1971-73 Mustangs: Why are they the least liked ?

[cudak888]

PS The word is out the real gone in 60 second car was a 73 429ci. Mustang. It did a real jump I think they set a jump distance record at that time too. Lets see if that trailer queen 68 can survive the real stuff.

*Ahem.*

That is incorrect, as Kit pointed out.

Just for the record:

Two cars were used; one unmodified for beauty shots, the other built with a complete rollcage to act as a secondary frame to the unibody, thus keeping the car from losing its nose during the jump.

Secondly, though the pedigree of the beauty car is unknown, it is well known that both were either '71 or '72s with the grill swapped to a '73.

It has been established, by virtue of a pre-production photo provided by Denise Halicki to Mustang Monthly, that the stunt car was built from a fire-ravaged a Bright Yellow 1971 or 1972 Mach 1 with an unknown interior color. It was equipped with Sportdeck rear seats and a Deluxe two-spoke steering wheel. The car may or may not have been involved in a front-end collision.

http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_4972-Ford-Mustang-1971.html

-Kurt

 

[rpmcarter]

71-73 Mustangs are considered "big" only in comparison to thier former selves. It started and became legendary as a smaller car only a few short years beforehand. Comparing them to a full-size Chrysler B-body makes no sense.

And...a V8 has been available in a Mustang every year ever since its inception, with the singular exception of 1974, the introductory year of the Mustang II.

their is spelled "their"

but I agree why compare the 71 Mustang Mach I to a B Body. But would it be appropriate to compare to the 71 Road Runner / GTX/ Satellite etc., which is the same class car and DIRECT competition. It meets our personal agenda.

 

[Kit Sullivan]

There, there now...I always seem to mispell their as "thier".

Direct competitors to the Mustang ( in my opinion) were always the Camaro/ Firebird, the Javelin, and the Barracuda.

 

[rottenralph]

I get more thumbs up on my green Mustang in the last three weeks going back and forth to work than I ever got with my beautiful Burnt orange 65 coupe. Most people are not really sure what it is. That part cracks me up.

 

[matrixx]

I get more thumbs up on my green Mustang in the last three weeks going back and forth to work than I ever got with my beautiful Burnt orange 65 coupe. Most people are not really sure what it is. That part cracks me up.

That's the great part! They were under appreciated and therefore forgotten. Everyone knows what the 65-70s are but the 71-73's I always get a "what is it?" I've even had someone argue that there was no way the car was a mustang.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mikes73]

I like these cars alot, everytime we take it out it turns heads and causes a stir

 

[rpmcarter]

There, there now...I always seem to mispell their as "thier".

Direct competitors to the Mustang ( in my opinion) were always the Camaro/ Firebird, the Javelin, and the Barracuda.

yeah I don't blame you I would pretend they are not competitive cars too since the ones I listed sell for 3 to 5 times what our cars sell for and are respected muscle cars.

 

[BigBlue]

I get more thumbs up on my green Mustang in the last three weeks going back and forth to work than I ever got with my beautiful Burnt orange 65 coupe. Most people are not really sure what it is. That part cracks me up.

Oh and some confuse it with other cars. Funny story:

One time at a light, some guy is eyeing my car, checking it out for a few seconds before he decides to tell me, "Hey man, that is a nice Camaro!" I laugh and tell him it's actually a Mustang. The guy looks at me with disbelief and says "I know a Camaro when I see one!" and drives off as the light turns green. It even had the Mustang script on the fender, but I guess it just doesn't look like a "classic Mustang".

 

[Mikes73]

I get more thumbs up on my green Mustang in the last three weeks going back and forth to work than I ever got with my beautiful Burnt orange 65 coupe. Most people are not really sure what it is. That part cracks me up.

Oh and some confuse it with other cars. Funny story:

One time at a light, some guy is eyeing my car, checking it out for a few seconds before he decides to tell me, "Hey man, that is a nice Camaro!" I laugh and tell him it's actually a Mustang. The guy looks at me with disbelief and says "I know a Camaro when I see one!" and drives off as the light turns green. It even had the Mustang script on the fender, but I guess it just doesn't look like a "classic Mustang".

We can blame Bunkie Knudson for why our cars don't look like classic mustangs

 

[Kit Sullivan]

The Mustang is not a "Muscle Car" per se...it is a "Pony Car". It made the category famous and had the whole group named after it. ( even though the Barracuda came first, it just didn't catch on with public like the Mustang did...otherwise we might have called them all "Fish Cars").

If you are referring to any vintage collector car from the 60s-70s based on its value and collectibility alone, then yes: there are many competitors to the Mustang.

But if you are referring to thier direct marketplace competition at the time of thier intriduction, then there are far fewer cars in the category.

Again, this is just my opinion but to me the true competitors to the Mustang must share some specific traits:

1) 2 door only: no 4-door or wagon variants

2) 4 passenger ( 2 front, 2 back)

3) front engine, rear wheel drive.

4) "long hood, short deck" proportions

5) American made

I realize this is quite arbitrary, but that is how I see the true competitors to the Mustang.

 

[Big Block MACH]

Sorry, but the original "Eleanor" from "Gone..." was most definitely NOT a 73, and it did not then or now ever have a 429, a 460 or any other big block.

You need to watch the first gone in sixty seconds. then you would know.

PS The word is out the real gone in 60 second car was a 73 429ci. Mustang. It did a real jump I think they set a jump distance record at that time too. Lets see if that trailer queen 68 can survive the real stuff.

*Ahem.*

That is incorrect, as Kit pointed out.

Just for the record:

Two cars were used; one unmodified for beauty shots, the other built with a complete rollcage to act as a secondary frame to the unibody, thus keeping the car from losing its nose during the jump.

Secondly, though the pedigree of the beauty car is unknown, it is well known that both were either '71 or '72s with the grill swapped to a '73.

It has been established, by virtue of a pre-production photo provided by Denise Halicki to Mustang Monthly, that the stunt car was built from a fire-ravaged a Bright Yellow 1971 or 1972 Mach 1 with an unknown interior color. It was equipped with Sportdeck rear seats and a Deluxe two-spoke steering wheel. The car may or may not have been involved in a front-end collision.

http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_4972-Ford-Mustang-1971.html

-Kurt

You need to watch the movie. on the list of cars to be stolen was Eleanor the 73, 429 mustang. The car is the movie star. Yes it has a early 71-72 bumper and a 73 grill and tail lights, 71 front signal lights, Painted custom for that time. All the stunts were real people got hurt. The jump Eleanor did was all real. I will watch the move again. You should check it its the best.

 

[Kit Sullivan]

The "Eleanor" was referred to as a "73, the last of the good ones" in the movie. No mention of a 429, or any other engine size wad mentioned.

The actual cars used were 71/72s with a 73 grill.

 

[Big Block MACH]

The "Eleanor" was referred to as a "73, the last of the good ones" in the movie. No mention of a 429, or any other engine size wad mentioned.

The actual cars used were 71/72s with a 73 grill.

Who cares, what was actually used, Eleanor was a 73 like I said.

 

[rpmcarter]

Sorry, but the original "Eleanor" from "Gone..." was most definitely NOT a 73, and it did not then or now ever have a 429, a 460 or any other big block.

You need to watch the first gone in sixty seconds. then you would know.

PS The word is out the real gone in 60 second car was a 73 429ci. Mustang. It did a real jump I think they set a jump distance record at that time too. Lets see if that trailer queen 68 can survive the real stuff.

*Ahem.*

That is incorrect, as Kit pointed out.

Just for the record:

Two cars were used; one unmodified for beauty shots, the other built with a complete rollcage to act as a secondary frame to the unibody, thus keeping the car from losing its nose during the jump.

Secondly, though the pedigree of the beauty car is unknown, it is well known that both were either '71 or '72s with the grill swapped to a '73.

It has been established, by virtue of a pre-production photo provided by Denise Halicki to Mustang Monthly, that the stunt car was built from a fire-ravaged a Bright Yellow 1971 or 1972 Mach 1 with an unknown interior color. It was equipped with Sportdeck rear seats and a Deluxe two-spoke steering wheel. The car may or may not have been involved in a front-end collision.

http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_4972-Ford-Mustang-1971.html

-Kurt

You need to watch the movie. on the list of cars to be stolen was Eleanor the 73, 429 mustang. The car is the movie star. Yes it has a early 71-72 bumper and a 73 grill and tail lights, 71 front signal lights, Painted custom for that time. All the stunts were real people got hurt. The jump Eleanor did was all real. I will watch the move again. You should check it its the best.

:goodpost:

and your right and the Police REALLY chased them too. and they REALLY made the jumps and action shots.... I'm just glad they didn't shoot Cage's brother. How would the legal system handled that? what would have been the defense? death by acting? Man.... we need to stick to reality and facts here!!!

good post Big Block!

 

[Kit Sullivan]

Cage's brother...as in Nick Cage? I think you are getting the '74 original confused with the 2000 remake.

To clarify: The car(s) used in the '74 original movie were in reality 71/72 Mustangs with 351 Clevelands. This is a known fact and is extremely well-documanted. The "character" of "Eleanor" in the movie was portrayed as a '73 mach 1, even though the two "actors" playing Eleanor were in fact 71/72s dressed up with 73 grills. No mention at any point in the movie claimed it was a '73 429 Mustang (of which there were exactly zero made). There was no mention or reference to "Eleanors's" engine size anywhere in the movie.

And yes, the stunts in that movie...and in all car movies back then were "real". CGI had not even been thought of yet, and miniature work was not realistic enough unless you spent big money. It was just cheaper to smash up real cars!

We all cringe at all the cool cars wasted in that film...especially that green Charger with "billboards". But remember, those were just cheap-o used cars back then.

 

[Totalled]

The split in half '67 Fairlane convertible makes me cringe...

 

[rpmcarter]

Cage's brother...as in Nick Cage? I think you are getting the '74 original confused with the 2000 remake.

To clarify: The car(s) used in the '74 original movie were in reality 71/72 Mustangs with 351 Clevelands. This is a known fact and is extremely well-documanted. The "character" of "Eleanor" in the movie was portrayed as a '73 mach 1, even though the two "actors" playing Eleanor were in fact 71/72s dressed up with 73 grills. No mention at any point in the movie claimed it was a '73 429 Mustang (of which there were exactly zero made). There was no mention or reference to "Eleanors's" engine size anywhere in the movie.

And yes, the stunts in that movie...and in all car movies back then were "real". CGI had not even been thought of yet, and miniature work was not realistic enough unless you spent big money. It was just cheaper to smash up real cars!

We all cringe at all the cool cars wasted in that film...especially that green Charger with "billboards". But remember, those were just cheap-o used cars back then.

Wow I should "study" movies instead of just watch them for entertainment. I might appear smarter...

 

[Luke]

Cage's brother...as in Nick Cage? I think you are getting the '74 original confused with the 2000 remake.

To clarify: The car(s) used in the '74 original movie were in reality 71/72 Mustangs with 351 Clevelands. This is a known fact and is extremely well-documanted. The "character" of "Eleanor" in the movie was portrayed as a '73 mach 1, even though the two "actors" playing Eleanor were in fact 71/72s dressed up with 73 grills. No mention at any point in the movie claimed it was a '73 429 Mustang (of which there were exactly zero made). There was no mention or reference to "Eleanors's" engine size anywhere in the movie.

And yes, the stunts in that movie...and in all car movies back then were "real". CGI had not even been thought of yet, and miniature work was not realistic enough unless you spent big money. It was just cheaper to smash up real cars!

We all cringe at all the cool cars wasted in that film...especially that green Charger with "billboards". But remember, those were just cheap-o used cars back then.

Wow I should "study" movies instead of just watch them for entertainment. I might appear smarter...

Not likely lollerz Sorry Carter but you left yourself wide open

 

[cudak888]

You need to watch the movie. on the list of cars to be stolen was Eleanor the 73, 429 mustang. The car is the movie star. Yes it has a early 71-72 bumper and a 73 grill and tail lights, 71 front signal lights, Painted custom for that time. All the stunts were real people got hurt. The jump Eleanor did was all real. I will watch the move again. You should check it its the best.

Believe me, I've watched the movie more times than you can imagine - both the remaster and the original film pre-restoration - with a critical eye that you'd never believe (have you heard about the beauty car's incorrect hubcap on the left front?). I've spotted many things documented on the forum, but - for the moment - relegated to the VIP Lounge due to controversy over the Halicki legacy. I might have the moderators bring it back to a public forum due to the important content within it: http://www.7173mustangs.com/thread-gone-in-60-seconds-1974-eleanor-observations-was-halicki-really-a-car-thief-etc?page=4

That said, both cars were '71/72s with '73 grilles installed, and no real modifications made past that - and all it takes to know that is rudimentary knowledge of each vehicle's differences and their respective panel fit. The '71/72 bumper, fenders, and front valance remained unchanged on both cars in the film, as did the flip-down gas cap (!). Even the '71-72 blackout paint on the taillights were NOT stripped of paint to match the 1973 models.

We seem to be going off topic, but since it's a fun one, allow me to continue the derailment with that great photo of the man himself with the fire-damaged stunt car, pre-modifications:

Please understand, I mean no disrespect, but having spent many hours doing research on these films and publicizing the information (see the IMCDB + other pages here on the forum), I find it a bit upsetting when someone who is regurgitating very old, incorrect information isn't willing to consider that the lore and legends of the past may be incorrect and fraught with inaccuracies. It seems harmless enough, but this blind allegiance to unsubstantiated stories (and in this era, on forums) is precisely how Michael Alameda has continued to successfully misrepresent (not only to the public, but to multiple Mustang magazines) his J-code 429 car as an original from Diamonds are Forever, when it is not (it is one of the floor cars from the 1971 Las Vegas Convention Center, but it seems as of Mr. Alameda prefers to be associated with the glitz of the film) - and has gone so far as to represent the car as such on the Barrett-Jackson auction block (the car never sold - the big-money bidders were wise to it). The Marti report on that car - plus Lois Eminger's own research for Mr. Alameda, publicly documented online (http://www.network54.com/Forum/234286/thread/1219631751/Diamonds+are+Forever+Car+on+Ebay) - proves quite irrefutably that the car had nothing to do with the film.

Believe me, there are dirty stories and politics behind a lot of these undocumented vehicles. Given Toby Halicki's penchant for making up stories to sell his film, I'm very reluctant to believe a lot of the stories handed down through the years - with exception to what can be confirmed through watching the film with a magnifying glass, or confirmed via a backstage photo.

-Kurt

 

[Kit Sullivan]

That is most likely not a fire-damaged car, but a future stunt-car that has had its "skin" removed so a full-body crash/roll cage could be integrated with the chassis. It was probably left outside in the weather while Halicki collected enough time/ funds to continue the project. Remember, this film was 100% self-financed by Halicki and had many instances of stoppage during production. It took a LONG time to film the movie because of that.