Jump to content

Oh, the double standards....


Recommended Posts

So I just read another short write-up about the 1971 Mustang, and was disappointed to see how, yet again, the remarks focused on size and weight. No telling how many articles I've read where words like bloated, portly, or Clydesdale described the model, or coupled with remarks like declining sales (Mustang actually outsold rival Camaro in '71, '72, and '73...but I digress). Rarely do I sense real research done into the history of the car, when reading an article, describing how it came about or why it grew in size, or even focus more on attributes than critiques (can we talk Super Cobra Jet, fastest production Boss, handling, musclecar war big block?)

Oh the double standards; back when I had subscriptions to muscle car magazines, I don't remember reading articles knocking the size of the '71 model Chevelle SS, Roadrunner, or Charger (all of which were longer, wider and taller than the Mustang by my research). In fact, during my search, I found the '71 Mustang is fairly close in size to the famed '73 Trans Am SD 455...but shorter in length.

Lastly, if the '71 Mustang is a "land yacht" based on its dimensions and weight, why don't I read comments knocking the new GT500, which is taller, wider and just as long.…oh, and weighs a whopping 4,100+lbs?!  (that, of course, is a rhetorical question....I certainly know why).

If the '71-'73 Mustangs are forever compared to the original '64 1/2 - '65 model year, why isn't the same done with the latest generation??  Did I mention a 'double standard' ??

 

Edited by MeanMachine
  • Like 2

1971 Coupe - 306ci (circa 1971) - 10:1/750 Holley/RPM Air Gap/Lunati camshaft (221/231@.050)/Comp roller rockerarms/Ford Racing pulleys/Ported cylinder heads/MSD ignition/Patriot Ceramic LT headers/Single Chambers/Carter fuel pump/NOS Sniper/9" diff./4.57 gears/B&M Holeshot convertor/B&M Shiftkit/B&M Z-Gate/CE subframe connectors/Jegs Sport Star rims/Lakewood traction bars/Fiberglass Ram Air hood/Electric fan/Rear seat delete/Relocated battery/Custom graphics

 

1972 Mach 1 - Ford 400ci/C6 trans/Quick Fuel 750 carb/Weiand Intake/Harland Sharp rockers/Performance cam/Patriot headers/CVF racing underdrive pulleys/Carter Fuel pump/Jegs Sport Star rims/4.11 gears/Spool/Traction bars/Accel distributor and ignition/Miloden 8-quart/Jones Full Boar exhaust/Hurst Pro-matic 2 shifter

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

So I just read another short write-up about the 1971 Mustang, and was disappointed to see how, yet again, the remarks focused on size and weight. No telling how many articles I've read where words lik

Pretty much standard schlock that illustrates how many of these "writers" are simply regurgitating information that was poorly fact-checked when it was first published. Some of it is derived from auto

If the 71-73 variant of Mustang is a land yacht, my Jaguar XK8 is a Container ship. I can tell you this ... I know beauty is in the eye off the beholder... but...FFS ..Heck,  I have people in the UK w

Posted Images

It's kind of funny, but in reality the 71-73 Mustang is actually a pretty small car comparatively.  I think the long hood just makes it look much bigger than it actually is.  I'm always amazed at how much room I have around the car when I have it the garage.

Jason (71 Mach 1, 351C 4V, 4 Spd. Toploader, Grabber Blue)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much standard schlock that illustrates how many of these "writers" are simply regurgitating information that was poorly fact-checked when it was first published. Some of it is derived from auto magazine articles of the day, and furthered along by the likes of Donald Farr and Peter Sessler.

FWIW, I believe the "700 lb" weight gain that was purported to have happened to the 71s was *actually* in comparison to the original 65. The base 1970 models floated around 2900lbs, while the base 71s tipped the scales at 30XX - ish. 

BTW - Chargers and Chevelles were mid-size cars, not pony cars like the Mustang & Camaro, so they would compete with the Torino/Montego models. 

 

  • Like 1

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Hemikiller said:

BTW - Chargers and Chevelles were mid-size cars, not pony cars like the Mustang & Camaro, so they would compete with the Torino/Montego models. 

 

True, my reference was more from a "musclecar comparison", but if we're talking pony cars than I could replace Chevelle and Charger with Challenger and (Mercury's pony car) the Cougar Eliminator.   :)

Edited by MeanMachine

1971 Coupe - 306ci (circa 1971) - 10:1/750 Holley/RPM Air Gap/Lunati camshaft (221/231@.050)/Comp roller rockerarms/Ford Racing pulleys/Ported cylinder heads/MSD ignition/Patriot Ceramic LT headers/Single Chambers/Carter fuel pump/NOS Sniper/9" diff./4.57 gears/B&M Holeshot convertor/B&M Shiftkit/B&M Z-Gate/CE subframe connectors/Jegs Sport Star rims/Lakewood traction bars/Fiberglass Ram Air hood/Electric fan/Rear seat delete/Relocated battery/Custom graphics

 

1972 Mach 1 - Ford 400ci/C6 trans/Quick Fuel 750 carb/Weiand Intake/Harland Sharp rockers/Performance cam/Patriot headers/CVF racing underdrive pulleys/Carter Fuel pump/Jegs Sport Star rims/4.11 gears/Spool/Traction bars/Accel distributor and ignition/Miloden 8-quart/Jones Full Boar exhaust/Hurst Pro-matic 2 shifter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to give you an idea of how our '71-'73's compare to a modern Stang, my '71 Mach 1 is only 1.4 inches longer than my 2011 Mustang convertible.

 

Barry

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Barry

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tegemus said:

Just to give you an idea of how our '71-'73's compare to a modern Stang, my '71 Mach 1 is only 1.4 inches longer than my 2011 Mustang convertible.

 

Barry

Actually, I have a 2014 Track Pack GT as well and the dimensions I have on it show it's actually only 1" shorter than my '71. 

1971 Coupe - 306ci (circa 1971) - 10:1/750 Holley/RPM Air Gap/Lunati camshaft (221/231@.050)/Comp roller rockerarms/Ford Racing pulleys/Ported cylinder heads/MSD ignition/Patriot Ceramic LT headers/Single Chambers/Carter fuel pump/NOS Sniper/9" diff./4.57 gears/B&M Holeshot convertor/B&M Shiftkit/B&M Z-Gate/CE subframe connectors/Jegs Sport Star rims/Lakewood traction bars/Fiberglass Ram Air hood/Electric fan/Rear seat delete/Relocated battery/Custom graphics

 

1972 Mach 1 - Ford 400ci/C6 trans/Quick Fuel 750 carb/Weiand Intake/Harland Sharp rockers/Performance cam/Patriot headers/CVF racing underdrive pulleys/Carter Fuel pump/Jegs Sport Star rims/4.11 gears/Spool/Traction bars/Accel distributor and ignition/Miloden 8-quart/Jones Full Boar exhaust/Hurst Pro-matic 2 shifter

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to chime in and say that the new Batmobile (2021) has several similarities to our car's design. The long hood, tucked in grill, and near horizontal rear-quarter panels/rear window rake have an uncanny similarity to the 71-73's. I guess they were just ahead of their time.  

e9a70d46a3b7b81dc8f937f497a1624c.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting read there guys. One thing to mention, wasn't the 69-70 only 2" smaller than the71-2? ONLY 2"!! I'd be happy to be 2" bigger, the car I mean.

Geoff.

 I learn something new every day!

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MeanMachine said:

So I just read another short write-up about the 1971 Mustang, and was disappointed to see how, yet again, the remarks focused on size and weight. No telling how many articles I've read where words like bloated, portly, or Clydesdale described the model, or coupled with remarks like declining sales (Mustang actually outsold rival Camaro in '71, '72, and '73...but I digress). Rarely do I sense real research done into the history of the car, when reading an article, describing how it came about or why it grew in size, or even focus more on attributes than critiques (can we talk Super Cobra Jet, fastest production Boss, handling, musclecar war big block?)

Oh the double standards; back when I had subscriptions to muscle car magazines, I don't remember reading articles knocking the size of the '71 model Chevelle SS, Roadrunner, or Charger (all of which were longer, wider and taller than the Mustang by my research). In fact, during my search, I found the '71 Mustang is fairly close in size to the famed '73 Trans Am SD 455...but shorter in length.

Lastly, if the '71 Mustang is a "land yacht" based on its dimensions and weight, why don't I read comments knocking the new GT500, which is taller, wider and just as long.…oh, and weighs a whopping 4,100+lbs?!  (that, of course, is a rhetorical question....I certainly know why).

If the '71-'73 Mustangs are forever compared to the original '64 1/2 - '65 model year, why isn't the same done with the latest generation??  Did I mention a 'double standard' ??

Horsepower and handling, perhaps.

6 hours ago, MeanMachine said:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1973 Stang (Biggest, Heaviest) vs. 1969 Camaro RS (That no one complains about)

351C                                                         350

L. 193.8"                                                  186"

W. 74.1"                                                     74"

H. 50.7                                                      51.1"

Wheelbase 109.1"                                    108"

3,411LBS.                                             3,492LBS. 

 

So we're 8 inches longer on  73 with the huge bumpers. 71 and 72 would be better, but I wanted to take the biggest example. 

Same width. Slightly lower. 1" longer wheelbase. 81lbs. lighter. 

Anyone ever hear a complaint at all about the size or weight of a 69 Camaro RS or SS??? Didn't think so. 

 

 

 

Chris - BIG RED MACH 1

Born in '73 - Drive a '73

Former U.S. Army 63B10-H8

1st Infantry Division - The Big Red One

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Working in an engine shop, I got tired of hearing about how damned big and heavy the Ford FE series engines were said to be. Boat anchors they said. Well,....the shop next door had a weighing scale that they weighed compressed air tanks on, and I decided to make a side-by side weight comparison. I had no dog in this fight, just wanted to know the truth. I weighed a 427 Ford side oiler to a 427 Chevy 4-bolt block, both bare with caps....the 427 Ford block was lighter. I weighed a set of 427 iron medium riser heads complete with springs/valves/rockers/shafts, to a set of Hi-Perf 427 Chevy heads, rectangular port, just as complete as the Ford's , the Ford head assemblies were lighter. Factory cranks...ditto. If you are building up a performance engine, you are going to use aftermarket pistons, likely the rods as well, so I didn't really concentrate on those weights, being that the numbers can be all over the map depending on component application. No, I didn't compare weights of the Ford/Chevy intake manifolds, 'cause right off the bat we all know the stock Ford iron intakes are heavier than the Chevy, however, in performance useage, neither will use a factory iron intake anyway, and aftermarket aluminum intakes can run anywhere from fabricated lightweight aluminum, to cast aluminum, one or more carbs, tunnel rams, blower manifolds, magnesium, injectors, and so on, so I left the intake category out.

So bottom line, the DOUBLE STANDARD of opinions seems to pertain to the engines as well. I am not sure, but I think I even saw a weight comparison of BBC to early Chrysler hemi, and the 354/392 was lighter that the BBC, again, if memory serves. Any Chevy guys ever realize the 427 Ford is really a 425?   Bore x bore x stroke x.7854 x no. of cylinders. Same rated output as the Mk 4 Chevy with 2 less cubic inches AND less weight. The truth is out there........

Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't agree more with you. Unfortunately, we and by that I mean many of our brethren Mustang lovers perpetuate the perception that 71-73 cars are bloated.... For example, I submitted to MCA pictures and the article of my car some years back and the MCA Times staff provided the title.... Ya think the folks at MCA would  know better.

 1141952870_11-2-20177-36-56AM.thumb.jpg.f30ec9e6d7d7e3ce5d92ae8374a05e54.jpg

1973 H Code Convertible - Medium Copper Metallic - June 8, 1973, Built Ford Marketing Sales Vehicle

DSC_0266xsm.jpg

satellite.png Proud Space Junk Award Winner!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Spike Morelli said:

.....opinions seems to pertain to the engines as well.

The truth is out there........

So right, I was a big fan of 460s back in the early '90s (still am) and remember the bias toward Chevy 454s. But what may be more odd is the division among Ford fans over pushrod vs overhead cam engines, and the bias towards the modular 5.0L. Is it me, or does it seem that Mustangs with Coyote engine transplants get all the attention? It is a great engine, no doubt (I have one), but seems like the trend is to fit a modular 5.0 into every restomod out there, as if it's the only real engine of choice.

And when comparing 302s, (5.0 Coyote vs 5.0 Windsor), I've read comments implying Windsor inferiority and the blocks splitting at 500 horse. Ironically enough, Richard Holdener did a video recently about that 'theory' and tested 9 different combinations of 500+ horsepower Windsors on a dyno, some engines having had hundreds of tests done.....without splitting the block. (things that make ya go "hmmm")

Edited by MeanMachine

1971 Coupe - 306ci (circa 1971) - 10:1/750 Holley/RPM Air Gap/Lunati camshaft (221/231@.050)/Comp roller rockerarms/Ford Racing pulleys/Ported cylinder heads/MSD ignition/Patriot Ceramic LT headers/Single Chambers/Carter fuel pump/NOS Sniper/9" diff./4.57 gears/B&M Holeshot convertor/B&M Shiftkit/B&M Z-Gate/CE subframe connectors/Jegs Sport Star rims/Lakewood traction bars/Fiberglass Ram Air hood/Electric fan/Rear seat delete/Relocated battery/Custom graphics

 

1972 Mach 1 - Ford 400ci/C6 trans/Quick Fuel 750 carb/Weiand Intake/Harland Sharp rockers/Performance cam/Patriot headers/CVF racing underdrive pulleys/Carter Fuel pump/Jegs Sport Star rims/4.11 gears/Spool/Traction bars/Accel distributor and ignition/Miloden 8-quart/Jones Full Boar exhaust/Hurst Pro-matic 2 shifter

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, MeanMachine said:

So right, I was a big fan of 460s back in the early '90s (still am) and remember the bias toward Chevy 454s. But what may be more odd is the division among Ford fans over pushrod vs overhead cam engines, and the bias towards the modular 5.0L. Is it me, or does it seem that Mustangs with Coyote engine transplants get all the attention? It is a great engine, no doubt (I have one), but seems like the trend is to fit a modular 5.0 into every restomod out there, as if it's the only real engine of choice.

And when comparing 302s, (5.0 Coyote vs 5.0 Windsor), I've read comments implying Windsor inferiority and the blocks splitting at 500 horse. Ironically enough, Richard Holdener did a video recently about that 'theory' and tested 9 different combinations of 500+ horsepower Windsors on a dyno, some engines having had hundreds of tests done.....without splitting the block. (things that make ya go "hmmm")

Speaking of Richard Holdener, he recently showed a factory 351C M code pulling 450HP with a simple cam and intake swap

 

Edited by trillizo_y_uno

Jason (71 Mach 1, 351C 4V, 4 Spd. Toploader, Grabber Blue)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, trillizo_y_uno said:

Speaking of Richard Holdener, he recently showed a factory 351C M code pulling 450HP with a simple cam and intake swap

 

I saw that one, he has some great content!

1971 Coupe - 306ci (circa 1971) - 10:1/750 Holley/RPM Air Gap/Lunati camshaft (221/231@.050)/Comp roller rockerarms/Ford Racing pulleys/Ported cylinder heads/MSD ignition/Patriot Ceramic LT headers/Single Chambers/Carter fuel pump/NOS Sniper/9" diff./4.57 gears/B&M Holeshot convertor/B&M Shiftkit/B&M Z-Gate/CE subframe connectors/Jegs Sport Star rims/Lakewood traction bars/Fiberglass Ram Air hood/Electric fan/Rear seat delete/Relocated battery/Custom graphics

 

1972 Mach 1 - Ford 400ci/C6 trans/Quick Fuel 750 carb/Weiand Intake/Harland Sharp rockers/Performance cam/Patriot headers/CVF racing underdrive pulleys/Carter Fuel pump/Jegs Sport Star rims/4.11 gears/Spool/Traction bars/Accel distributor and ignition/Miloden 8-quart/Jones Full Boar exhaust/Hurst Pro-matic 2 shifter

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, trillizo_y_uno said:

Speaking of Richard Holdener, he recently showed a factory 351C M code pulling 450HP with a simple cam and intake swap

 

 

He has some great stuff on his channel, but the M-code test is a bit misleading.

First - he used custom Ross pop-up pistons, which puts the compression WAY above what a stock M-code had. Ford advertised 11:1 for 1970 and 10.7:1 for 1971, which are both complete BS. Using the 70 head specs, the best calculated ratio is 9.9:1, the worst, 9.5:1. Using 71 heads, it drops to 9.5 and 9.3.  The domes on the pistons have been machined down and he does say 11:1, so I can only assume that's where he's at. Still, that's NOT stock M-code territory. 

Second - the camshaft is a big question mark. He states "stock M-code camshaft", which I'm calling BS on. I've been in this game a long time, and I have *never* seen a stock M-code cam being offered in the aftermarket. Not once, not ever. Nobody makes one now and I seriously doubt anyone bothered way back when, except Ford. Anything that is under an M-code application is actually the 71-up 351CJ cam which is *way* more cam than the M was. I questioned him on the cam and he simply replied "Elgin makes one", which they don't. I can only *assume* he used a 351CJ cam of 206/221 .470/.490, so the horsepower increase would actually be even MORE dramatic with the tiny M-code unit. 

Either way, it really demonstrates the potential of the 351C platform for simple "bolt on" performance increases. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing.........the car magazine articles never really highlight the fact that the '71-'73 Mustangs came with a superior integral power steering box, ( the Saginaw unit), as opposed to the push-pull slave cylinder system used in '65 to '70 power steering systems. It's a much better steering system. Or how about the fact that most of the '71-'73 v8s came with 9" rears standard, which have proven to be darned near the standard of the industry in the hot rodding world. The Boss 351 was only in'71, and it can well hold its own with even the big block cars. Maybe the magazines just fell too much in love with the earlier pony cars to really give the last three years a chance. That's O.K., I'm still keepin' mine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the 71-73 variant of Mustang is a land yacht, my Jaguar XK8 is a Container ship. I can tell you this ... I know beauty is in the eye off the beholder... but...FFS ..Heck,  I have people in the UK who think Range Rovers are nice to look at ... YEAH! if you like looking at a post office sorting center with a bag of air strategically nailed to each corner.

The Larry Shinoda styled 1969/70 to me was far less refined in  many ways...especially styling and did look like porky the pig...,  but in 1971 we got a better layout, interior and road stance. When the project went back to Gale Halderman and team to do the next gen ... in 1971 he took the prize in the same way I like the 67 and 68s that I desire also. 

Land yachts are Mercury Marquis, Cadillac Eldorados,  and Lincoln continentals as automotive waterbeds to bounce around in :biggrin:

Edited by 1sostatic
  • Like 1

wizzy.jpg

Enjoy's searching out 71-73 history

 

[button=http://www.7173mustangs.com/forum-garage?filterxt_uid=7211]Visit My Treasure chest[/button]

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/27/2020 at 10:05 PM, Big Red Mach 1 said:

1973 Stang (Biggest, Heaviest) vs. 1969 Camaro RS (That no one complains about)

351C                                                         350

L. 193.8"                                                  186"

W. 74.1"                                                     74"

H. 50.7                                                      51.1"

Wheelbase 109.1"                                    108"

3,411LBS.                                             3,492LBS. 

 

So we're 8 inches longer on  73 with the huge bumpers. 71 and 72 would be better, but I wanted to take the biggest example. 

Same width. Slightly lower. 1" longer wheelbase. 81lbs. lighter. 

Anyone ever hear a complaint at all about the size or weight of a 69 Camaro RS or SS??? Didn't think so. 

Can you add a column with the 71/72 dimensions?

 

On 8/27/2020 at 10:05 PM, Big Red Mach 1 said:

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1973  Mustang                                  69 Camaro RS                     71 Mustang (from WIkipedia)

351C                                                         350                                         Boss 351

L. 193.8"                                                  186"                                          189.5

W. 74.1"                                                     74"                                            74.1

H. 50.7                                                      51.1"                                         50.1

Wheelbase 109.1"                                    108"                                         109

3,411LBS.                                             3,492LBS.                                   3560

Wisdom, knowledge and intelligence are three very different things.

1971 convertible, H-code, Ram Air

1971 Mach I, M-code, Ram Air

1988 Bronco II

2014 F150 Supercrew

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EdM said:

Can you add a column with the 71/72 dimensions?

 

 

1971

Body Length 189.5 inches
Body Width 74.1 inches
Body Height Hardtop 50.8 inches
Body Height Fastback 50.1 inches
Track Front 61.5 inches
Track Rear 61.5 inches
Wheelbase 109.0 inches
Weight Fastback 3560 lb

Chris - BIG RED MACH 1

Born in '73 - Drive a '73

Former U.S. Army 63B10-H8

1st Infantry Division - The Big Red One

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have totally assumed the 73 was heavier. Not sure how the monster bumpers got added and it lost weight. But who knows about these internet specs. Point was that no one ever bitched about a 69 Camaro. And other than a few extra inches in length, they are close to identical. 

 

Chris - BIG RED MACH 1

Born in '73 - Drive a '73

Former U.S. Army 63B10-H8

1st Infantry Division - The Big Red One

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 71-73s are big compared to the 64 1/2-68 models, but it stuck and it's misused as being big compared to other cars. Mustang's own Iacocca called the 69 heavy compared to his vision of the first Mustangs, which were to be compact sports cars. From what I understand, Ford wanted (and needed) to compete in the horsepower war. The GTOs, the Plymouths and then the Camaros (all weighing around the same 3,500 lbs). To compete with more horsepower, the Mustang ended up as a bigger and heavier car. The "big" V8s added a lot of weight to the base car. Unfortunately, most of the data out there [and used for comparison] is for the base car.

Edited by tony-muscle

20160929_171923_edit2_small.jpg

 

1971 M-Code Mach 1 w/Ram Air, 408 stroker, 285/291 0.558" roller cam, Blue Thunder intake, TKO600, Hooker headers with electric cut-offs, FiTech EFI w/ RobBMC PowerSurge pump

Strange center section with Truetrac, 3.5 gear and 31 spline axles, 4-wheel disc brakes

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/28/2020 at 4:16 PM, Hemikiller said:

 

He has some great stuff on his channel, but the M-code test is a bit misleading.

First - he used custom Ross pop-up pistons, which puts the compression WAY above what a stock M-code had. Ford advertised 11:1 for 1970 and 10.7:1 for 1971, which are both complete BS. Using the 70 head specs, the best calculated ratio is 9.9:1, the worst, 9.5:1. Using 71 heads, it drops to 9.5 and 9.3.  The domes on the pistons have been machined down and he does say 11:1, so I can only assume that's where he's at. Still, that's NOT stock M-code territory. 

Hemikiller, this is NOT intended to dispute what your compression ratio number are, but to just show the numbers I got from UEI Pistons  with regards to KB 177 and 148 pistons. The KB177  (flat top) are .020" taller than stock, so on an engine that has not been decked, the deck height would be .008". Even at this, with a +.030" over bore, they only come up with 10.56:1, still below what Ford claimed for the stock engine. With KB 148 pistons with a 13cc dish, still .020" taller (compression height) they come up with 9.36:1. With zero deck, mine came up with closer to 9.5:1, which with 91 oct. pump gas, is just about right, no pinging with correct timing curve.

comp ratio.pdf

Edited by Stanglover

Geoff.

 I learn something new every day!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...