1971-73 Mach 1 vs 1969-70 Mach 1

[hyena429]

4000lbs? LOL! Mustang Monthly actually loves our cars and publishes a lot of good about our cars, so suprising to hear they got it wrong and made it look bad. The best we can do is represent our cars well and hope for the best.

Yup I emailed them and called there bluff..The editor of mustang monthly emailed me back..I was very suprized...And said...Well we had one at the drag strip and it weight was 3800 pounds with driver in it....And i said do you know that curb weight means how much the car is sitting there dry?...No gas...No fluid...No passangers...Nothing but the car..Not even transmission fluid...lol...I said with a 200 pound driver...250 pounds of gas..oil..fluids...Yes i could see it going across the scale at 3800...But even 3800 is waaaaaay far from saying it ballooned too a huge 4,000 pounds<~~ the qoute on there web site about are mustangs...lol...There editor emailed me back and said they would make sure to double check there info on the next big issues about this car...lol..that was like 3 years ago.

 

[mach71351c]

Seating position, Real power steering, Ride comfort, engine compartment room just to name a few that were important to me. The 71-73 Mustangs are just a much more pleasant car to drive. I drove several 64-70 Mustangs before I bought my 73. It was a clear choice in my opinion.

+ 2 Their just a better car overall.

 

[whitesoc]

{thumbs up} I think it mite have shrunk!! hehe I been in the arguments over my car so much over its weights...I pull out the shop mannuals and show them how much the curb is...They dont believe it....So im going to take mine over too the scrap yard and roll it across there scale and show them...its not as heavy as you think.. No way in hell<~~like mustang monthly said..it weight 4,000 pounds!!..lol bad press like that hurting them still today a bit..But there starting to over come it.

4000lbs? LOL! Mustang Monthly actually loves our cars and publishes a lot of good about our cars, so suprising to hear they got it wrong and made it look bad. The best we can do is represent our cars well and hope for the best.

You hear the "Boat" and "Clydsdale" comments a lot and then you start to believe it, but the more I take the car out, I'm like WTHeck! New Honda's and Hyundais looks larger than our cars. Did the car shrink while it sat for over 20 years? Even the newer Mustangs aren't that much smaller LOL!

My 11 and Kens 73

Again, must be the angle of the picture cause I thought you were taller and wider than Ken, but you both seem to be the same size Awesome pic!

Uruguayan is correct: I remember when I had my 1972 and looking back through rearview mirror could only see the spoiler. I read that the back glass on these Mach 1's is only 14 degrees from horizontal. I am only 5'7" but it gets tricky to change lanes in the Mach!!

Not true at all. Unless you've raised the rear with air shocks, then it becomes almost impossible to see out of the rear window. Stock from the factory had the rear lower than the front and you could see out the rear just fine. My car is pretty much leveled or maybe slightly higher in the rear and even with rear louvers, I see out the rear just fine. May have some blind spots when compared to other vehicles, but you could still see out the rear window. Don't all cars have blind spots? Just a matter of adjusting to that particular vehicle, but to put the car down for having this slanted rear window was just another reason for the haters to put the ole 7173 Mustang down.

That's it I start a diet tomorrow!

 

[classicsguy]

Although many will be in disagreement with me; I believe that the 1969 Mach 1 has the best front view of any other Mustang.

 

[FasTnNefariouS]

{thumbs up} I think it mite have shrunk!! hehe I been in the arguments over my car so much over its weights...I pull out the shop mannuals and show them how much the curb is...They dont believe it....So im going to take mine over too the scrap yard and roll it across there scale and show them...its not as heavy as you think.. No way in hell<~~like mustang monthly said..it weight 4,000 pounds!!..lol bad press like that hurting them still today a bit..But there starting to over come it.

4000lbs? LOL! Mustang Monthly actually loves our cars and publishes a lot of good about our cars, so suprising to hear they got it wrong and made it look bad. The best we can do is represent our cars well and hope for the best.

You hear the "Boat" and "Clydsdale" comments a lot and then you start to believe it, but the more I take the car out, I'm like WTHeck! New Honda's and Hyundais looks larger than our cars. Did the car shrink while it sat for over 20 years? Even the newer Mustangs aren't that much smaller LOL!

My 11 and Kens 73

Again, must be the angle of the picture cause I thought you were taller and wider than Ken, but you both seem to be the same size Awesome pic!

That's it I start a diet tomorrow!

Guess he never saw this eh Ken No reply means...mums the word LOL!

Although many will be in disagreement with me; I believe that the 1969 Mach 1 has the best front view of any other Mustang.

Different strokes for different folks! 1971 Mach 1 has the best front view for me and especially with the Nasa ram air intakes... can't beat it!

Even Tonka knows it

 

[Mach1_GR]

In my opinion the 69-70s are more agresive looking.

the 71-73 have clean lines, sleekier looks, and thus prettier/sportier looks (but still keeping the agresive style with the honeycomb grill and dual scoop etc)

The aerodynamics of the 71-73 is at another level

integrated front bumber, hiden wipers, door handles, kinda integrated rear bumper and plus both fastback and coupes have very detailed rear design in aerodynamic terms.

I still remember when doing "aerodynamics" in my Uni years they clearly stated that the best incline for low drag coefficient was the 14 degrees.

On the other hand the coupe had the same rear pillar style like the Coupe jaguars XJS and ferraris (the extention of the lines keeping the rear window vertical). This particular rear pillar design increased the high speed stability as it moved the pressure center of the car to the back.

Concluding, i go for the 71-73 as my first choise but i would like to have the ability to own a 69-70 too

 

[IA Rider]

I wouldn't trade my 73 Mach 1 for a 69 or 70 but still regret passing up a chance to buy both a 69 big block mach 1 and a 70 351 HO 4 speed mach 1 before I purchase my 73 Mach. At the time passing them up seamed like the logical thing to do.I like all of the mustangs.

 

[Boss1Ray]

I wouldn't trade my 73 Mach 1 for a 69 or 70 but still regret passing up a chance to buy both a 69 big block mach 1 and a 70 351 HO 4 speed mach 1 before I purchase my 73 Mach. At the time passing them up seamed like the logical thing to do.I like all of the mustangs.

IA Rider - What is a 70 351 HO? Just curious what you meant?

All good. THX,

Ray

 

[IA Rider]

Closed chambered 4bbl cleveland solid lifter cam. The car also had 4.11 gears.

 

[69 Rustang]

I like the looks of the '69 over any other year Mustang, I just glove the shaker and side scoops with the kicked up rear tail--it looks racey just sitting there to me. the '69 has all the creature comforts that my '72 has--plus the '69 has tilt steering and rim blow. I like the looks of the '71-73's as well, which is one reason I have one of those too. But I really like all Mustangs, so at some point I have had about every year in the driveway or garage t some point.

 

[MechEng]

I think for me the biggest thing was cost, I love the 1970 fastback, but as others have said the odds of finding one for anything less than a kings ransom is slim to none. Plus there's a certain pride in saving and restoring a 71-73 because I think people discount them because they aren't the trendy mustang.

 

[Mister 4x4]

Plus there's a certain pride in saving and restoring a 71-73 because I think people discount them because they aren't the trendy mustang.

I think you might've just coined a new term of endearment for the pre-'71 "Classic" Mustangs. ::thumb::

 

[Obsidian11]

There have been many times over the years that I have "wished" for an earlier car. When I bought my '71 it was a no brainer. I was 15, and wanted an old Mustang to restore, a friend of a friend had a '71 coupe that he wanted $650 for. It certainly wasn't the quintessential '65 fastback I had always dreamed of, but it was the right deal at the right time and looking back I wouldn't change it for the world! I love my '71, I've also owned an '88 GT and a '00 GT, both very fun cars but not nearly as enjoyable as my '71 (even with the 250 inline 6 it started life with) You can keep those 'trendy Mustangs' all day long, and I'll keep my '71! Unless my wife decides she wants an old Mustang (unlikely) then she'll get an earlier model.

 

[Stangace20]

I would say I like the look of the running lights in the grill (especially on the 71-72) and also the fact they're cheaper to buy than 69-70 mach 1 (which are ridiculously expensive) but at the same time they're a bit more interesting/special than a 69-70 mach 1/mustang. (as w/ all 71-73's vs 60's stangs)

 

[luxstang]

I absolutely love the 69 Fastback. To me it's the coolest and most beautiful Mustang ever. Sporty, sleek, plenty of muscle.

I'd take one over any 67-68 Fastback anytime.

The 65-68 are nice too, but way too mainstream for me. Not that I'd pass one up if I got it cheap but I would never go looking for one.

Now the 71-73 is a completely different matter. I love those cars for their looks and performance but I don't necessarily see them in comparison with the older Mustangs. They are more like their own league.

 

[Totalled]

Yes. I see the 69/70 as the most aggressive looking mustangs. I see the 71-73 as fords muscle car.

 

[will e]

I love the 69/70 Mach I. Really cool dash layout. Great looking car.

I have never driven or worked on one so I can't comment on that.

 

[MechEng]

I forgot to mention one of my driving factors for why I went to the 73 instead of the 70. I actually fit in a 73, the 70 Fastback that I sat in, even with the seat all the way back, I still felt cramped. In the 73 legs feel good, headroom might be an issue (I don't have a headliner at the moment) but I can slouch!

 

[Kit Sullivan]

"The aircraft carrier" and "the Clydesdale" are derogatory nicknames given to the car by Larry Shinoda during the early development stages of the 71 car. The car was purposely designed wider, longer and heavier to easily accommodate the then-new 385-series engines(429-460). There were even plans to eventually install a 501 cubic inch "Cobra Jet".

The car featured many GM-inspired design features at the behest of Bunkie Knudsen that made the model and indeed the entire program very unpopular with the long-timers at Ford.

Notice that in no place on the interior or exterior of the car did the stylists include the word "Ford" in any styling or nomenclature badges or decals, other than generic parts used on other car lines.

This was the stylist's subversive attempt to declare that the new Mustang was not a "real" Ford product.

The fact that the car is 6" longer and 600 lbs heavier than the 65 model is repeated all the time the show how much the car had grown.

However, it is only 1" longer and about 100 lbs heavier than a 70, yet not many ever complain about how much bigger and heavier the 69-70 models are than the 65s.

The nicknames stuck, and history now views the 71-73s as too big and heavy, and outdated. They just never achieved the popularity of the earlier cars.

That's ok with me...I usually have the only 71-73 car at a show, and that is just fine with me.

 

[hyena429]

I forgot to mention one of my driving factors for why I went to the 73 instead of the 70. I actually fit in a 73, the 70 Fastback that I sat in, even with the seat all the way back, I still felt cramped. In the 73 legs feel good, headroom might be an issue (I don't have a headliner at the moment) but I can slouch!

Mine still has the headliner in it..And i fit fine...I could even wear a baseball cap with out rubbing the linner too much...Im 6'5" tall and ex defencive tackle in high school football....And same as you..Was worried about leg and head room...If you are much taller than me you mite have a issue.