1972 Mach 1 article

[Kit Sullivan]

I too think the car is fabulous...just a real beauty.

Those nit-picky things are easily corrected...no big deal at all.

As far as your painter "not being able to read directins" in regards to painting the design too far rearward, he may simply be another unwitting victim of the bad info presented in the MM article. I know many, many people have painted thier hoods incorrectly ( even on big-$ restos) due to that same stinkin' article.

I do know that the graphics express template does infact come with the proper instructions.

 

[73vertproject]

It is a very nice car, and I hope the owner does join the forum. The few non-original mods may be more important to our members than to the owner, and I would hope that his observing of our "nit-picking" would either be valuable information to him or useless non-issues, depending upon his goals for his car. It appears that the comments have been valuable to at least one other member here.

I hope we all remember that we support ALL who share the love of 71 - 73 Mustangs, regardless of their vision and (re)-incarnation of their cars.

 

[jeff8877]

Great thread with a lot of good comments as well as information for our cars. I also don't see this thread to be about nit picking but the desire to find out about the true origin of our cars. The gold glow Mach is beautiful no matter what and the differences from how it was delivered from the factory are the choices of the owner. This thread at least puts the facts out there so people can knowingly choose to go one direction or the other.

I did see one comment about the incorrect rear tail panel trim that I did not understand. If someone could enlighten me I would appreciate it. Think it was by Kit.

Also for Ray, where did the April 4th date come from for the 72 changeover from CJ to 4V. Curious since I have a 72 April 5th build car.

 

[secluff]

What Kit was talking about was the moulding that is above and below the honeycomb tail light panel. 71-72's had black paint to the inside of the moulding that faced the panel. Same thing on the tail light lens. 71-72's had black paint on most of the chrome areas. Same deal on the 71 gas cap and rear window louvers, not correct, but these are our cars that are personalized to suit our "Fancy". Unless your car is entered in an MCA event or being touted as restored to "Original" shouldn't be a problem.

Agreed, I don't see anyone really nit picking some ones car to pieces. There are a lot of smart knowledgeable people and original owners such as Kit on this site who possess a wealth of information on these cars. Like Jeff said, the facts are put out there so you can at least make an informed decision on the direction you want to take.

 

[Kit Sullivan]

The tail-light bezels and upper & lower back panel trim moldings had black paint on them for 71 & 72.

For 73, Ford stopped putting the black paint on those four pieces of trim which had a subtle result, but very effective at giving the rear of the car quite a different look.

These four items are reproduced, but they have no black paint on them. Many dont realize the difference and install them on a 71 or 72 model, inadvertently using "73 style" trim on a 71/72. The pieces are the same...only the black paint makes them different.

To confuse things more, the 73 brochure shows 71/72 style rear trim pieces, even though none were produced like that.

Along those same lines, the very early 71 pop-open gas caps also had barely-noticeable black trim paint on them, but they stopped the paint early on. Then of course, the entire pop-open cap itself was cancelled later in the year.

 

[jeff8877]

Thanks guys,

Never knew about the black on the tail light moldings. Found a pic of an NOS one as example.

 

[Boss1Ray]

Great thread with a lot of good comments as well as information for our cars. I also don't see this thread to be about nit picking but the desire to find out about the true origin of our cars. The gold glow Mach is beautiful no matter what and the differences from how it was delivered from the factory are the choices of the owner. This thread at least puts the facts out there so people can knowingly choose to go one direction or the other.

I did see one comment about the incorrect rear tail panel trim that I did not understand. If someone could enlighten me I would appreciate it. Think it was by Kit.

Also for Ray, where did the April 4th date come from for the 72 changeover from CJ to 4V. Curious since I have a 72 April 5th build car.

Ouch - I thought YOU gave me that! :exclamation:

I need help here on this one. I'll start a new thread asking for replies from Q code owners with original equipment breathers.

Here is the one where you posted - I misunderstood! Will try to correct posts and PM/email users that appear to have taken info as correct!

http://www.7173mustangs.com/thread-1972-mach-1-351-cobra-jet-non-ram-air-which-air-cleaner

Here is new call for data:

http://www.7173mustangs.com/thread-data-call-q-code-cars

Ray