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

[matrixx]

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?

/thread.

Sent from my SCH-S960L using Tapatalk

 

[71_resurrection]

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.

I would have to agree that putting all the tech in our cars would make it something that it isn't intended to be. Don't get me wrong, I like the looks of a "resto mod", but nothing beats originality in our cars. When I replaced my suspension last year I had a fairly good budget, and at the end of the day I replaced all of my suspension with repro parts and a better steering box. I wanted the feel of an old muscle car and to actually be able to interact with the road through my foot and steering wheel. About the only thing that is modernized is my ignition for obvious reasons and the lights, almost all led now. Just my two cents!

 

[midlife]

I'd have to agree that the basic aspects of the auto were pretty much in place and made reliable by the early 60's. I think of that every time I drive my 1966 GT fastback on the roads every Saturday and Sunday: it holds up well in today's environment. But the changes since then have more to do with safety improvements (crumple zones), weight reduction, fuel efficiency, etc.

Cars from the 1930's and 40's (unless modded) just cannot keep up on today's roads and traffic. They don't have the speed, acceleration, or braking to survive everyday traffic.

 

[detritusmaximus]

Everyone seems to think that all this stuff was from an era 'along time ago', like it was an eon, but it wasn't. Technology moves fast and always has. But it's not until you match it up to the human lifespan that it becomes evident that people have a some sort of short circuit in their brains when it comes to time. When I was a kid I knew a guy that was born in 1895. Not such a big deal you might say, we all knew old people, especially if you are older than I am. Here's the perspective....he was born and started school before the Kittyhawk flew, yet died a few years after the first space shuttle missions. He was 9 when Ford really became a car company and lived long enough to see the first fuel injected Fox body Mustang. He knew Frank James (Jesse's brother, and I don't mean that biker guy...) and knew men who fought in the Civil War.

Just imagine what his perspective on this topic would be.

 

[1972MustangSVH]

I bought my car 31 years ago and pushed it to the back of the garage about twenty five years ago and left the "car" world. A few months ago I felt it was time to drag it out and resurrect it. Surfing the web for parts and info, along with joining this site, has done nothing but change my perspective on my "old car." Look at it from my shoes. When I bought my car it was twelve years old. (How many endearing feelings could one garner for a 2002 car nowadays?) These cars were everywhere. Every junk yard would instantly yield almost anything I needed. The big Mustangs were not popular, the 60's crowd just didn't like them and the 70's crowd was turning away from the muscle car world, willingly or not. i can't count the times people used to say, "I hate those years of Mustangs." You could pick them up anywhere for $100 to $2000 all day long. In addition to the fastback I have owned a '72 baby blue coupe, '73 Grande, '72 convertible, and several hulks that I can't even remember what they were that I bought as parts cars. I know I didn't spend more than $5000 total for them all. (I paid a dollar for the vert and it was a fairly nice car) There was no internet, the local ford dealer and parts houses couldn't get body parts for them or they were very expensive. If you wanted any of the sheet metal all you'd get was a laugh. So, these cars were regarded as rather expendable. Imagine the head rush I got the first time I typed in, 1972 Mustang Parts, on Google. I went from, "I can only hope to get that old thing to knock around a bit," to "I'm going get nasty on this thing." From my perspective it's a whole new world and my old car won't be an old car when its over. Y'all need to be thankful for the endearment these cars have gained here in the 21st century, I know I am.

 

[cudak888]

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.

Not to mention that the general public would probably confuse a '71-73 Sportsroof for an Audi A7, save for the stripes. I'm sure Pegasus had a lot of less-knowledgeable folks fooled at SEMA, as would Obsidian71's shaved and smoothed coupe.

Granted, the depth of our bodyside details do date the car, for not a single company out there dares to put a DEEP crease in their bodyside, nor fender lips that don't end in a dull, stupid-looking flat plane. It drives me nuts, and - strangely enough - not only are the S197 and S550 at fault for this, so is the '65 (with exception to the flat-plane fender lips). The bodyside details look painted on, not stamped in:

-Kurt