it all off without being known prominently for one or the other, going in deep with an uber grande emphasis would have pigeon holed the nameplate, and it may have never recovered.
I totally agree, the Mustang would have been laughed off as a “Ford Cutlass Supreme” and to this day, Ford would have been regretting it.
The Stang II was repositioned to compete with Celica, etc, and even though now people dismiss it, the car was right for the time. And, it bridged to the more beloved Fox generation.
Mercury had the Capri, and didn’t need a smaller Cougar, they wanted and got a GM G body fighter.
The T’Bird from that era was also an upscale model for the Ford Motor Company brand since it shared a lot with the Lincoln Mark IV and nothing with the LTD (top of the line full sized car) and the Torino and its identical twin trim option Elite. I would categorized the Torino and its Elite (later LTD II) option close to a full size car in size since its only 10″ shorter than the LTD through 1978 and 7″-10″ longer than the panther platform based 1979-91 LTD. In addition, the Elite name was replaced by a newly downsized 1977 Thunderbird. The 1977 Thunderbird and LTD II were very much a newly redesigned versions of the Elite and the Torino.
Originally, Ford dealers were proud to have the high priced T-Bird, so there was no incentive to make a ‘Monte Carlo’ fighter. But, when Mercury dealers were getting Galaxie/LTD trades for ’74 Cougar, Ford stores had to have one.*
While the ’74 Gas crisis had many buyers demanding compacts, there were many who would only go as “small” as a mid size. So, Ford dealers demanded their own version of the “new” Cougar.
*Collectible Automobile article about the 74-76 Cougars.
“… but are we to believe not a single first-generation Mustang owner ended up buying a Monte or some such personal luxury car despite their girth?”
Toyota Celica and Datsun Z’s were huge hits and Ford was wise to make the M-II a compact, not an Opera Windowed fad car. Look up article about the II’s gestation, and the Celica was the target.
Most First Gen owners were 35-45 by mid 70’s and had kids, so they got vans, wagons, big cars, and maybe a coupe.
Only instance of this body style I’ve encountered. Interesting that the mid-60’s Mustangs are much more common, at least around here.
Rear view
I think that Ford was right providing the option of the “Grande” to the Mustang buyer Those buyers that wanted to have a plusher car could order this. Those interiors were much nicer than the base coupes, you could add power brakes and steering and especially A/C, V8 and auto made for a smooth quiet cruiser, There was still the Mach One and Boss 351 for those who still demanded performance. I wish there was a Grande option on the new Mustang.
There is another Grande in New Farm that was imported recently. It’s a metallic green,and quite patinated. So at least two people in Brisbane are fond of the Mustang Brougham!
The bloatstang wasnt popular new I was at the age of car crazy teen when they came out and they missed the mark, but we had a new range of two door cars from Aussie to drool over that came in engine size variants from slow to fast and you could buy those right out of the showroom or used GTHO Falcons for cheap,
US cars in general fell off the map as they became less and less suitable for our conditions with each subsequent model update
It’s interesting to read how much bigger the bloatstang was compared to the ’70. Eight inches longer – and all that seems to be useless front overhang. That could have been cut back while maintaining the same style, and would have looked right for this coupe. I’m not sure the flatback would have looked right with a shorter nose though.
But – six inches wider? I know they wanted to fit the big block 429s, but surely….. I couldn’t credit that, even for pre-energy-crisis America. My sources say it’s more like two inches. And what proportion of Mustang sales were the 429s – or was it more of an image thing – “we have to have them available”?.
If they could have held the dimensions to those of the previous generation, these would still have been a good looking car.
That’s because they’re not,
1970
Length: 4760 mm / 187.4 in
Width: 1811 mm / 71.3 in
1971
Length: 4813 mm / 189.5 in
Width: 1882 mm / 74.1 in
I believe what the author was referring to in those dimensions is from the original 1965
Ah! Right….
I know these were just feebly-suspended and ridiculous Dodge Charger-wannabes, but to me they’ll always be the type of car driven by the curvy 16 year old redhead named Molly that I fooled around with the summer before I lost my virginity at 14. If I hadn’t driven one prior to reaching the age of nostalgia, I’d have probably bought one by now.
You’d touched on some likely problems in your article, in that there was the low-scale Maverick and then within the Ford/ Mercury line at least, there was the Cougar and Thunderbird that had went decidedly more luxurious and progressively less sporty since the late 60’s.I would guess that Ford didn’t want to steal too many sales away from each segment, and that is likely why a Mustang didn’t go way over the top with luxury appointments. Coupled with the declining horsepower and the prestige and bragging rights that it held–and the aging demographic that initially supported the Mustang and were now having families and needed something more practical– it had left any performance cars fighting to adapt.
I’m just happy that the Mustang carried on. Regardless or not whether people actually like the Mustang II, I think that it was essential for it to downsize and completely re-evaluate its core strength at that time, because the declining sales before that did indicate that something needed to be changed. The compromised Pinto based platform has its downsides and limitations, but history could have looked very different and possibly fatal for the Mustang brand.
It’s weird that I like the ’71-3 Cougar, even the big nose, but not the Mustang (esp. not the fastback).
I’m with ya, Cougar has more favorable proportions for the buttressed roofline I think, and big as it is at least it has a nose, These Mustangs have what is basically a Kammfront
The problem with the Grande’s roof is the gentle inward curve of the buttresses; it doesn’t fit in with the rest of the angular Mustang’s lines. I’m going to hazard a guess and suggest that the roof is shared with the Cougar to cut costs. The butresses fit in much better with that car’s front and rear curves. Another car that did a much better job with that style of roof was the rounded Jaguar XJ-S.
A pity that Ford didn’t go with a dedicated roof (buttressed or not) for the Mustang coupe. If they had, it might have looked and sold better.
I always thought Holden could have done a Monaro (new Gen) with a Caprice nose and upmarket trim too.
The Coupe 4 from HSV came close to a luxury model with four wheel drive.
They tried that back in the HQ days and it didnt sell really well.
I remember seeing a 1971 or ’72 Grande at a car show once that hit the option books hard (or oddly) enough that it had two analog clocks; I think one was in the dash, and the other was in the console? The premise of a luxo variant wasn’t a bad one… GM did it with the F body twins a couple years later, and I did a lot of growing up in Mom’s 1979 Firebird Esprit.
I’ve never harbored any ill will toward ’71-3 Mustangs. They were a bit tubby, and their lines made them look even larger, but it doesn’t turn me off. I don’t hate the Pintostang as much as most others… I rather like the fastback ones, even if they were lacking in actual “fast”. I’ll probably get beat up and thrown out on my head for saying it, but the Fox body Mustang is where the trail goes cold for me. Just give me an actual hi-po Fairmont or Zephyr, thanks! The The Fox Mercury Capri is a better looking car.
I have always found the convertible version of this body most appealing, top down or up, as a weekend “cruiser”.
The other variants leave me cold.
The 1971-73 Ford Mustang Grande which had a semi-notchback roof design and almost a “luxury version” of the Mustang lineup were gone by 1974 when the Mustangs were downsized and replaced by the Mustang II. Even though the Mustang II had the notchback design, I would have to say INMO that the 1975 Granada coupe actually replaced the 1973 Ford Mustang Grande and the Mustang II were just incidental part of these newly downsized versions back then. The Ford Maverick was still around during those times so they remained unchanged until the Ford Fairmont replaced it in 1978 at least in North America because the Maverick continued on in Brazil and Mexico at least through 1979. Ironically they also had a station wagon version as well.
The Grande name may have gone but the Mustang II Ghia directly succeeded it
The buttressed ‘tunnelback’ rear window was an interesting fad that came and went in Detroit about the time that the previous styling gimmick, stacked quad headlights (began by Pontiac), was fading.
The feature first appeared on the last 1964 Ferrari GTO. GM was the first domestic to jump on the tunnelback bandwagon, making a big splash with the ’66-’67 intermediate hardtops, then following with a tunnelback for the 1968 C3 Corvette (which, except for the roof, was essentially the Pontiac Banshee concept).
Then, it was Chrysler’s turn with the ’68-’70 Charger, which was probably the best-looking interpretation. Dodge really got it right on that one. The main problem was this was the era of factory NASCAR involvement, and the tunnelback rear window wreaked havoc with racetrack aerodynamics. It’s worth noting that Chrysler’s NASCAR specials had a special rear window pulled out flush with the buttresses.
Finally, it was Ford, beginning with the ’69-’70 Galaxie, and finishing with the ’71’-73 Mustang and Cougar.
The Corvette lost the buttresses for a big, compound glass hatch (a la 1st generation Barracuda) in 1978, leaving the Jaguar XJ-S as the final car to cling to the styling feature until its demise in 1996.