(first posted 2/23/2015) I found this car in an abandoned car lot in Northeast Indiana on my way home from the CC Meet-up in Auburn last October. The story of the car lot is that its owner made a bunch of bad deals, set his garage on fire in a failed attempt to collect insurance money and eventually, skipped town. Nevertheless, this lot (and some others), had some interesting metal on display.
Sadly, this 1970 Mach 1 had bore testimony to the soured financial dealings of its former (or still current?) owner. Sharper eyes will be able to tell if the matte black honeycomb fill panel is missing or if was simply never there. If the latter is the case, this is one of many resto-mods and not an original Mach 1.
Luckily the rest of the car is otherwise complete and appears serviceable. We’ve covered the 1969-1970 Mach 1 before; like this example, the ’69 Paul covered was not in perfect shape. I’ll leave it to you guys to interpret whether or not that speaks to the Mach 1’s overall reputation. From what I’ve gathered, these cars have their fans.
The scoops lateral to the headlights mark this as a 1970 model; the previous year saw headlights outboard of the grill with driving lights set into the grille where the headlights sit on this car. I had a hard time figuring out which engine lies underneath this car’s expressively sculpted hood.
The presence of an automatic transmission doesn’t help, either, as the 1970 Mustang brochure indicates that it was available with all engines but the Boss 302 and 429. Note the original radio and large analog clock. This was not an unattractive interior.
A-ha, that’s better: it’s apparently a 351. If so, 1970 marked the replacement of the Windsor with the Cleveland engine. The brochure says a non-functional hood scoop was standard, so it doesn’t hold any clue as to whether this car was made with the optional four venturi carb. If so equipped, sixty miles per hour was achieved in the low eight second range when equipped with a four-speed, so this wasn’t all that quick for its time and is definitely not fast by today’s standards. Note the clear reflection of the sky in this shot; this car hasn’t been sitting out here for very long.
Apparently Goodyear still makes the Eagle GA; it hasn’t been original equipment for a long time, but was very popular on new cars in the ’90s. Note the smooth quarter panel; ’69s had a scoop behind the rear door. Early Mustangs are more highly regarded, but I have to say this car’s handsome looks have worn well: the look is more burly than bloated. 1971 would see increased size along with declining compression ratios and it would be an additional eleven years before the Mustang would again be lust-worthy in the conventional sense.
Every now and then I pass used car lots in Jacksonville that look abandoned. They have locked gates and tall grass among the cars and trucks, and what a motley collection of cars and trucks!
My father found me a “near new, red Mustang” back in 1971. When I got a chance to look at the car on Thanksgiving, I found it to be a red, 69 Mach I with a big block engine. I knew I couldn’t afford the car and the insurance, being under 20 years old, so I didn’t even bother to see which transmission it had.
These do have nice interiors, I once or twice drove my aunt’s 69 Grande. Unfortunately, the wood does look like cheesy slabs of plastic, marring an otherwise great design.
I go back and forth as to which I prefer more, the 69 or 70. The 70 looks both cleaner and cheaper than the 69. Both designs were supposedly influenced by the Shelby Mustangs.
From what I’ve gathered, these cars have their fans.
I’m one of them. The ’69-’70 fastback and convertibles are my favorite Mustangs, followed closely by their “tribute”, the ’05 model.
The early Mach Is couldn’t be had with any 302. The 351 2bbl was standard. If this were a restomod, someone really did their homework. The wheel is aftermarket, but rest of the interior is correct as Mach Is had the “Decor” interior (basically the Grande minus the houndstooth seats) as standard equipment. The Magnum 500s weren’t a factory option (only Boss 302s and 429s had them available) but many buyers of these cars had them dealer-installed. This is also a factory a/c car, as non-a/c cars didn’t have the ducts in the center crash pad.
The paint, despite the fire, looks too good to be original. My guess is the honeycomb panel was never reinstalled after a repaint.
The 1969-1970 are my favorites as well.
Mine as well, not a fan of the 05s though
It’s certainly worth fixing…’69 and ’70 Mach 1s are pretty popular. I agree with Mark above; this is probably a real Mach 1, judging by the interior.
I suspect someone going to that kind of effort to build a clone would probably drop a 428 (or at least a 390) in it.
Maybe, but these days you can stroke a 351W based engine (which is easier to find and build than a Cleveland anymore) to at least 427 cubes. Plus, you then have access to all the 5.0-crowd aluminum heads and etceterini attached to those engines.
A 390 wasn’t available in ’70 Mustangs, and certainly wouldn’t be worth the effort. A 428 Cobra Jet would be cool, but they’re not growing on trees either, and a well-built 351 would run circles around it anyway. With that being said, you are right in that this looks too original to be a clone. Everything’s in the right place for a real Mach 1…the decals are correct, the rocker trim all lines up, the interior is spot on. It’s a Mach 1 all right.
I’m another fan, though I much prefer the ’69 to the ’70. The large, far inboard headlights of the ’70 never looked quite right to me. I could still easily make a home for one, but the ’69 Mach 1 is probably my favorite Mustang. I know there are a lot of folks (Paul included IIRC) who think ’69 is where the Mustang went wrong, and it did set a somewhat worrying trend of bigness that was much magnified in ’71, but those cars still press all the right buttons for me.
Is that corrugated rocker trim original? Never noticed it until now if so. Pretty sure that wasn’t there on the ’69s (and I like it better without).
Yes the rocker trim is original, the 69 had a reflective tape stripe slightly higher on the doors instead. I agree – even having painted areas at each end of the car that were lower looks odd, especially at the rear
This car is a real beauty. And appears to be very restorable. Unlike the Daytona, this is a real collector car, and worth a lot of money just the way it is. But my interest in vintage cars has never been monetary, it is an emotional thing for me. This car pushes all the right buttons for me, the Daytona would make a nice boat anchor. I don’t know why all Mustangs of this time had those awful plastic spoilers. If I were my car, either kept as is or restored, those spoilers would have to go. I am not the type of car enthusiast that cares about matching numbers or having everything absolutely correct. I would prefer to have a car over restored as much as possible. I don’t care what it is worth to others, what it means to me is what counts. Just as long as it doesn’t get cut up. Any modifications would have to be reversible.
The spoiler was a TransAm thing, via the Boss 302. It has been badly damaged by the fire but new ones are available, they were used on the Falcon GT-HO down here too.
Everyone knows when ‘The Andy Griffith Show’ jumped the shark. It’s when Barney (Don Knotts) left and the show itself was upgraded from black & white to color. In reruns, you always instantly know if it’s going to be a good episode or not within the first seconds by whether it’s a color or black & white episode.
The ’69-’70 Mach 1 is a lot like that. The ’69 was still from the sixties and more honest, while the seventy was ‘freshened’ with a lot of tweaks that cheapened the car, much like what happened during the entire rest of the decade with all domestic autos. You had the rear panel between the taillights that went from concave to flush. The inboard headlights and cheap, fake outboard vents, as well as the quad park lights. But the worst was likely the lower body cladding. Was this the first car that had it?
In short, the changes were a subtle shift to style over substance. About the best thing that can be said for a 1970 Mach 1 is that the 351W and 390 were replaced by the stouter 351C (although it seems like the standard mill was down all the way to the non-Boss 302).
’70 was the last year for the 390. Mach Is didn’t get the 302 until the ’71 Bloatstang came out.
Like I mentioned above, ’69 was the last year for the 390. In reality, the 351C-4V made it superfluous. You’re right that the 302 wasn’t standard until ’71.
I stand corrected! All these years I had thought that the 390 had held on for one more year.
I always thought it would be neat to have a 390 Mach 1 just for the oddball factor. You’re right though, the power of a 351 with the front end weight and fuel consumption of the 428, without quite the same torque.
I tell you what I’d like to have, is this. Much rarer than a Mach 1.
Hell, I’d settle for a GT Coupe, these have to rare as gator feathers. Much like a 390 or 428 Grande on my bucket list. Yes, I’m a little strange.
The GT’s are very scarce compared to a Mach 1 indeed; 5,396 (including all 3 body styles) to 72,458.
I was pretty sure about the ’69 being the last year for the 390. In the Mach 1 hierarchy, I would wager it’s third from the bottom of desirability, considering that the 390 was pretty much a stone in whatever body style it was inserted. The 390 was slow in the ’67-’68 Mustang, and it just got worse in the heavier ’69. Running a stock 390 on the street pretty much assured getting beaten by just about any other big-block musclecar (and most of the small-blocks, too), with the next slowest being the 389 GTO.
The only Mach 1 Mustangs less desirable would likely be the ’71-’73 302 Mach 1, with the Mustang II Mach 1 dead last.
My guess is that the 2014 Mustang is heavier than the 1971-1973. Those early models didn’t have all the garbage on them that today’s cars do.
My guess is that the 2014 Mustang is heavier than the 1971-1973. Those early models didn’t have all the garbage on them that today’s cars do. Actually the ’71-’73 Mach 1 was probably my favorite Mustang. It may have seemed big back then, but I thought it was an awesome and impressive car. I also like the ’94-’14 Mustangs, but in a different way. Pre ’86 Mustangs (yes even the weird looking Fox body) were real cars. After that they got EFI, and became computer cars. I just can’t see any car with an EPA computer as ever being collectible, nor are they much good as enthusiast cars, because you can’t change anything without running afoul of the emissions crap. I can’t see myself ever having any feelings for a computer car.
Here’s a yellow ’70 I caught in the wild a few weeks ago.
Looks like they all had those cheesy plastic spoilers. The rear one looks especially bad, as the rear section of the car already has sort of a built in spoiler.
I am not one to nitpick any of these cars. I would be in heaven with almost any vintage Mustang, including the ’71-’73 fastback. Anyone finding fault with a vintage Mustang only needs to look at a new one.
Do you mean the window louvers? They were a short lived fad.
Nice find.
I’ve been looking at one last year. I certainly like the lines and the whole stance of the car, but there is a lot going one, detail wise. It says Mach1 loud and clear, from all sides.
This one has an M-code 351 Cleveland-4v engine and a Ford FMX automatic. Was that the top-engine for a Mach1 back then ? The Ford experts must know.
I believe it was the 428 Super Cobra Jet.
There’s really no difference in advertised HP between the 428 CJ or SCJ, with or without a shaker. An SCJ was simply the CJ ordered with the “Drag Pack”,
which got you a 3.91 rear or a 4.30 with a Detroit Locker. You also got an oil cooler, and the good 427 rods with football type nuts. A strange quirk of the SCJ is that it was externally balanced.
This one has an M-code 351 Cleveland-4v engine and a Ford FMX automatic. Was that the top-engine for a Mach1 back then ? The Ford experts must know.
Not even close. The top engine was the 428 Cobra Jet (rated for 335 hp, but really put out a fair bit more) with a fully functional shaker hood scoop. IIRC the shaker scoop was optional on all other engines except the base 351 2bbl.
OK, thanks.
The 351C-4v was also in this:
( I found the ad here, more info and a lot of great pictures: http://pantera.infopop.cc/eve )
An interesting thing is that after Ford stopped making the 351C in the US, De Tomaso sourced them from Ford Australia through to the mid-1980s.
My uncle had that exact car. Same color and everything. I drove it once. I think it was a 71. Can’t remember for sure.
I see also that it was a factory drum brake car, if it has discs they were added later, as per the plain pedal pad. I’m enough of a purist that I would change the pedal pad along with the brakes.
Also, I’m livid that the deadbeat who owned this tried to torch it.
While I love a lot of oddball and unappreciated cars I also reserve the right to venerate the true icons. The original Mach Ones,1969 and 1970 are clearly in that category. These were a blend of the most luxurious interior designs with the most reasonable performance enhancements and the sportiest body styling. The mid block 351s were standard, which would provide plenty of power without unbalancing the handling like the big blocks would. Still the big blocks were available for those who had to have them. The rear wing was optional, like the window slats and shaker hood. Since the Boss 302 came with the wing everybody wants one now. (You even see them on coupes, ugh.)You could pretty much order up any interior trim level, motor, transmission, and chassis package on any model of Mustang. I prefer these without the rear wing which I think is kind of redundant since the the rear end has a spoiler like kick up already built in. I prefer the 70 because I don’t care for the scoop on the quarter panel and I kind of like the the two big eyeballs up front. After 1970 the 2 bbl 302 was standard and the interior trim was not as lavish, though you could order up anything you wanted. It was fast for the times, but not as fast as many would like to think. The muscle cars that set those legendary times were all big block cars, many set up in ways that did not produce a practical comfortable street car. Hemis, 440 six packs, 427 multi-carbed Vettes, 400 cube GTOs etc. with no power steering, a/c, many without disc brakes ( to reduce drag) manual transmissions with low geared rear ends that limited ultimate top speed to around 110-115 mph. The only thing keeping one of these out of my garage is a lack of green stuff in the bank. While I’m very happy to have my 70 coupe I would love to have a base sportsroof that I would update with a modern Mustang engine, 5 or 6 speed auto, aftermarket a/c and the appropriate brake and chassis mods. A set of restrained 17 in. wheels, a single color paint job with a tasteful pin stripe and a front spoiler. Who knows, maybe my coupe will get all the love.
As a lifelong Mopar guy, from a Mopar family, I’ve never exactly been a Mustang fan. An yet, at the same time, I’m a lifelong “car nut.” So I can most assuredly appreciate the Mustang, and certain models of the Mustang I’ve always been rather fond of. The Mach 1 being one. I tend to gravitate to the low production or limited edition models, be they high performance, the luxury edition or the economy model. This one may need some work to make it right, but this is very desirable in my book. And, for all the years on it, it seems to have held up rather well.
I wouldn’t exactly call these Mach 1 Mustangs low production; Ford made 72,458 of them for 1969, and 40,970 for 1970.
I am on record as being mighty underwhelmed by the 69-70 hardtops and convertibles. But the lines on these fastbacks are virtually perfect. This car is a fabulous combination of fluid grace coupled with some beefy machismo. When I was a kid, this was THE car.
Is it real or not? Absolutely no idea. I just like looking at it.
I like the car’s looks too. But it never should’ve been called a “Mustang”. That is no Mustang.
Regarding the heavy fluted rocker panel and lower side trim. Ford must have gotten a deal on that stuff as it was also used on the Torino GT, and the Thunderbird in 1970. It was also used on high end Galaxies, but fastened on the lower side above the rockers the length of the car, The 69 Mustang had quad headlights, the inner light was not a strict driving light. In 70, they reverted to duals. but installed them in a wider grille, with those dummy vents to the outside. The 71 Mustang was so huge, for the same reason the Challenger and Barracudas were in 70, to easily drop the biggest mill the company had into the engine bay and have room for all the accessories.
As the former owner of a ’70 Challenger (318, column shifted automatic) I certainly don’t remember anything huge about it, in fact it was rather small, about the same size as a Camaro/Firebird. The Mustang has been a lot of things over the years, at first it was just a restyled Falcon, and sold on looks alone. Nothing wrong with that. Then it started becoming a muscle car, and continued in that direction till ’74, when it became a sporty economy car. The Fox body era is what confuses me the most. It certainly did not have style, and seemed to designed as both a muscle car and a handling car. In ’94, the Mustang was back. Like the original, based more on looks than anything else, it was an image car. a refresh in ’99, IMO, was actually a step backward. Then the ’05 hit the streets, and for the first time in decades, the Mustang looked like what I think a Mustang should look like again. All it needed was body colored louvers on the rear quarter windows (I don’t know why these did not come stock, to me the car does not look right without them) and it very much resembled the ’68 GT390 used in the movie “Bullitt” The ’05-’09 had the cleanest lines, then Ford started messing with it, making the styling more complex, and adding more and more power. It was still a nice looking car through 2014, when Ford pushed it over a cliff.
The E body twins were WIDE though, easily the widest of all the pony cars of the time due to being based on the B platform(which was really full size light) instead of a compact platform like the Mustang, Camaro and previous generation A body Barracudas.
As for the Mustang I’m going to keep arguing in favor of Fox body Mustangs. If you hate late 70s/80s design, you’re never going to like them, just as if you don’t like mid 60s styling you’re not going to like the original. It was the LAST Mustang that you had 3 bodystyles to choose from, the last Mustang you could option the crap out of, and the last, frankly, that was the proper size for a Mustang(using 64-66 as a benchmark). I don’t know how 99 was a step backward but it’s pretty much the 94 minus the jellybean.
But I’m biased, the only Mustangs I think worth a damn in the last 30 years are the Foxbodies and 99-04s. The 05-currents are far too tall, bulbous and heavy and much too skewed towards high performance(ala 71-73), and the Mustang II, well it’s is about as sporty as a 2/3rd scale Lincoln Mark IV, which it basically is. The styling is so retro, compromised and kitschy it’s practically the antithesis of stylish, it’s lazy. The Mustang isn’t a 911, this desire to just keep the basic 68 constantly updated forever isn’t going to happen, it wasn’t the case then and it isn’t now.
I can’t make up my mind:
66 fastback 289 hipo 4 speed
or
67 fastback 289 hipo 4 speed
Neither…
That car weighs too much and has too many headlights. To be really fun to drive you need at least 4 speeds, total weight 3k lbs or less, rear drive, limited slip, and a front/rear weight distribution about 50/50…48/52 if you can manage it somehow. Can’t do that with a big block motor though…in fact can’t even come close. A big block will give you about 60/40 in a notchback.
So what you need is a fastback with an aluminum small block V8
So how does that argument favor the 64-68? A 289/302 Mustang doesn’t have 50/50 weight distribution and certainly don’t contain much aluminum.
After market upgrades.
You can put aluminum heads and polymer intake manifold on a 289. You can throw out the cast iron exhaust and upgrade to lightweight stainless headers. You can put an aluminum block in a 66 stang. You can buy polymer composite fenders and hood and remove the grill and front bumper to lighten the front end. The fastback has a little more weight in the back end than a notchback. You can re-locate the battery to the trunk. You can upgrade to small light weight electric fans on your radiator and ditch the old heavy fan-clutch and steel fan blades. You can upgrade to a lightweight polymer radiator and move it much closer to the engine once the old style fan is gone. You can relocate the engine/tranny an inch rearward from its original location. If you notch the firewall, remove the back seats, and shift the front seats slightly rearward and lengthen the steering column, you can move the engine/tranny even more rearward. You can relocate the alternator to the drive shaft.
With some effort and homework you can get a 66 fastback with small V8 motor down to a curb weight of 2500 lbs and a 51/49 front/rear weight distribution.
Well I didn’t have modified Mustangs in mind in this conversation, in which case I question why all of those mods couldn’t apply to a 69(or 70 and 71-73)??? The chassis and basic structure is virtually identical on all first generation Mustangs, there’s no favorable year besides aesthetics if the goal is to soup it up. Hell you can get 351 blocks in aluminum now and bore/stroke it up to 427 cubic inches if you wanted at a fraction of the weight too.
And I guess I haven’t paid much attention to recent/current automotive trends but I don’t ever recall hearing anything about polymer radiators being a thing, besides the side tanks anyway. Seems like they wouldn’t work very well and would end up cracking a lot.
all radiators crack a lot. They all die a horrible leaky death due to repeated thermal cycles and pressure cycles.
polymer radiators are disposable. Copper radiators can have the tubes replaced. Aluminum radiators are something between the two extremes. Brass are like copper but a little stronger. Copper has the best heat transfer.
The 65-66 fastback with 289 hipo starts out the best in terms of weight and front/rear weight distribution so it is naturally the best starting point for improvements.
I like the 66 better than the 65 for dashboard and chrome and other minor details.
I like the 67 better than 68 for similar reaasons…also the 68 did not have the hipo option.
I’m aware of radiator failures, I’m a trained mechanic, I just have never seen a radiator whose core is anything other than Aluminum or Copper/Brass. Polymer side tanks are super common, but they certainly don’t account for the whole radiator.
Also 66 also has the weakest structure (Mustangs didn’t get torque boxes at all four corners until 67, minus Shelbys IIRC), negating some advantages. The larger bodyshells only added so much weight to the platform and it’s not put off balance by it either, that trait comes from the big engine families getting wedged in, and much of the overall weight comes from the various fluff and sound deadening added as LTD broughamitis spread through Ford’s lineup. If you’re starting from a bare shell of a 66 and a 69 and built them otherwise identically, part for part, the difference in performance would be negligible.
The lack of 68 HiPo seems kind of irrelevant if you’re going to swap in aluminum block/heads anyway.
Published curb weights of a 66 hipo compared to a 67 hipo indicate your are incorrect. Every year Mustang gained weight independent of the engine/tranny. A 351 will not fit in a 66 but it will in a 67. The 69 increased girth yet again.
Starting with a lighter car, if you change the engine weight and engine location slightly, you more greatly effect the balance of the whole car because the engine is a greater proportion of the total vehicle weight.
As I said, sound deadening insulation weight, suspension component weight, chassis stiffening weight, tire/wheel weight, ect. are all factors too. I’m not saying there weren’t weight gains between 66 and 67 or 68 and 69 in the bodyshell alone, but you don’t seem to be accounting for those factors. In the end though if you’re building a custom car there’s plenty of ways to equalize things.
But since we’re on the subject of published curb weights, how about a little twist – According to automobile-catalog a 1968 390 4 speed actually weighs MORE than a 1969 Mach 1 with a 390 4 speed (3439 lbs vs. 3393 lbs respectively). Same engine/tranny, yet a weight LOSS on a bigger body. Published curb weights though, can’t argue against those! 🙂
I don’t care. watch this:
If I was 17 in the year 1970 I would have that lovely in my Mustang no matter what year my stang was or what motor I had in it.
A 351W will fit in a ’66 with no shock tower modifications (but it will be a bit tight). I’ve even seen a 351C in an early fastback (and it was REALLY tight).
..this wasn’t all that quick for its time and is definitely not fast by today’s standards.
This is a notion I’ve grown very tired of reading, contrary to popular belief it doesn’t take 450 horsepower to run 12 second quarter mile times, you don’t even need 300 in a car this light(which by todays standards is really light). Polyglas bias plys from this period were crap, in fact modern street tires get better grip than slicks back in those days, so those 8 sec 0-60 times are pretty irrelevant to bring up unless you’re racing a (over)restored example, modern radials really all these old muscle cars up.
I seriously doubt it’s a clone, I know I personally couldn’t resist the temptation to go with a 428/toploader with or shaker if it were me, a 351 and FMX is pretty blah. That and the abundance of mach 1 specific components like the grille/driving lights, lower cladding, and interior bits would at the very least require most of a doner to get, and judging by the fire damage to the back THAT is probably why the honeycomb panel on the back is missing.
As for my take, I love the 69 and 70 Mach 1s, but I can see why others don’t. JPC hit the nail on the head with his comment, the coupes and verts didn’t work as well on this restyle as the 67 update. The 69 really cemented the Mustang’s Supercar centric bias getting away from the smallish everyday secretary special it had been known for, which many consider the “true” Mustang spirit(Mustang II defenders generally use that point in their defense, and they’re not wrong). The 71s are generally the ones that get the flack for abandoning that formula but it’s a little unfair, most of the bloat came with the 69/70, as did many of their other negative attributes, like lack of visibility and unnecessary girth (and positives, which lets face it these were the fastest Mustangs ever built until the recent decade, they were competent), the only real difference was these still looked pretty much like Mustangs we knew and loved, but with a longer tougher body, 71s looked like an LTD with very impractical proportions.
Could you run 12’s with under 300 hp without it being a dedicated drag car (slicks, chassis setup, gearing)? These are no lightweights.
I’m saying lightweight compared to it’s modern equivalents. All of these early 70s ponycars were heavy for their day, but are in the neighborhood of 500-1000+(!!!)lbs lighter than their current successors.
Being a dedicated race car depends on your definition of that. You could equip Mach 1s with 4.30s from the factory, which to this day is still considered a drag gear, even with modern overdrive and double overdrive transmissions keeping the revs down at speed. Gas mileage notwithstanding, with modern street radials a lot of the 14-15 second cars in their bias ply day run consistent 13s with no other significant changes(probably well tuned of course).
Slicks or Drag radials of course would would definitely do it, and while that may seem like making it a drag car, keep in mind the cost of the wide 19″ and 20″ tires that most current pony cars come with vs the cost of an extra set of slicks or DRs on a smaller, much more common wheel diameter on one of these Mach 1s.
The 1969-70 Mustang fastback’s (especially the Shelby’s, Mach 1’s, Bosses) are among some of my all time favorite Mustang’s, I definitely agree the 1969 headlights looked a lot better than the 1970 headlights, I wasn’t too big of the Mustang coupe’s of this period but always loved the fastback Mustang’s.
I always thought the 302 was standard on all Mustang Mach 1’s.
Always been a fan of the 69-70’s. Had a ’70 coupe during my high school & college years. Not the greatest pic – we’ve had this ’70 Mach 1 in our family since 1984 or so. It’s at about 75k miles. Original paint (some door dings and all), mostly original interior. 351W-2V, FMX. A/C car.
For me style played an important part in Mustang desirability. Yes, ’05-’14s are too tall and too narrow, but look at all the other cars out there that have the same issue. It just seems to be the modern look for all cars, and the Mustang pulls it off better than all the little sedans. IMO, no modern Mustang will ever look as good as a vintage one. But then again, no modern car of any kind will ever look as good as a vintage one to me.
The Mustang has varied so widely over the decades it is impossible to define what a “proper” Mustang should be. Everybody is going to have their own opinions. Truth be told, as nice as I find some of the other models, I would be very happy with a 1967 notchback coupe, red with a white vinyl top, white interior, whitewall tires, and stock wheelcovers. A 289 under the hood with a 4 speed behind it. The ’67 got cleaned up just enough to make it more attractive to me than the ’66, and the ’68 was a whole different car.
I think ideal for me would be a ’69 Boss 302 motor in a ’67 GT fastback…with some kind of 5 speed manual transmission.
But I like the 66 fastback a lot too. Primarily because it weighs under 3000 lbs.
Well I suppose seeing as I have had my 68 for about 35 years that the 68 would be my favourite. However I always like the 69 – 70’s. I preferred the single headlights of the 70 but wouldn’t kick any to the curb. The 428 may have been a heavy beast but it was the fastest 4 place production muscle car of its time as tested by Hot Rod in full street trim at 13.6 seconds in the quarter. I can hardly imagine anyone leaving a 428 standing anywhere as they are extremely sought after.
1968 390 4 speed weighs 3439 lbs. This is interesting. Not arguing any thing here. My 2012 Boss 302 weighs about 3640 when its sitting on my scales. So about 200 pounds heavier? Sporting a lot more equipment, bigger brakes, bigger wheels and tires. Trans might be a toss up, iron 4 speed vs alum 6 speed. The 5L engine has a lot of aluminum in it but it is a Big motor. I have a ’68 428 Cobra Jet Cougar so I’m not knocking the old iron. I would take any fastback 65-71 Mustang. I’m just saying the 05-14 Mustangs aren’t as bloated as many think and can be a lot cheaper than a vintage Mustang.