An "old" car is just a matter of perspective...

[Kit Sullivan]

Today, if you were to take a ride in a brand-new car and happened to run across someone driving a 65 Mustang down the highway, keeping up with traffic...say 65 or 70...you might take notice and appreciate the "old" car, but you would not neccesarily be too shocked to see a 50 year old car "interacting" with, and functioning perfectly well in daily traffic.

But think about if you were driving a band-new 71 Mustang down the same highway back in 71...Do you think you could ever possibly have seen a 1921 Ford ( 50 years old at the time) tooling down the road at 60-70 mph? I doubt it.

Because cars progressed and changed so much dramatically in thier first 50 or so years, it seems the next 50 year's worth of improvements have not been perceived as radically changed.

Does this make sense? Today's 50 year old cars dont seem as old today as a 50-year old car from 50 years ago did then.[/i]

 

[Luke]

very interesting observation Kit. Aside from the odd hot rod I believe that you are correct

 

[luxstang]

That reminded me of something else. Remember the movie "Back to the Future"?

Do you realize that the elapsed time in between today and the starting point of the movie plot (the present back then) is the same as the period Marty McFly traveled back in time in the movie?

 

[Kit Sullivan]

Great Scott!

 

[matrixx]

I've also thought this too. Only thing i see people doing in their new cars is being distracted by thier fancy touchscreen dashes, hands free cell phones systems, and fancy glow in the dark gauges. Oh and maybe a bit better air conditioning.

I'd say the only solid thing that has changed is suspension/frame improvements (ie. safer) and more efficient small displacement engines.

 

[Don65Stang]

I've also thought this too. Only thing i see people doing in their new cars is being distracted by thier fancy touchscreen dashes, hands free cell phones systems, and fancy glow in the dark gauges. Oh and maybe a bit better air conditioning.

I'd say the only solid thing that has changed is suspension/frame improvements (ie. safer) and more efficient small displacement engines.

...and the lack of availability of 14 and 15-inch tires. :-/

Oh yeah, better seat belts and air bags. But Kit is correct; I see the last 50 years as refinements to the cars that were new 50 years ago instead of sweeping changes that occured with cars from cars 100 years ago to cars that were produced 50 years ago.

Didn't they have flying cars portrayed for our current day in the Back to the Future movie? Seems like I remember they did.

 

[matrixx]

Yep and hoverboards.

Sent from my SCH-S960L using Tapatalk

 

[Mister 4x4]

In another 50 years, I sincerely doubt that you be seeing any current model year Camrys, Fusions, Subarus, VW TDIs, Honda Civic hatchbacks, et al,... let alone any of them being celebrated as much as when we see a vintage muscle car or hot rod as we do today.

Today's cars are basically 'disposable transportation.' Cheaply made, bland "cookie-cutter" styling, delicate technology with no longevity. Sure, the Corvettes, Camaros, Mustangs, and Shelbys of today represent the best in modern muscle cars for right now... but look at the 'resurgent performance cars' of the '80s-'90s: ZR-1 'Vettes, Trans Ams, IROC-Zs/Z-28s, Mustang GTs, etc. Nobody drives those models anymore - nor are they particularly celebrated... even at car shows.

Our Classic Mustangs are truly the end of an era - the last of the 'cool' Mustangs. Two simple barometers to use: "Mach 1*" and "Mustang II." See which one gets a better response, from anybody.

* I used the term "Mach 1," since pretty much everybody thinks all '71-'73s are Mach 1s, after all. rofl

 

[OMS]

In another 50 years, I sincerely doubt that you be seeing any current model year Camrys, Fusions, Subarus, VW TDIs, Honda Civic hatchbacks, et al,... let alone any of them being celebrated as much as when we see a vintage muscle car or hot rod as we do today.

Today's cars are basically 'disposable transportation.' Cheaply made, bland "cookie-cutter" styling, delicate technology with no longevity. Sure, the Corvettes, Camaros, Mustangs, and Shelbys of today represent the best in modern muscle cars for right now... but look at the 'resurgent performance cars' of the '80s-'90s: ZR-1 'Vettes, Trans Ams, IROC-Zs/Z-28s, Mustang GTs, etc. Nobody drives those models anymore - nor are they particularly celebrated... even at car shows.

Our Classic Mustangs are truly the end of an era - the last of the 'cool' Mustangs. Two simple barometers to use: "Mach 1*" and "Mustang II." See which one gets a better response, from anybody.

* I used the term "Mach 1," since pretty much everybody thinks all '71-'73s are Mach 1s, after all. rofl

HEY, there was a Mustang II Mach 1

 

[Mister 4x4]

HEY, there was a Mustang II Mach 1

True... very true. Ya got me there. ::thumb::

But how many people actually realize that? Even among the 'trendy vintage Mustang enthusiasts,' (you know... 'the ones who only like the '65-'69s - everything else is trash' crowd) there's no way such a beast could've ever been thought up, let alone allowed to roam the streets.

OK - so maybe I should've said, "Cobra II?" rofl

Even the term "Fox Body" gets more respect than Mustang II - which is too bad. My Mom had a nice Mustang II when I was growing up. I loved that car, and missed it desperately when she traded it in on a green '78 Fairmont Futura (where's that "Barf" smiley, anyway?).

 

[Kit Sullivan]

The "original" muscle cars died before they had a chance to get old. If you consider the '64 GTO as the first OEM muscle car, and '71 as the last true year of the original muscle car, that is only a short, 7-year lifespan for the entirety of the whole original muscle car era. The whole craze died before it had a chance to get old, and before people got tired of it. It was basically taken away from us when we really wanted more.

That is why it left such an enduring legacy...killed in its prime. That seems to cement a legendary reputation in things when it happens that way.

All the newer resurgent muscle cars have not enjoyed the singular, legendary- status making abrupt cancellation that forged the reputation.

Quite the opposite actually.

Just use the Mustang as an example. The "Fox" chassis came out in 78 ( Fairmont/ Zephyr), and the new Fox-based Mustang came out in '79. That basic platform stuck around until '04 as the "Fox-4", or "SN-95".

That is 25 years of basically the same car. Of course, the car had incremental upgrades along the way. The last version was miles ahead of the first version in any measurable criteria. And miles ahead of our 71-73s also.

25 years is a long time to become familiar with anything, and as they say..."familiarity breeds contempt."

The first generation 'Stangs ( including our 71-73s) had such a short life-span, no one had a chance to get tired of them. That is good for our "classic legend" status.

Just don't start believing all the "legendary" hype and try to run a stock 71/73 against a modern-day GT...or else 50 years of technology and advancements will show you how old a 50 year old car really is.

 

[matrixx]

Hmm what if we put 50 years of technology into our 71/73's?

 

[sicndhed]

I think the automobile went through advances that parallel commercial aircraft. Comparing state of the art every ten years, there were big jumps 1920-1930-1940-1950-1960. Then things tapered off into refinements after that. Kind of funny but Mach 1 was the practice limit once we got commercial jet liners. Maybe Mach 1 was the peak for commercial aviation and automotive development.

Around 1955 my father in law used to drive his ’32 coupe to work (at Ford). Everybody was impressed with his 23 year old car in good running order. When I lived in California my daily driver was a ’72 El Camino from 1987-2002. A thirty year old car was no big deal by then.

 

[will e]

I think the changes are just as significant, just not as obvious to a casual observer. Look that the technology a modern v8 engine has. Variable cam, intakes, spark, fuel injection, direct fuel injection, etc. Or the transfer cases available today compared to what was around in the 70's. Or things like OnStar where you can call someone and they unlock your car remotely. Oh well, 50 years from now a set of computers will be driving the car for you...

 

[Kit Sullivan]

50 years of technology advancement integrated into our beloved 71-73s will surely improve the overall performance in dramatic and imprrssive ways, but then it would not represent a true "50 year old" car anymore.

I refer to my car a "basically stock", but in reality it is nowhere near representative of what was truly a stock vehicle in '71. The following ( some would say) minor upgrades have all teamed together to make my car far more reliable, driveable, enjoyable and dependable than it ever could have been under true "stock" conditions:

1) electronic ignition

2) electronic voltage regulator

3) improved gasket and sealing materials

4) dramatically improved lubricants

5) computer-designed valve train

6) advanced metallurgy in engine components

7) radial tires

8) safer rim design and construction

9) improved brake friction material

10) improved maintenance products

11) improved paint and refinishing technology

12) sound-system technology

13) etc...

These can mostly be considered "invisible" improvements for the most part and really allow the car to still look the part but perform better...but it is really quite an improved machine overall, certainly not indicative of when it was new.

And that is just the minor stuff.

I know my car isn't truly "stock", but the mostly unseen improvements is what I feel has allowed me to actually enjoy and actually use it for 355,000+ miles for over 40 years.

 

[OLE PONY]

Apparently our 71/73's blend in quite well with the current models; since my 73 has been restored I've had several people ask if it is a "new" Mustang. Sure doesn't stick out like a Model T would have 40 years ago.

 

[Kit Sullivan]

I agree with that: the 71-73s have retained a more-current appearance over the older Mustangs by virtue of some of the specific styling features: the body-colored bumper and door mirrors, flush door handles, the lack of big chrome on the front end, the radical fastback design, and NACA style scoops are all similar to a lot of today's features on many cars.

Most of those features are unique amongst classic Mustangs to only the 71-73s, which I think really softens the "old car" look to most casual observers.

I also think that is why the 71-73s have finally become very popular now...they kind of, somehow, have fit in with a lot of today's styling cues which makes it look comfortable next to a modern car.

Park a beautiful 65 fastback GT next to a current GT and it might look great, but it will definitely look "OLD" sitting next to the new one.

Park a gorgeous 71 Mach 1 next to a current GT, and it won't look so dramatically as old in comparison.

Or something like that, anyway...

 

[matrixx]

Yeah they sure hide their age well. However my dad always has to make a comment on how long the hood is everytime he sees it. I told him the car really isn't that big it just appears that way. I parked it next to his 95 and the 73 wasn't but a few inches longer.

Sent from my SCH-S960L using Tapatalk

 

[rpmcarter]

no....but I did notice today as I searched for parts..... I do a broad 71 search to pull cars and parts however it pulls all kinds of things of 71. I noted that someone in Chicago wanted to sell 1971 Playboy mags. Now think about it ...with new technology and increasing higher quality do you think those 20 something year old chicks looking all hot in those 71 magazines are "worth looking at" today vs the 20 something year old hotties of 1931 vs what a feller might consider in 71?