A couple of things I noticed which are pinned squarely on the editor:
- The stripe is actually not so bad-looking... from the side or 3/4-front view. It follows the shape of the windows & quarter windows nicely and really does accentuate the surrounding area body lines. The big heartburn is that first picture (3/4-rear) shows the stripe all distorted and not looking very professional, because the body in those areas is molded to be more forward facing and widening slightly to enclose the rear wheelhouses, which are larger to support the larger muscle car wheels and stance. This was probably the wrong picture to run on the cover. Strike One.
- Rob Kinnan, the new editor, seems to have issue with the '71-'73s being "big and heavy." He used those words (as well as others, like "midsize") to describe our cars in the article [he authored] about the Mustang II also in that latest issue of the magazine. I don't appreciate that. I applaud his efforts to focus Mustang Monthly's content on the classics (Mustang IIs and earlier), but if it's going to be at the expense of our niche while pandering to the "Vintage" Mustangers, no thanks. Another swing-and-a-miss.
I'm not trying to be overly sensitive about it, but his first two efforts in mentioning the '71-'73s have so far been in the form of a mediocre article with poorly chosen pictures, and the use of some blatant back-handed, non-complimentary terms in a completely unrelated article about a later-generation car. I'm not impressed so far.
Bottom line: I miss Donald Farr. We may not have received as much love over the years (in the way of minimal coverage), but at least we never got anything resembling 'hate,' either.
Well, let's see:
The Chevelle/ Malibu was always a mid-size car, so it never really "grew" out its original design much ( until the '73 "Collonade" body, and then many writers made mention of its growth).
The Charger was always a big car, never changed its size much.
The Camaro came out in 67' and was ever so slightly larger than a 67/68 Mustang upon its "birth", and the 2nd-gen version was only a tiny bit bigger by comparison...so they never talk negatively about that.
The Mustang...every year, every model and every iteration is now and will forever be directly compared to the legendary original 65/65 edition.
It might seem unfair, but that first Mustang casts a LONG shadow...even FIFTY YEARS later!
So, compared to other contemporary sporty/ muscle cars of the same era, our 71-73s are right at home, very comparable.
But for our Mustangs, and any other version of the Mustang the comparison will only ever be to the original Mustang.
Realistically, 150-200lbs, 5-inches overall length, 2.5" more width, and 3" less height does not bump a car (back then) into a completely different category (pony car to mid-size). I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you park a '69-'70 fastback next to a '71-'73 fastback, the '69-'70 actually looks bigger and thicker, depending on the angle. It's certainly taller, and the nose & tail areas look absolutely massive in comparison.
Then there's the '69-'70 Shelby styling that translated to the grille, front fenders, and hood area - why is that so looked down upon? I would think that would be something of an honor and well-received, if nothing else.
But you're right, Kit - the originals are the benchmark, with the "all is forgiven" goggles firmly in-place. Nothing really stands a chance against it in the eyes of the Vintage Mustangers.
