(first posted 8/16/2014) The larger Mustangs of the early ’70s might not get the respect of purists, but I was more than happy when I came across this blue 1973 convertible last week. There’s a lot here to like, as I’m sure a lot of our readers will echo. It was parked in front of the local hospital and I wouldn’t be surprised if the owner is a CC reader. After all, it was the only interesting car in what appeared to be the doctor’s parking lot, populated mainly by the likes of the BMW X5 and other similar expressions of modern brougham.
Another factor in my suspicion of the owner’s love of CCs: this car may be an obvious garage queen, but it’s a ’70s Mustang, often derided for having rather vulgar appeal. The nice thing about many of our readers is that they have less to prove than some other enthusiasts; there are fans of the Mustang II among us, and lovers of the LTD II and Torino, too. And perhaps this appreciation is a matter of pragmatism; no, ol’ blue here may not be as lithe and lean as an original ’65, but were mainstream ‘stangs genuinely sporty before the Fox went to the gym thirty years ago?
The Mustang was an affordable expression of style as a personal, intimate car; one which helped kill high-end versions of the Falcon and the Corvair. That it got a bit chubby doesn’t really dilute such appeal. We’re not talking a 240Z, here; we’re not even talking about a Barracuda, so is the added dash of luxury really that dishonest?
If so, it’s very hard to take most people’s criticism seriously. Unless it’s coming from someone who’s driven ultra high-po versions of the original body style with regularity, it’s hard to see what the fuss is all about. The average Mustang cloaked its stylish intentions behind a dynamic image and was never particularly straightforward in its early life.
I mean, I get it; six hundred pounds of weight gain over six years is plenty, and compared to the likes of the new-for’-71 Camaro and Firebird, the Ford’s sense of focus is certainly lacking. GM managed to pull off a much more aggressive presentation with a degree of international flair that the more domestic Mustang lacked. But it’s all a matter of expectations, and with the F-body twins sharing space with the Monte Carlo and Grand Prix, the Ford had to be all things to all people. Now, if someone wants to bash the Mustang II for erring too far in the personal luxury direction, especially once the Elite came along, I’d be less likely to challenge them.
So what powered this more-obscure Mustang for 1973? I’m not quite sure what’s under the hood of this convertible, but with its Cruise-o-matic and high level of trim, I’m guessing at least a 302; maybe even a 351 (the 429 was only available for ’71). So if it’s been kept stock, this 3,200 pound convertible is pushed along by about 177-ish even tempered horsepower at 4,000rpm, with 284 lb-ft of torque at 2,000 rpm. A “Q-code” low-compression 351 crypto-Cobra Jet was available as well, with a full 266 horsepower and 301 lb-ft of torque, but very few were made.
The Camaro, not available as a convertible, was more on the ball, with a more widely-available optional 245-horsepower 350. That, along with other factors, makes it obvious which of the two rivals is the stronger contender. I still like how this Ford presents itself, though. If you think I’m crazy, blame that pristine two-tone interior with white upholstery and woodgrain. If Ford’s offerings of the era were shamelessly bloated isolation chambers, the Mustang at least delivered the same experience in a more manageable package with some genuine perceived quality.
That wasn’t enough for most buyers, though, as sales of this jack-of-all-trades Mustang were a low 135,000 units. That was more than the Camaro managed, but Mustang sales were generally expected to be much higher. Nearly 60,000 more had been moved as recently as 1970, to say nothing of the 500k sold in its inaugural year. So it’s odd that this, one of the least offensive of Dearborn’s overwrought “Better Ideas,” actually makes a good example of what was wrong over at HQ throughout the decade.
Having shocked and appalled the more orthodox contingent of our readers by professing my love of this car’s Personal Luxury Lite ethos, I’ll allow for the criticism which may come my way. One caveat, though; my favorite Mustangs are the pre-facelift Foxes, so it’s not that I don’t get the pony car. It’s a matter of being too far removed from the muscle car era; the sixteen-year-old in me more easily imagines doing donuts and 3,000 rpm clutch drops in an ’86 302 HO than in a 1968 428. Credit the car’s impeccable condition if you must, or my unfulfilled desire for a drop-top, but something about this ’73 brings out the old man in me in a way I cannot resist.
The convertible looks infinitely better than the fastback and the coupe. There was one living for years around the corner and got to spend a bit of time looking at it. It’s a very handsome car. If it wasn’t called a Mustang, it wouldn’t cop half as much derision.
Yes I concur. It was worth getting the convert just to avoid the other two hideous roof designs.
“If it wasn’t called a Mustang, it wouldn’t cop half as much derision.”
Amen and amen. It’s actually quite an attractive car, and for all that it’s so much bigger and unwieldier than its predecessors, it’s still a handier size than a Torino, Thunderbird or LTD.
Are you starting another streak – 2 cars in a row in that insipid 1970s Ford metallic blue. 🙂
I continue to maintain that in the eyes of the general public, the 1971-73 Mustang is undergoing a rehabilitation. The original appealed to almost everyone, but this generation has a certain appeal to those of us at the tail end of the baby boom generation and beyond. Yes, we know all about Fords of this era and their many issues, but this car has become enough of a “period piece” of the early 70s that it has some appeal.
I would not kick one out of my garage today. This is something I would not have said in earlier times of my life. I also like Sly and the Family Stone much better now than I did then.
Speaking of rehabilitation and Sly Stone.
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2007/08/sly200708
Thanks for the link. An interesting article.
Don’t worry, I have a few whities waiting in the wings. But yes, I was excited for two blue Fords in a row!
This car’s high-spec and nice condition has a lot to do with my appreciation of it. Maybe an orange coupe with a black vinyl interior wouldn’t impress me so much.
I was a little kid when these were out. Even if some didn’t approve of them at the time, the teens that had near new versions of them easily got rankings as the coolest in the neighborhood. So, the magic of the Mustang name remained untarnished for me at the time.
I could see a few awkward points in them, particularly the fastballs that seemed like Torinos, and I wonder what it’s like to sit behind that dash. I would love one in my garage as it is a bit out of my usual territory of interest and seems fresh to me.
Ah, the good ‘ole Bunkie-mobile. Along with the Pontiac-beak 1970 Thunderbird, these two cars would define his very short Ford presidency before he was quickly cashiered by Hank the Deuce. It was Bunkie who insisted that the ’71 Mustang be able to easily accept the biggest Ford engines, necessitating the huge body in the same way the Chrysler E-body ended up being on the B-body chassis.
Although it has been described as big as an aircraft carrier, I, too, have a bit of sympathy for the final, first generation Mustang before it went all Pinto with the Mustang II. It was one of the most drastic changes between Mustang model years, ever. Yeah, it was difficult to see out of, and had body integrity problems that rivaled Chrysler products, but it was still generally okay, particularly in the availability of the superb 351 Cleveland, one of the best V8s ever engineered by Ford.
Another nice thing about this (and other) Fords is that by this time, the center console was actually high enough to be used as an armrest. I think the GM intermediates had the same thing. To me, although they provided a bit of extra storage space, center consoles that could not be used as an armrest are the pits. Chrysler was the absolute worst for this sort of thing.
Not to mention that Mary Richards drove one, too. I think hers was even the same light blue color as the feature car, although it’s unknown if she had a convertible.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-tv-the-cars-of-the-mary-tyler-moore-show/
If I word associate the name ‘Mustang’ in a car context, I think ‘sporty and affordable compact’. This version doesn’t fit the image. I can see why the Mustang II was so popular when launched in late 1973. Aided by the Oil Crisis, of course. I could easily see this branded as a Torino or Montego variant. I think people would more readily accept it, for what it is.
In 1973, if I was car shopping for something in the spirit of the original Mustang, I’d probably be looking at the Capri, the Hornet or Nova coupe, or the Duster.
“…the likes of the BMW X5 and other similar expressions of modern brougham….,
Perfect. The end of “the ultimate driving machine” as anything more than a TV advertising slogan is nigh. What is German for “Brougham?”
Kuschelsofa.
Zweisitzige Kutsche ? (the original Brougham)
Kuschelsofa ist mehr gemütlich.
Genau!
Not a direct answer, but “barock” (Eng. baroque) is the adjective I’ve heard used to describe American luxury trim. Makes sense to me.
Since “Brougham” describes style of luxury and ornate elegance it indeed makes sense to refer to “Barock”.
“Kuschelsofa” (plush sofa) is more of a metaphor for the feel one gets when driving a “Brougham”.
That’s right ! Interiors of US cars, especially the ones from the seventies and eighties, were often called “Barok” (our word for the 17th-18th century style)
Like this church interior:
You don’t suppose any of the Big 3 interior designers had something like this in the pipeline, to out-Brougham the others? Nah, that’d be more like American Motors….
By the way, the exteriors were often called “Gotisch”, as in Gothic architecture. Like the Lincoln Continental Mark IV and V or a Kenworth W900 in full Western trim.
Barock and Gothic, it almost makes me wonder if Catholics ran the US design centers in those years….
When I close my eyes and listen to your description, I see before me a 1972-73 Chrysler Imperial le Baron.
I can see where Johannes’ church picture could’ve inspired this front end.
Flying buttresses!
I got no problem with 71-73 Mustangs other than they dropped the big block after only one year. I’d gladdly have that Mustang, its well optioned–I think I see more 73 converts than any other year–could it be because Ford announced it was the last year buyers held on to them longer? I really like how it still has the poverty caps and trim rings–no Cragers installed in the 70’s
I was looking at those wheels–and very small looking exhaust–and wondering if this car is actually a six. I hope not.
Nah it is a V8. according to my book Standard Catalog of Ford 1903-1990, it shows the gauge package group (Tach, ammeter, temp gauge etc) standard on Mach Mustangs but not available for 6 cylinder Mustangs or Mustang Grande without a console($55)
Since this car has the gauge package on it it stands to reason that it is a V8 powered car. It was most likely a 2 barrel carbed 351 since it has a single exhaust. The 4 bbl 351 required the dual pipes.
Excellent research
Also, it’s very unlikely that a six would be that highly optioned.
It’s a funny thing I disliked these cars when they were new but I like them now,not as much as the early Mustang though.The convertible looks a whole lot better than the coupe.
Yes, imagine it had no name, no preconceived expectations. Would you like it for what it is? I would.
Someone said “personal luxury” in this context. That sounds like “Thunderbird” to me.
It’s a big step up looks wise from the same year T bird.
I wish my father bought a ’73 Mustang convertible instead of a ’73 T-Bird. We would have kept it in the family
Yes, it was the period of the “Big Bird”. Both the Mustang and the T-Bird suffered from morbid obesity.
One oil embargo later…..
You’re right I like it as a typical American convertible,good looks,comfortable,V8 RWD, still fast enough today,tough,easy to work on.It would be a great summer or weekend car.
I could be talked into buying a mustang or a camaro from that age bracket. Only thing is I would want what was termed a secretaries car. Give me the 6 in any pony car from mustang to Nova to Barracuda and I will soldier on. That choice changed when they went to the V6.
Funny thing about your Blue Fords Perry. I get notifications of new articles through both email and facebook. In both blue ford facebook pictures there was something else. For the Pinto the picture was the Omnirizon and for the Mustang it was the brown Camaro. Guess facebook has a mind of it’s own. I got a chuckle out of that. I have a little info if you want to email me.
Secretary’s Special fan here.I had a 6 cylinder 69 AMC Javelin and have driven a 6 cylinder 65 Mustang and would be happy with any 6 cylinder pony car too
I remember driving a 1973 Grande coupe, I felt like I was in a bunker.
Gee, that Camaro looks soooo much better in comparison.
btw, Doris drove the Barracuda.
http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_318646-Plymouth-Barracuda-1970.html
Beautiful car, I’d take it in a heart beat. Great color combo as I’m a sucker for a white interior with either a red or blue exterior.
Not my favorite Mustangs, but I like them nonetheless, as my mom drove a yellow 73 Sportsroof when I was born. As a personal import (by an American diplomat, not her) it was a relatively rare car.
You need to keep finding blue cars. 🙂 I would have trouble saying what I’m about to say if this Mustang were white.
This generation of Mustang has always seemed a bit of a ‘tweener generation between the original and the Mustang II. However, seeing a convertible in this color has me re-thinking it all. I actually quite like the convertibles.
The first picture, with the car in profile, shows a very pronounced kick-up at the rear of the door and it continues to conclude with a rear markedly higher than the front. The Camaro, conversely, appears to be lower in the rear than in the front…it seems to sag in the rear, like a kid with a loaded diaper.
The wheel treatment on this one was also used on a ’74 Ranchero I had for a short time.
The ’71-’73s do nothing for me – too big, too bloated, and horrible sight lines. The II was actually a huge improvement in many ways (except image apparently).
I’m a fan of the ’69, ’70, ’75, ’85, and ’10 Mustangs. The new looks pretty slick too….
The Mustang II was a truer return to the roots of what the Mustang was, even if it wasn’t well-received by the public. And it probably would have been better served by the Torino platform than the Pinto…
Actually the Mustang II was a huge hit with the public. It was the best selling first-year Mustang in history after the original 1964 model. It went for five long model years without a significant facelift which you can’t say about the Monza competitors, Fox Mustang or even the original car. In years 1-5 the Mustang II outsold the Fox, a fact that never sits well with folks who bought into the Mustang II was a failure myth.
I should have clarified, “not well-recieved by the public in hindsight.” I still like it, though.
Plus the early Mustang II was partially selling on the coattails of the original, where the early Fox-bodies suffered from the Pintostang leaving a bad taste in everyone’s mouth, at least visually.
I think it’s a big stretch to say the II made buyers hesitant to move into the Fox cars. Sales nearly doubled for 1979, leaping from 192,410 to 369,936. Strangely, 1978 was actually the second best sales year for the Mustang II.
There may have been a price component there – the MII and the Pinto were the only things Ford sold in any volume to help pump up its horrible CAFE numbers in 1978. There were comments in the Pinto discussion about this, and the 4 cylinder MII probably got the same kind of push.
“Not well-recieved by the public in hindsight.”
I am not sure what that means. In hindsight did all those sales go away?
The Fox Mustang had a strong lead-in by the Mustang II. The Mustang II had a horrible lead-in by the 71-73 Mustangs. That makes the Mustang II’s superior sales result even more impressive. It didn’t even have a convertible!
I meant that it’s a popular opinion (but not among us–that’s why they call us the Best and Brightest(TM) :)) that the ’73 Mustangs were “awesome” and the Mustang II was “terrible”.
“ The Fox Mustang had a strong lead-in by the Mustang II. The Mustang II had a horrible lead-in by the 71-73 Mustangs. That makes the Mustang II’s superior sales result even more impressive. It didn’t even have a convertible!”
I know this is an old thread but, there wasn’t a Fox convertible until 1983, so it’s not like the Fox got a bump from that for 1979.
As for legacies sales and whatnot, the AMC Gremlin was a huge seller too, it probably kept the lights on at AMCs through the 70s, despite its butt of the joke reputation where even people my age know the tired old anecdote that it was designed on an airplane barf bag. The Mustang II was no different, it was a car catered to a crappy time people were eager to leave behind(a familiar feeling as I type this), and when it did get left behind people were free to express their true feelings about them.
The Foxbody showed a light at the end of the tunnel, it shed the II suffix, its 5mph bumpers were virtually invisible(like they had been on F bodys), and while power was still strictly malaise in the worst ways, the introduction of turbocharging promised a path forward from the strangling spiral of engine outputs through the decade prior. Buyers were all too willing to get their hands on a car that would bury its legacy of necessity over care free motoring.
The II was an important car, but it was an overcorrection. It won back all of the so called secretary car buyers turned off by the overemphasis on bulky styling and performance that compromised the lower tier cars, but Motorsport was always part of the Mustang’s lore, since the K code 289s and Shelby GT350. Performance may have diminished severely by 1974 but it wasn’t gone, as evidenced by the sales surge of GMs F bodies, the Mustang II shed it all in 1974, and later course corrected by shoehorning a strangled 302 into it with some very poseur stripe kits to desperately keep that legacy tied to the Mustang.
Actually it was not a huge hit in the first few months of 1974 it was not a big seller and sales were slow due to price and the fact that Ford seemed to have loaded the first ones up with a lot of unwanted and over priced options. According to my Ford book, sales did not pick up until the marketing folks abandoned trying to pass it off as a sporty car and decided to emphasize that it made a very good economy job and sales picked up. It is telling that every year the Mustang II was sold, the 2 door coupe outsold the hatchback Mustang II every year with 267,148 coupes (includes Ghia) vs 118,845 (includes Mach I) in 1974 alone. This showed that several things might have happened:
1. that the car looked much better as a coupe rather then a hatch
2. that the hatch back Mustang looked too much like a pinto and who was going to pay $600-$700 more for a Mustang hatch when you could get a pinto for cheaper(the base Mustang II hatch cost $3275 and the Pinto cost $2631 before taxes and all that other happy horse crap)
So to clarify what Drzhivago138 was trying to state, the hatchback Mustang II was not a big seller and was not really well received and this is shown by the numbers as being true as combined sales each year on the hatchback were lucky get around 50,000 from 1975-1978 while the coupe sales were almost double.
To this I would add: 3)The American car-buying public in the 70s just loved 2-door coupes (witness sales of cars like the Cutlass and Monte Carlo) and the notchback Mustang better suited tastes than the hatch. Get it in Gria trim and you could even have your own budget personal-luxury coupe.
The Coupe selling 2/3s of the total Mustang II volume and the Fastback 1/3 is pretty much par for the course when it comes to Mustangs. In fact I think the sales mix for the original Mustang was more like 3/4 Coupe to 1/4 Fastback which suggests the MII was a better execution of the fastback bodystyle than the original, at least in terms of market appeal.
As for sales, in its first year the new MII outsold the previous generation of Mustangs by more than double. Sales of all other ponycars sold by all the other brands combined that year were less than half (!!) of those achieved by the MII. As you pointed out that wasn’t because the MII was inexpensive.
As for early pricing and option mix, when a car is hot the manufacturer will often load them up at the beginning, when production capacity is ramping up. It’s not like the units are going to sit and loaded cars are more profitable. Later you unwind that as the car cools off.
Also not sure that Ford tried to position the MII as more of an economy car after year #1. The V8 came in ’75 and the neat Cobra II in ’76. These don’t sound like economy options to me.
Finally the MII looked better as a Fastback in my opinion. Not sure how anyone could say this car looks like a Pinto.
There was initial sales resistance to the Mustang II, but the public got used to it, and then the Arab Oil Embargo began in late 1973. Public interest in small cars and improved gas mileage increased greatly. The Mustang II suddenly became the right car at the right time.
Actually Ford was selling the Mustang II as economy car and it does not even seem like Ford was trying to compete with the General’s F-Body cars.
Looking at my Standard catalog of Ford 1903-1990 under 1976 Mustang I see the following historical footnote:
Mustang, America’s best selling small specialty car, had been outselling Monza, Starfire and Skyhawk combined.
This shows that the Mustang II’s target competition was not Camaro or Firebird but GM’s H body in 1976. A further look at the history of the Mustang II shows that it was originally targeted at imported card like the Datsun 240/280Z and the Toyota Celica and the Mercury Capri.
If you ignore the gaudy Cobra II or King Cobra package(which was more show then go) and look at the base Mustang II hatch and Pinto side by side you will see that they look a lot alike and the MII and Pinto share the same platform(It was originally due to be on the Maverick platform but Lido changed it)
I will agree that Mustang II saved the mustang but had Ford not offered the early 1970’s Bloatstang and instead offered something along the lines of the F-Body(size wise) then the MII would have never been needed.
Well Ford got lucky that a gas shortage happened at the same time but they sure guessed right–can you imagine a specialty coupe selling over 300,000 cars now?
The 71-73 is too big and bloated with horrible sight lines and you like the ’10?
You’ve got to bear in mind the current regulations, design language, etc., that lead to today’s aesthetics. Cars today are (for the most part) only bloated in comparison to older cars (an unfair comparison, BTW), not in comparison with each other.
I don’t think it’s an unfair comparison. The SN95 chassis only stopped production ten years ago, are still very thick on the ground, and look tiny next to a current S197 as well.
I just find it bizarre that a lot of supposed Mustang enthusiasts(and I’m not singling anyone out, I here this opinion A LOT, even among friends) say they hate the 71s for the straight up reason that they were too big and bloated, but love the 2005+ generation that is bigger, heavier and LOOK bigger and heavier to boot.
Dude I’m looking at the photo and the 10 looks bigger–how can you be a Mustang fan and not like everyone made?
I understand your point. At least the ’10 is taller; but I meant style wise. The ’71-’73 seemed lost in the Mustang scheme of things.
I don’t disagree with the style assessment, as mentioned below it does look like a mini LTD of the same year range, but I kinda like the styling if those too(that was certainly their strong point). I think there was a bit too much push to make the Mustang and the Cougar’s styling aspirational to the bigger cars in the divisions, with the Mustang going for the LTD and the Cougar going for the Mark III look, which is really what made these cars seem confused. Conversely, the 1970 Camaro/Firebird were huge stylistic departures from the 69s(much more so than the 70-71 Mustang) but no one would ever accuse them of being lost since they were still such distinctive and attractive designs.
Exactly!
Despite their reputation for being bloated,I’m struck by how light they are by modern standards of bloat – 3200 lbs. isn’t much.
Someone commented earlier about seeing pics of an Omni and a Camaro on the Facebook postings for these two Fords. Yes, Facebook chooses the photo from a posted article and that is that. It has a knack for choosing exactly the wrong photo.
I’d gladly take home a BOSS 351 or 429CJ/SCJ 4-spd Mach. There were many in attendance at the MCA National car show in Lincoln, NE last weekend. This body style has really grown on me in recent years… I think they look terrific in both convert and the oft-criticized “flatback” body styles (I still don’t care for the coupe). I’ll take my BOSS or big-block fastback in Grabber Blue or Black Jade with Argent stripes and white interior, please.
These poor Mustangs were whitewall cars in a raised white letter world. Inside there was that bunker feeling to deal with and those long, long doors, which tended to droop a bit when you opened them.
There were two saving graces — the exhaust note on the Mach 1 and the front bumper in ’73 which was a standout among standouts that year.
BTW the power windows on the feature car were a very rare option.
Total sidetrack moment, but I think that yellow outfit the youthful Martha Reeves Lookalike in the Camaro SS ad is my new Drag Inspiration.
LOL…then give the Camaro big slicks and wheelie bars, for added entendre…
I was quite smitten with the gold yellow and avocado-ish colors on display. It’s a great period photo.
Harvest Gold and Avocado Green- the defining colours of Malaise Era design.
Ford’s last convertible, along with it’s Cougar companion. It’s big for what we think a Mustang should be, but overall, it’s a clean design – and much cleaner than what followed the next year. And that’s one heck of a wall of dashboard, no?
I wonder, how easily could a 2-door ’78 LTD be …converted… to a convertible?
Yeah, the convertible is the best looking body style of these; just not my personal cup of tea. This example is exceptionally well kept, and great color combo.
Painted front bumper, chrome rear- is that correct for this car?
I believe all ’73s had a body-colored bumper (an energy-absorbing bumper, unlike the one on the previous two years) but rear bumper style depended on trim level so I think so, yes.
Yes in ’73 the front bumper got a little longer and went bodycolor on all models. In 71-72 the front bumper was smaller and chrome on some models, color-keyed on others like the Mach 1s.
The front ends did not look very “Mustang” and had a small face for the size of body. That got fixed in ’74.
Closest I ever came to buying any sort of “collectable” was a ’73 almost identical to this one. It was Light (baby) Blue rather than metallic and had a 351 and factory a/c that had just been converted to 134a. $9k back in 1997. Unfortunately the lack of a place to keep it and my need for a more fuel efficient daily driver to replace the ’93 Dakota I had at the time conspired to put an end to that dream. I ended up using the cash as a big down payment on a ’97 Grand Prix coupe.
I don’t agree with knocking this car because it’s sales were down from insane numbers in its first years. It established this market segment, and had no strong competitors. If in ’73 it was still beating legitimate and strong competition, it’s an argument Ford got it mostly right.
That aside, this is a super nice example with great colors and the rather rare power windows.
In the day, I thought the dog dish / wheel trim ring combo Ford was prone to was odd and not particularly attractive. But, to see it still on this car today is perfect. I wouldn’t change it if you gave me new wheels!
I like these better than the new ones. That giant rear ass cover just sucks. It may drive and be reliable, but the visuals do nothing for me. So fugly. Which looks better? #1 or #2? #1? Or #2?
They’re both butt-ugly.
I feel the weakest part of the 71-73(besides the roof treatments as I mentioned) was the back side. The mustang IMO always had the best looking and most distinct hindquarters of it’s class until the 71 came out, which looks too big and bland. I feel exactly the same way about the entire S197 generation, in particular the 10-14 design. The 94-04 had a very nice lithe treatment in comparison.
Tall asses are my absolute biggest pet peeve with modern cars, even more so than high beltlines(although they’re hand and hand).
I’ve always felt this generation Mustang and Cougar looked fantastic as Convertibles, even with the top up. Make the top up silhouette be the coupe(ie ditch the buttresses) and I’d like this generation much much better.
Yeah, that Mustang is just ugly to me. I will never understand why anyone bought a Mustang instead of a Camaro in the early 70’s. The second gen Camaro was beautiful….these Mustangs are just ugly.
If you had to have a convertible there were plenty of other options.
0ptions in ’73? Five huge full size GM products, and that was about it. The tiny foreign stuff was expensive, had limited availability, and was usually known to be unreliable.
Dad came home with one of these once. Gunmetal gray Mach 1 with black hood/stripes and a black interior, I think it had the ‘good’ 351 Cleveland in it. I remember being very impressed with it’s looks, but in reality the car was basically a Torino with poorer visibility and less interior room. A decent car though, and competitive with my ’70 Barracuda. The ’70 1/2 Camaro and Firebird were a generation ahead however.
These should have been called Falcon Grande or Thunderbird II.We would probably have liked them better.
I never really liked the heavy front fender crease on these. It reminded me too much of the early 70s LTDs. I know the earlier Mustangs and LTDs had them, but I thought they were better handled. Thinner, more elegant and spear-like, representing speed. These creases are a bit too thick IMO, and it makes the LTD connection, stronger than ever. I preferred the pony car reputation and look of the earlier Mustangs. This generation was looking too much more like a luxury car. And I wasn’t a fan of the closer look to the LTD.
But all the early 70s Fords had bad reputations for premature rust. So, I generally was not a Ford fan of this era.
I think one reason these 1971-1973 Mustangs are gaining favor with people nowadays is that they’re smaller than contemporary Mustangs.
I know they have issues, but I love the looks of the 71-3 Mustangs, the fastback and convertible at least. They just ooze early 1970’s-ness.
Also, lest we forget:
I remember a line where Haliki makes a remark about why they were having so much trouble finding an Eleanor. “Maybe it’s because she’s the last of the Mustangs” he said. This was filmed in 1973, so he must have known that the Mustang wound soldier on. I know for a fact he wrote the script because he did everything else in that flick, too.
I know well the above still shot, it’s where he’s just pulling out of the parking garage into the path of the waiting heat, and the alarm goes off.
Eleanor, my love, I think it may be time to watch you in action on DVD again.
Reminds me of a 71 Sportback I recently appraised with a 351V8 and 4-spd manual tranny. With the Magnum 500 wheels and a side stripe, you end up with a Mach I whannabe, not a bad looking car, but not great looking either.
The fastback coupe version of the ’73 Mustang made it look too bulky to be a sporty car. It looked more like a small sedan delivery. The convertible pictured in this article is light-years difference in appearance from the FB. The car looks very clean and uncluttered from the side.
Kudos to the owner of this 40-year-old gem of a car for keeping it immaculate inside and out, which is not easy to do with a white interior under any circumstances.
I do like the exterior looks of these mustangs, the convertibles especially–this one looks especially sharp in that color of blue. is it somewhat overgrown compared to a ’64? Sure, but a bit of “thickness” isn’t always a bad thing. And the white seats are a very nice touch. But that dashboard—oh dear. The reverse angle toward the driver makes it seem very bunker-like indeed. With the top up, it seems like it could be a very claustrophobic place to spend one’s time….
Interesting how sleek it looks compared to the Mustang we have today. And it’s lighter. So now it’s better looking then when it was new. Agree the 73 does look it’s best as a convertible. I still like it much better then a Mustang II.
Not a big fan of the coupes and convertible Mustang’s of this era but always loved the fastback models, I thought 1973 was the last good year Mustang would build until 1987.
Loved this writeup, Perry, and I completely understand the “mature” allure of the Mustangs of the early 70’s. Where have you been?
There are a few underrated aspects to the 71-73s that gets overlooked by the general distaste for them, #1 they use a boosted Saginaw power steering box, eschewing the terrible old ram system in the 65-70s, and #2 they went to a real trunk floor instead of using the top of the fuel tank – I’m sure that added weight, and weight made power steering more necessity than on the originals, but…
Elsewhere you just have to look at them as a lithest vessel in the lineup for the excellent 351 Cleveland V8. A 6 or 302 or even 429 at the top of the option list seem ill matched for the body. I don’t particularly like the styling of the current Mustangs being made, or even the retro S197s from the time this was originally posted, but I similarly look at them as a means to have the Coyote 5.0 V8. The biggest problem with the 71-73s and modern ones is they seem silly as anything other than a high performance car, the 65-68s, 82 foxbodies and maybe the new edge SN95s were the only years the Mustang market formula was banging on all cylinders, appealing to a broad demographic. Where you could have a “secretary’s car” or a muscle car or somewhere in between in the same body and be fashionable regardless of what you chose.
And just because I do it at every opportunity I can since last November, the 71-73s are still less bloated and ridiculous than the Mach E 🙂
‘Secretary’s Car’ is where Ford (and Chrysler) really dropped the ball for their early seventies’ ponycars. Both forgot where the largest demographic was for these cars, and it’s painfully obvious in that interior shot. Look at how low the seat is, and how high the dash. Anyone of an even slightly diminutive stature would have some difficutly seeing out of either the ’71-’73 Mustang or Mopar E-body. One of the key Ford execs who absolutely saw this problem was Iacocca, and is a huge reason the Mustang II was based off the much smaller Pinto chassis. The biggest engine for the Mustang II might have been a weak 302 V8, but with performance all but dead, no one really cared all that much. So long as the Mustang II was easy to drive and got reasonable fuel mileage, it was all good. If you wanted a muscle ponycar from 1975-81, you got a 2nd generation GM f-body and called it a day.
Yes but they dropped the ball on performance with the Mustang II as well. It wasn’t as unimportant as the devils advocates for it make out, otherwise Ford wouldn’t have bothered carrying over the Mach 1 trim or later introducing stripe kits that were a not so subtle nod to 60s performance Mustangs. F bodies were an option for buyers of course, and I bet many buyers of them during the sales surge would have purchased a performance Mustang had there been one, but there wasn’t. Lee Iacocca also got Shelby on board in the beginning to add race pedigree to the Mustang, remember, it was selling like gangbusters as a secretary’s car, but apparently lido felt that image boost was necessary to sustain its place and purpose and not be a short lived fad.
Performance wasn’t dead in the 70s anyway, outputs went down but there was definitely no shortage of well engineered good handling sports cars/sports sedans during the 70s like the 2002, the Mustang II took no page from these, it was advanced in that it had rack&pinion steering but in every other way it was a rolling bordello. Even those “cobras” had button tufted seat patterns, ridiculous lol
Yea a S197 is heavier than a 71-73, look at all the equipment it has that the 71-73 didn’t have. I be willing to guess that the S197 would be pretty light if we pulled all the stuff out that the 71-73 doesn’t have. Personally I prefer the 71-72 Fastbacks, coupes the worst, converts are OK with top down. 73 front bumper looks like a fat lip. One thing I would do is drop the front end as low as I could. Yea, you can’t see out the back but who cares. If you want good sight lines/visibility this isn’t the care you buy.
I love these in all three roofs. I had a 73 coupe. It didn’t feel “too big” to me.
Yes, the Capri is the direct descendant of the early cars, look at the chassis.
A scope on the side would have helped with the sort of bland sides. Other than that, I actually have always liked the 1971-73. Even though it is larger than it’s predecessors, it is still leaner than most of today’s cars.
OK…OK….I’ll say it……I LIKE the ‘71 thru ‘73 Mustangs. Whether hardtop, convertible, or fastback, they would live a pampered life in my driveway!!