Size Comparison

Rpmcarter brought up a good point regarding size in another thread. I know our cars don't get a lot of love and some of us are a little over-sensitive about it (including me), so I did a little comparison test here. Consider it medicine to sooth our bruised feelings.

1971 Mustang: 3,261 lbs (V8), 109" wheelbase, 190" length, 75" width.

1971 Chevelle: 3,296 lbs (2 door V8), 118" wheelbase, 198" overall length, 76" overall width.

Also, the Mustang didn't come as a station wagon (thank God). Who's the fat pig now?

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1971-1972-1973-ford-mustang-specifications.htm

http://www.ehow.com/list_7624126_1971-chevelle-specs.html

rofl

Actually, when you compare a '71-'73 against a '70 - the '70 actually looks like the 'fat pig' because the lines of the '71-'73 are more complimentary to the extra 'size.'

1969-1970 Mustang:

Wheelbase, inches: 108.0

Length, inches: 187.4

Curb-weight range, pounds: 2,690-3,210 (1969); 2,721-3,240 (1970)

Width, inches: 71.3-71.7

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1969-1970-ford-mustang-specifications.htm

1971-73 Mustang:

Wheelbase, inches: 109.0

Length, inches: 187.5-190.0

Curb-weight range, pounds: 2,907-3,261 (1971); 2,995-3,216 (1973)

Width, inches: 75.0

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1971-1972-1973-ford-mustang-specifications.htm

Yeah - all 4" inches of width, 3" inches of length, 21 lbs, and loss of a few inches of height makes our car SO MUCH BIGGER. Pfft - whatever.

No no no...Acording to mustang monthly they ballooned too a hefty 4,000 pounds {rolls eyes} bahahahahaha

I think the major problem with our cars is that they are "Mustangs", which is why everybody will compare them to the older ones. And I mean we all agree that they do not have much in common with the 69-70, eand even less with the 64-68.

If this car had been marketed under a different name, maybe something martial like (Cougar's) "Eliminator" or the like, it could have stood its own ground.

On a related matter:

I remember that on a German Mustang forum someone posted what the next generation Mustang was supposed to look like and it showed a car that resembled a mix between an Audi TT and a Nissan GT-R.

Most people did not like it and I posted:" I like it a lot. It's a great looking car...... but somehow it's not a Mustang."

And I think this is the main problem. Our cars are cool cars, just not cool "Mustangs". They were no longer Pony Cars.

I mean, if you look at our convertibles, they have more in common with Mopars B-Bodies than with their Mustang ancestors. (Which is cool with me, as I love Mopars! )

Rpmcarter brought up a good point regarding size in another thread. I know our cars don't get a lot of love and some of us are a little over-sensitive about it (including me), so I did a little comparison test here. Consider it medicine to sooth our bruised feelings.

1971 Mustang: 3,261 lbs (V8), 109" wheelbase, 190" length, 75" width.

1971 Chevelle: 3,296 lbs (2 door V8), 118" wheelbase, 198" overall length, 76" overall width.

Also, the Mustang didn't come as a station wagon (thank God). Who's the fat pig now?

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1971-1972-1973-ford-mustang-specifications.htm

http://www.ehow.com/list_7624126_1971-chevelle-specs.html

Click to expand...

The 73 Chevelle in my garage

Rpmcarter brought up a good point regarding size in another thread. I know our cars don't get a lot of love and some of us are a little over-sensitive about it (including me), so I did a little comparison test here. Consider it medicine to sooth our bruised feelings.

1971 Mustang: 3,261 lbs (V8), 109" wheelbase, 190" length, 75" width.

1971 Chevelle: 3,296 lbs (2 door V8), 118" wheelbase, 198" overall length, 76" overall width.

Also, the Mustang didn't come as a station wagon (thank God). Who's the fat pig now?

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1971-1972-1973-ford-mustang-specifications.htm

http://www.ehow.com/list_7624126_1971-chevelle-specs.html

Click to expand...

The 73 Chevelle in my garage

Click to expand...

Of all the things you are getting fixed, Ron White says "you can't fix stupid" whatever that means in this case:s

Rpmcarter brought up a good point regarding size in another thread. I know our cars don't get a lot of love and some of us are a little over-sensitive about it (including me), so I did a little comparison test here. Consider it medicine to sooth our bruised feelings.

1971 Mustang: 3,261 lbs (V8), 109" wheelbase, 190" length, 75" width.

1971 Chevelle: 3,296 lbs (2 door V8), 118" wheelbase, 198" overall length, 76" overall width.

Also, the Mustang didn't come as a station wagon (thank God). Who's the fat pig now?

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1971-1972-1973-ford-mustang-specifications.htm

http://www.ehow.com/list_7624126_1971-chevelle-specs.html

Click to expand...

The 73 Chevelle in my garage

Click to expand...

Of all the things you are getting fixed, Ron White says "you can't fix stupid" whatever that means in this case:s

Click to expand...

I'm thinking I'll have the 496 in it before the surgery. Who knows. Maybe pigs can fly!

I believe Luxstang makes a GREAT point!

Per my memory, the "piling on" as it relates to the Mustang being big started around 1968 and got worse in 1969 and 1970. Once the "writers" started drawing attention to the (what I saw as a gradual) "weight" increase of the Mustang, it became a bigger (in my mind) issue.

That having been said, I believe the later Mustangs are "head and shoulders" (as they should be) above the early Mustangs in terms of performance (all types) and safety. That is one of the reasons I try to build my "older" Mustangs to a level that includes "modern" updates.

As far as the weight issue, just build a combinations that makes enough useable HP and torque to reach your desired goal.

...my $.02.

BT

I went to high school with a guy who had a '69 Mach 1 (daddy bought it). The first time I saw it, it was parked right behind my car, the first thing I remember thinking was how much smaller my car appeared than his, especially height wise. My roof line was much lower.

Our cars don't weigh anymore than any other muscle car of the time. Just a little more than the very early mustangs.

IIRC, I had this discussion with my Camaro loving friend, and his '74 was listed as 50lbs heavier and an inch wider than our cars.

Another misleading thread title. It's not the size that counts, it's how you use it...or so I have been told. I think our pony's perform very well. They handle better than any other mustang, and I for one enjoy the smoother ride.

Another misleading thread title. It's not the size that counts, it's how you use it...or so I have been told. I think our pony's perform very well. They handle better than any other mustang, and I for one enjoy the smoother ride.

Click to expand...

:huh: I don't think it's misleading. We always read derogatory stuff about 71-73 Mustang size, so I decided to compare it to the competition of that era. Nothing misleading about it.

Rpmcarter brought up a good point regarding size in another thread. I know our cars don't get a lot of love and some of us are a little over-sensitive about it (including me), so I did a little comparison test here. Consider it medicine to sooth our bruised feelings.

1971 Mustang: 3,261 lbs (V8), 109" wheelbase, 190" length, 75" width.

1971 Chevelle: 3,296 lbs (2 door V8), 118" wheelbase, 198" overall length, 76" overall width.

Also, the Mustang didn't come as a station wagon (thank God). Who's the fat pig now?

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1971-1972-1973-ford-mustang-specifications.htm

http://www.ehow.com/list_7624126_1971-chevelle-specs.html

Click to expand...

The 73 Chevelle in my garage

Click to expand...

lollerz for the record, I do like Chevelles a lot, as well as the late 60's Camaros. I like Mopar cars from that era as well. Mustangs are just my favorite.

Post: #12RE: Size Comparison

(Today 07:36 AM)caspianwendell Wrote:

Another misleading thread title. It's not the size that counts, it's how you use it...or so I have been told. I think our pony's perform very well. They handle better than any other mustang, and I for one enjoy the smoother ride.

I don't think it's misleading. We always read derogatory stuff about 71-73 Mustang size, so I decided to compare it to the competition of that era. Nothing misleading about it.

LOL...I wasn't talking about cars as being misleading...

Has anyone notice how big the new Mustangs are? Talk about big. It's funny my wife doesn't call the Mach 1 the pig stang anymore.

1968 Dodge Charger:

Wheelbase: 117"

Length: 208"

Width: 76.6"

Weight: 3,424-3,653 lbs (not including HEMI versions)

1969 Dodge Charger Daytona:

Wheelbase: 117"

Length: 226.5"

Width: 76.6"

Weight: 3,719-4,189 lbs

:angel:

Has anyone notice how big the new Mustangs are? Talk about big. It's funny my wife doesn't call the Mach 1 the pig stang anymore.

Click to expand...

Everything looks like a big fat pig today. High belt lines and low body sides are at fault - it's terrible. It's as if someone had an allergic reaction to the look of 1980's box cars and severely overcompensated.

Not only does everything look like a bathtub now, you sit in them like a bathtub too. Heck, I thought the seats in my '71 felt a bit too low until I got into a 2013 convertible. YECH.

-Kurt

Post: #12RE: Size Comparison

(Today 07:36 AM)caspianwendell Wrote:

Another misleading thread title. It's not the size that counts, it's how you use it...or so I have been told. I think our pony's perform very well. They handle better than any other mustang, and I for one enjoy the smoother ride.

I don't think it's misleading. We always read derogatory stuff about 71-73 Mustang size, so I decided to compare it to the competition of that era. Nothing misleading about it.

LOL...I wasn't talking about cars as being misleading...

Click to expand...

Yeah...sorry I'm a little slow...

Yeah we hear all kinds but that pic above with the 90's Stang.... if that isnt telling nothing is. Parked next to the Convertible the 71 sits nearly the same height and the front end extension is the obvious body length difference against the 67. Like I said the Superbee looked HUGE in comparison. The cars feel larger driving them.

Our cars definitely feel and drive more "modern" than the early cars. Maybe that's what the purists don't like...

I think the major problem with our cars is that they are "Mustangs", which is why everybody will compare them to the older ones. And I mean we all agree that they do not have much in common with the 69-70, eand even less with the 64-68.

If this car had been marketed under a different name, maybe something martial like (Cougar's) "Eliminator" or the like, it could have stood its own ground.

On a related matter:

I remember that on a German Mustang forum someone posted what the next generation Mustang was supposed to look like and it showed a car that resembled a mix between an Audi TT and a Nissan GT-R.

Most people did not like it and I posted:" I like it a lot. It's a great looking car...... but somehow it's not a Mustang."

And I think this is the main problem. Our cars are cool cars, just not cool "Mustangs". They were no longer Pony Cars.

I mean, if you look at our convertibles, they have more in common with Mopars B-Bodies than with their Mustang ancestors. (Which is cool with me, as I love Mopars! )

Click to expand...

I disagree that our cars have lost touch with the classic Mustangs - the complete front end absolutely screams '69-'70 Shelby GT-500 if you ask me - which as I understand it, are highly coveted by the Classic Mustang crowd... leaving a slight aroma of hypocrisy in the air.

Based on how the current line of Mustangs have been progressing, Cobra and Shelby pieces, parts, and styling cues have been making their way into/onto production Mustangs as a normal part of the evolution process. The '71-'73 Mustang style is an example of the same practice of integrating Shelby & Cobra styling & performance mods into the newer models along with normal streamlining evolution (much like the Classic Mustangs experienced on their own between '66 & '67, then '68 & '69).

Personally, I do not care for the '67-'68 fastbacks, but they got the styling just right in '69-'70, then just streamlined it some more in '71-'73. Honestly, my only gripe with the '71-'73 styling is the tail lights - they look a little too 'That '70s Show' to me. Otherwise, I think it's third nicest overall Mustang design (behind the '69-'70 Shelby fastback and '69 Mustang fastback, respectively).