1st gen Camaro & 7123 'Stangs: Brothers?

[Kit Sullivan]

Has anyone here ever spotted a 1st-gen Camaro coming towards you in traffic, and thought maybe it was possibly a 7123 Mustang...only to recognize it as a Camaro as it got closer?

That has happened to me a lot over the years.

I have always suspected that when Knudsen came on board at Ford in '68, and then brought his buddies Shinoda and the others along, there was some basic GM-style design DNA that inadverently came along with it.

There are some obvious similarities to a Camaro in our 7123s.

 

[trillizo_y_uno]

Totally! I have noticed this also. There is no denying the front of the car, lights, grille, etc. are very Chevy like.

 

[72MustangSprint]

I think they're maybe half-brothers

 

[Don C]

BLASPHEMY!!!

Kidding aside, I have noticed it also, and as many posts on our forum have noted a lot of our members have been told they have a nice Camaro.

 

[Don65Stang]

I've said it more than a few times that the 71-73 mustangs are the closest thing to a Chevy that Ford ever made.

 

[73Vert302]

Funny...I just mentioned the same thing on my "De-Badge" thread!

 

[imusa76]

its a Camastang

I wonder how it would look if we work in a set of the Rally Sport hideaway lights into the front end of a Mustang.

 

[c9zx]

I've said it more than a few times that the 71-73 mustangs are the closest thing to a Chevy that Ford ever made.

My take is: The 67-69 Camaros are the closest thing to a Ford that Chevrolet ever made. Chuck

 

[mrmach1]

Bit your tongue! Chevrolet was caught with they're pants down by Ford and the Mustang and they were just trying to get back into the game with Camaro Wanabe Mustangs. They really never caught up either, Question had Chevy come up with the Camaro first would the Mustang have been so popular?

 

[Don65Stang]

I've said it more than a few times that the 71-73 mustangs are the closest thing to a Chevy that Ford ever made.

My take is: The 67-69 Camaros are the closest thing to a Ford that Chevrolet ever made. Chuck

Even better way it since Chevy, and others, followed Ford's lead.

 

[Mister 4x4]

I don't see "Camaro" as much as "AMC Javelin." You don't have to squint as hard to blur the lines between Javelins and Mustangs, as you do with Camaros.

I think it's hard to nail down the particulars, but here's how I see it:

• Mustangs were first in the mid-size muscle car arena (hence the term "Pony Car") - So, Ford had the lead on the market
  
• Knudsen jumped-ship from GM just in-time to influence the '71-'73 Mustang styling, but
  
• AMC Javelins had more [overall] influence on '71-'73s than Camaros did (my opinion)
  
• 1969 Shelbys had the most influence on the look of the '71-'73 Mustang nose treatments, which could've been a blending of AMC and Camaro styling
  

The only Camaro styling cues I see are pretty much in the grille area... which I believe was a blending of early Javelin and Camaro cues. I think Shelby actually had the most influence of how the '71-'73s turned out. Of course, AMC returned the favor by swiping the grille style from the '69 Shelby and released it in the '71 model year as well.

Here's a '71 Javelin:

A '69 Shelby:

And here's a '68 Camaro:

I know which ones look more like our cars to me than Camaros do.

 

[imusa76]

Eric, your right on the money with the Javelin, there is one in my town, and you are right it looks like our Mustangs.

some where I have a picture of me and him parked next to each other, I need to find it.

 

[Jeff73Mach1]

and the Shelby had what I can only call a Mopar influence in the front end

 

[trillizo_y_uno]

+1 on the Javelin. However, you RARELY see a Javelin. Camaros from that era are rather plentiful.

 

[Kit Sullivan]

The Mustang was hardly the "first midsize muscle car". The '64 GTO is generally credited as the first true muscle-car, and it was a mid-size.

The Barracuda, a direct competitor to the Mustang was released just a little earlier than the first Mustang, so technically it was the first of its kind in that genre. The instant, massive and overwhelming popularity of the Mustang created so much fervor that the whole segment was nicknamed "pony car".

"Mustang" was the most popular, but certainly not the first.

The early 'Stangs ( 65-66) were clearly not in the same league as GTOs, SSs, 442s, GTXs, Super Bees, or even Dart GTSs.

It was never considered a candidate for "supercar" status ( the term "muscle car" came later, after the party was over in the later 70's).

The only reason the first big-block was put in a Mustang ( 67/ 390 GT) was as an answer to the upcoming new 67 Camaro big block.

The first 390 Mustangs were no match for the 396 Camaros...not even close.

If you count the first 390 GT as a "Muscle Car", then it isn't the first in that category either.

( even though a "GT" is technically a different animal than a "super/ musclecar")

By the time the Mustang could legitimately claim to be a true "super/ musclecar"( late 68s with 428 CJs), the field was saturated with all manner of "supercars" from nearly every manufacturer.

Unfortunately for us...the true enthusiasts of the 71-73 'Stangs...by the time the awesome BOSS 351s and 429 CJs showed up, it was all over. Nobody cared about these type of cars anymore.

Ford truly saved the best for last with regards to the "original" Mustangs...better in nearly every mechanical, performance and aesthetic sense...by the time they hit the stage, the stands were empty.

 

[Mister 4x4]

Well, if we're talking purely from a glance at the grille, with its 2 big, round headlights and small "sport lamp"-like signal lights, sure.

But I can honestly say I've never mistaken a Camaro for a Mustang... and can't really see how it happens, myself.

 

[Paul of MO]

We had a 73 Convert shell parked in front of our building with no hood, grill or tail light panel and more than one person stopped and ask if the Camaro was for sale.

They were shocked to find out it was a Mustang as they were experienced bow tie experts.

I would drive a nice early Camaro with pride - nice cars - nice people.

- Paul

 

[Mister 4x4]

My ONLY complaint with the '67-'69 Camaros and Firebirds are lack of legroom - I've sat in several of these vehicles, and have never felt so crammed into a car... knees against the dashboard. Geez - my '95 Civic hatchback had more legroom.

I actually love the '67-'69 Firebirds (better than the Camaros) because they're just cool... one of my very first memories is noticing that the neighbor's kid had a '67-'69 Firebird. This was 1971, I was 4, and I knew exactly what the car was, ironically.

I suppose that were it not for the legroom issues, I might've become a member of a Firebird forum, talking about how big and bloated they became in 1970. rofl

 

[Kit Sullivan]

Yep, the 70 1/2 "Camaro/Bird twins were bigger than thier predecessors, just as the 71 'Stang was slightly enlarged in most dimensions over a '70.

However, where the 71 Mustang, beautiful as it is, had styling that actually made it appear even larger than it actually is...the 2nd gen F-twins featured styling that made the car look more "trim" to most people as compared to the 71 Mustang, even though they were very close to each other.

I love the looks of the '71 Mustang...obviously. It is one of the cars I love from every angle, and never get tired of looking at.

However, I love my '78 Trans Am too. Just a great looking ( and phenomonal handling) car.

The 2nd-gen F cars enjoyed 12 years of production and all the mechanical improvements that came along with it. It was a remarkable car at its peak. Too bad they were built with such haphazard haste.

Imagine if our 71-73 Mustangs had been sold for 10 or so years and had enjoyed all the upgrades that would have come with it. That would have been sweet...