Are 71-73's fullsize or midsize cars?

So our cars get critisized for being too big in size and getting away from the original idea of a midsize sports car. So the question is, are 71-73's fullsize, midsize or compact cars? I understand the sizes refer to the platform that was used.

So the first 1964 Mustang was based on the compact car platform of the Ford Falcon. Our cars use the same platform, but you couldn't call our cars compact. So lets say the 64 Mustang is a mid size car.

Where does that leave the 71-73 Mustang?

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

At the time 1964 the Falcon/Mustang was considered a compact car and the Fairlane was considered a midsize. By 71 the pinto was sub-compact and the Mavarick was considered a compact and the Mustang like the Torino were considered Mid- sized.

Thanks for the info. So although the Mustang grew in every dimension, it was still mid size. I guess as cars got bigger, the definitions of the sizes changed.

If you have driven a Lincoln or other comparable land yatch of that era I think the sizes work out.

Exactly and it wasn't just at Ford it was pretty much industry wide. Before first oil embargo Bigger was better and the entire auto industry grew there models sizes.

Yup, it's hard for us Europeans to understand but if you ever get the chance to drive a 60s -early 70s Caddilac, Lincoln or Impala station wagon, the Mustang feels like a go cart afterwards.

For Europeans the Mustang is huge, for U.S. standards it's not.

...For Europeans the Mustang is huge, for U.S. standards it's not.

Click to expand...

Very true, in Europe if the parking space indicates it's for a compact, they mean a mini. I would still consider our 71-73 a midsized car, the design just makes it look bigger than it is.

Yes, I need to drive an 73 Caprice / Lincoln Continental IV. I'll get on to that!

So it's a mid size car, but the consensus is it's still to big for a Mustang. It was mentioned again on a recent classic car show I watched the other day. It's even on the Mustang Wiki page.

And yet the change between 70 and 71 is like 2 inches. Wow! yet take a look at how much the car grew between 66 and 70. It's just the design that make the 123's look bigger.

Look at the size of a Mustang today and then you really get the idea of how perceptions have changed over the years. Our cars were considered huge as a Mustang.

1971 Exterior Measurements

WIDTH 6 ft. 2.1 in. (74.1 in.)

HEIGHT 4 ft. 2.1 in. (50.1 in.)

LENGTH 15 ft. 9.51 in. (189.51 in.)

WHEEL BASE 9 ft. 1 in. (109 in.)

CURB WEIGHT 3560lbs.

2015 Exterior Measurements

WIDTH6 ft. 3.4 in. (75.4 in.)

HEIGHT4 ft. 6.4 in. (54.4 in.)

LENGTH15 ft. 8.3 in. (188.3 in.)

WHEEL BASE8 ft. 11.1 in. (107.1 in)

CURB WEIGHT 3526lbs.

The wiki page was written by a guy who simply hates our cars and who will ignore facts only to get his message across.

One of our members tried to fix it and within a few hours that part was gone and the bashing was back on the site.

I dunno what issues that guy has....

Yep, we're the "fat" cars...

Look at the size of a Mustang today and then you really get the idea of how perceptions have changed over the years. Our cars were considered huge as a Mustang.

1971 Exterior Measurements

WIDTH 6 ft. 2.1 in. (74.1 in.)

HEIGHT 4 ft. 2.1 in. (50.1 in.)

LENGTH 15 ft. 9.51 in. (189.51 in.)

WHEEL BASE 9 ft. 1 in. (109 in.)

CURB WEIGHT 3560lbs.

2015 Exterior Measurements

WIDTH6 ft. 3.4 in. (75.4 in.)

HEIGHT4 ft. 6.4 in. (54.4 in.)

LENGTH15 ft. 8.3 in. (188.3 in.)

WHEEL BASE8 ft. 11.1 in. (107.1 in)

CURB WEIGHT 3526lbs.

Click to expand...

And while the 2015 cars are 34 lbs lighter, the drivers are more than 34 lbs heavier, so thats a wash, too.

I swear that some day I am going to create a professional looking Classic Mustang website that chronicles the 64-73 Mustang history in reverse.

Firstly detailing everything that we all know is great about the 71-73's.

Then for the 1970-1969 model I will bemoan the shrinking of the cars size by two inches, the loss of the might Cleveland motor, the advent of the rudimentary "exposed" wiper arms, and the try-hard look of the non-functional quarter panel scoops.

For 1968 to 1967 I will reflect upon the diminishing size again as proof of the Mustang's further departure from it's 71-73 musclecar looks, reference the basicness of the old fashioned looking dash arrangement.

For 1966 to 1965 I will reference the size of the car having shrunk down to but a mere shadow of its former self, a veritable taste of the Mustang II which is to come. The loss of seat head rests, the shrinking of the motor size, the use of generators instead of alternators, and that the great Carroll Shelby once called them "a secretaries car", and so on.

And then I will also provide a feedback email address on the page, so those who find themselves offended by the reverse history can email me to vent their anger. The angrier the response the greater my enjoyment would be!

The website would be a complete lie however, as I actually love all 65-73 Mustangs. But getting some 65-70 snobs all riled up would make it all worth while!!

here is how ford sized the cars for 1972

this data was taken from the Ford buyers guide.

http://www.7173mustangs.com/thread-1972-ford-car-buying-made-easy

FULL Car:

Ford Galaxy 500

Ford LTD

Ford Custom 500

INTERMEDIATE Car: (mid size)

Ford Torino

Ford Gran Torino

COMPACT Car:

Maverick

SUB COMPACT Car:

Pinto

SPECIALTY:

Mustang

Thunderbird

so that makes Mustangs are a Special Breed

1972 buying guide web.pdf

Look at the size of a Mustang today and then you really get the idea of how perceptions have changed over the years. Our cars were considered huge as a Mustang.

1971 Exterior Measurements

WIDTH 6 ft. 2.1 in. (74.1 in.)

HEIGHT 4 ft. 2.1 in. (50.1 in.)

LENGTH 15 ft. 9.51 in. (189.51 in.)

WHEEL BASE 9 ft. 1 in. (109 in.)

CURB WEIGHT 3560lbs.

2015 Exterior Measurements

WIDTH6 ft. 3.4 in. (75.4 in.)

HEIGHT4 ft. 6.4 in. (54.4 in.)

LENGTH15 ft. 8.3 in. (188.3 in.)

WHEEL BASE8 ft. 11.1 in. (107.1 in)

CURB WEIGHT 3526lbs.

Click to expand...

And while the 2015 cars are 34 lbs lighter, the drivers are more than 34 lbs heavier, so thats a wash, too.

Click to expand...

If the new models didn't have as much plastic as they do (i.e., used sheet metal in the same places as our models - like the dashboards, et al) and had the same gauge sheet metal, imagine how much heavier they would be. I know the newer models use more for their crumple-zone designs, but it's also a LOT thinner gauge, and the front and rear bumper areas are a LOT lighter because of plastics, Styrofoam, and the thinner sheet metal. There is SO much more material in the newer models than ours.

There is SO much more material in the newer models than ours.

Click to expand...

Very true, try working behind the dash of a new mustang vs. working behind the dash of our cars.

also look under the hood of the new mustang vs. our mustang, its packed!!

Yep, we're the "fat" cars...

Click to expand...

Now. that puts things in perspective. Modern cars are heavy and getting heavier. The rear visibility on all modern designs is approaching the 71-73 fastbacks.

Additionally, with the "specialty" category, and considering that the Mustang was the first of the genre of "Pony Cars" (most likely being the namesake as well), I'd say that they are "neither" [full-size or mid-size].