If the Ford Mustang was such a great car, why didn't Ford keep the original 1965 design?
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
If the Ford Mustang was such a great car, why didn't Ford keep the original 1965 design?
If you have ever driven a 65 Mustang you certainly would not ask the question. It rode like a haywagon, was full of squeeks and rattles, didn't steer well, took a 20 acre field to turn around, and had such poor brakes that you might have well dragged your feet to stop. All that being said it was cute. The new Mustangs are 10 times the car of the 65 and the retro style is very nice. It's called progress.
If you have ever driven a 65 Mustang you certainly would not ask the question. It rode like a haywagon, was full of squeeks and rattles, didn't steer well, took a 20 acre field to turn around, and had such poor brakes that you might have well dragged your feet to stop. All that being said it was cute. The new Mustangs are 10 times the car of the 65 and the retro style is very nice. It's called progress.
If the Ford Mustang was such a great car, why didn't Ford keep the original 1965 design?
In 1965 the Mustang was an affordable sporty car with performance if you had the 289 c.i package. Over the next years they evolved and were upsized to handle the power of the larger engines(302, 351,390 and 428). The original short wheelbase and 14 inch tire car could not handle the increase in horse power. In 1969 it was called a Mach 1, not a Mach 11. Shelby Cobra's, or at least the original ones built by Carroll Shelbey had a 427 side oiler engine. The last true mustang was built in 1970 as after that year they were detuned for insurance and emmission concerns. The Mustangs of the late 70's and early 80's had to be the ugliest car ever produced. The new Mustangs, even with their upgrades and comforts are just that-new. They will never be worth anything as a collectable and depreciate like all other new cars. Find a 1965-1970 Mustang, restore it, both for the investment and for the pleasure of owning a real car.
In 1965 the Mustang was an affordable sporty car with performance if you had the 289 c.i package. Over the next years they evolved and were upsized to handle the power of the larger engines(302, 351,390 and 428). The original short wheelbase and 14 inch tire car could not handle the increase in horse power. In 1969 it was called a Mach 1, not a Mach 11. Shelby Cobra's, or at least the original ones built by Carroll Shelbey had a 427 side oiler engine. The last true mustang was built in 1970 as after that year they were detuned for insurance and emmission concerns. The Mustangs of the late 70's and early 80's had to be the ugliest car ever produced. The new Mustangs, even with their upgrades and comforts are just that-new. They will never be worth anything as a collectable and depreciate like all other new cars. Find a 1965-1970 Mustang, restore it, both for the investment and for the pleasure of owning a real car.
If the Ford Mustang was such a great car, why didn't Ford keep the original 1965 design?
The original Ford Mustang was based on the mechanical bits off the Ford Falcon economy car. After the original sold in record numbers, Ford had to do something to keep up the pace. In the meantime. Mopar and GM were looking at the Mustang's success, and planning their responses.
The Camaro/Firebird twins and the second-generation Plymouth Barracuda all had the ability to accept big-block V8s, so the second-generation Mustang had to grow in order to have the same capability.
Remember that Detroit was in the middle of a horsepower war, with every manufacturer trying to field vehicles with the most impressive statistics.
Couple this with Detroit's then-current "longer lower wider" mindset and, by 1973, the Mustang was like Elvis: a bloated version of its former self. It took the Mustang II of 1974 to restore some degree of common sense to the pony car's dimensions.
The original Ford Mustang was based on the mechanical bits off the Ford Falcon economy car. After the original sold in record numbers, Ford had to do something to keep up the pace. In the meantime. Mopar and GM were looking at the Mustang's success, and planning their responses.
The Camaro/Firebird twins and the second-generation Plymouth Barracuda all had the ability to accept big-block V8s, so the second-generation Mustang had to grow in order to have the same capability.
Remember that Detroit was in the middle of a horsepower war, with every manufacturer trying to field vehicles with the most impressive statistics.
Couple this with Detroit's then-current "longer lower wider" mindset and, by 1973, the Mustang was like Elvis: a bloated version of its former self. It took the Mustang II of 1974 to restore some degree of common sense to the pony car's dimensions.
If the Ford Mustang was such a great car, why didn't Ford keep the original 1965 design?
It's called progress and safety compliance!. They were and are called Mach 1's Have you not seen the new 2005's and up they are styled after the older body styles the retro look? With all new features and safety designs.The old original cobras are being made by Carol Shelby, seems he had 100 plus frames from the 60's that are being made into new Cobras if you can afford one.
It's called progress and safety compliance!. They were and are called Mach 1's Have you not seen the new 2005's and up they are styled after the older body styles the retro look? With all new features and safety designs.The old original cobras are being made by Carol Shelby, seems he had 100 plus frames from the 60's that are being made into new Cobras if you can afford one.
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Join the discussion
Mustang Evolution Forum
A forum community dedicated to Ford Mustang owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, horsepower, modifications, troubleshooting, racing, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Recommended Communities
Join now to ask and comment!