Mustang Monthly (again)

[Don C]

MM has a couple of interesting articles in the May issue, one about a '71 429 Japanese export and the other about Boss 351s.

Another article that caught my eye is a 460 ci Clevor build, Dart block and Chi 3V heads, 720 HP and 648 ft-lb torque.

 

[mwilson7]

The article about the 71 Japanese car is mine！. Very surprised to see it on the cover!

 

[Don C]

I remembered you telling us about yours, I wondered if it was yours. Very nice.

:bravo:

 

[Tegemus]

Congratulations on making both the cover and the "Rare Finds" article. Knew it was yours the moment I saw it. Wish there had been a couple of shots of the mighty 429, but the other pics more than made up for it.

Barry

 

[Mister 4x4]

Congrats on making the pages, Mark!  ::thumb::

I'm surprised they gave you that much space to be honest... being a '71-'73.  That, and along with a nice article about Boss 351s... I think that's the best way for my subscription to end (I didn't bother renewing it, and I think that's the last issue).

---- end here if you don't appreciate soap box pontifications ----

I can't imagine why the editor would do such a thing by having so much '71-'73 exposure in one issue, after so many have gone through with absolutely none at all.  I mean, there's even an ad with a '71 as well.  On the average in the past 7 years I've been a subscriber, only two issues per year feature anything regarding '71-'73s, and even then, the editorial staff and/or writers take those opportunities to express their disdain and bash the cars - some, more subtly that others, but all  comments are still definitely insulting in nature.

Take this month's editorial, for instance.  Half of the piece is dedicated to how much Rob Kinnan hates '71-'73s.  He just puts it right out there.  The underlying theme of his piece as I interpret it is basically, "I can't believe I actually signed off putting so much '71-'73 coverage in this month's issue because I hate 'em so much."  He goes on to admit why he probably hates 'em (which is a fairly common reason, but one of the weakest ever in the car world - "When I was younger, I lost a race to a '71 Mach 1... so now I hate 'em all because I hold grudges."), and even takes a parting shot in the form of a half-assed back-handed compliment, saying that he should probably be driving one because the rearward visibility is so crappy he might not be able to see the past.

He reminds me so much of the celebrities these days that use their power of celebrity as a bully pulpit, supporting their favorite agendas and shaming people who don't agree with them.  I don't appreciate them, and I don't appreciate him either, as a proud owner of a '71 Mach 1 that I brought back from the dead.  I love all Mustangs... and sure, I have my favorites, but they're all awesome cars, I will drool over anybody's pride & joy because that's their pride & joy, and I believe the community has even greater potential than what it currently enjoys - if it could just let go of the hate for '71-'73s, Mustang IIs, and Fox-bodies.

To sum it up, I think Rob Kinnan's an ass (because "POS" spelled out would get bleeped on TV), and that's why I quit my subscription.

 

[Don C]

I agree completely, Eric.

I hadn't read the editorial when I made the first post. After I read it I decided I had better not say anything about it, what I wanted to say would have gotten me a warning.

The magazine is supposed to be for readers, not for some egotistical blow-hard to spout his personal beliefs. At least he showed everyone what a jerk is like.

I had my subscription on automatic renewal, which I removed a couple of months ago, so I won't be reading anything that dip-stick writes much longer.

I'm glad a couple of days cooled me off so my fingers didn't type what I was thinking the first day...

 

[mwilson7]

Eric,

Tell us how you really feel.......

 

[Mister 4x4]

Sorry if I blew any minds or gave anybody reason to think less of me, but while I'm happy for you to have your awesome car featured Mark, I've just lost all respect for "All Mustangs, All The Time." The editorial piece in this issue was the last straw for me.

At least when Donald Farr was running the show, he may not have shown much love for the '71-'73s, but at least he didn't show any hate.  My respect started dropping when they unceremoniously 'fired' him (after everything he'd done for the magazine and the Mustang community as a whole - "You're done - buh-bye.").  Then they put this clown in and it's all gone now.

 

[mwilson7]

Eric - I was just messing with you. no harm no foul.

Ironically enough it was a chance encounter with the May 87 edition of Mustang Monthly that really hooked me on both the 71 Mustangs as well as the 1969 Shelby's. I was always into Mustangs but wasn't partial to any one particular model until I saw the article on 2 original Boss 351's along with the resurrection of a 69 Shelby.

With all of the content on the internet now I don't understand print magazines anymore except to sell advertising. Every article in this months magazine has already been posted online over the last couple months and whats even funnier is that they drive you to the web articles for more info. Although I still like paper in my hand I see the days of printed magazines as being numbered.

I have a digital subscription to Mustang Monthly because it's bundled with a monthly subscription that I pay where I have access to a number of different titles. I stopped my print subscription sometime around 2010 because I felt that the magazine had become irrelevant to the hobby. Don's a good guy and the magazine definitely went down hill after he left.

 

[Mister 4x4]

Eric - I was just messing with you.  no harm no foul.

--( snip )--

Although I still like paper in my hand I see the days of printed magazines as being numbered.

I know, and we're good. ::thumb::

I also prefer the printed copy - I don't particularly care for smart phones, Kindles, tablets, etc., and carrying the PC to the "reading room" is out of the question. lollerz

 

[Mister 4x4]

As I was reading the article about the Boss 351 Invitational, I couldn't help but notice the author used the verbiage, "biggest Mustang has been to date," rather than the truth, "biggest Mustang had been to date."  Sorry, but tell me what looks bigger and more bloated?

Granted, the hood is longer on the '71, but it's roof is also significantly lower, and I'd wager it isn't any wider than the newer model. Volume-wise, and even based on curb weight, I'm willing to bet the newer models exceed the '71s dimensions and weight. So therefore, the statements about the biggest and bloated '71-'73s is wrong.

Just tired of all the hate and wrong information.

 

[secluff]

Eric, that's something I've dealt with since I bought my first 71/ style Mustang in 1975. The word "Clydesdales" got tossed  around a lot during those days. Mostly in my direction! Even my group of racing buddies would always ask when I was going to get a real Mustang. I believe they tolerated me and I had a Honorary membership because of my 429 Torino. I was probably on "Double secret probation" and just didn't know it!

Check the weight on the new Mustang's and tell me who is really heavy! I've also shown the comparison photos that illustrate how much larger the new cars are and the non believers just say its the camera angle!  Ahh... yea Right!

 

[Vicus]

Eric

the most you are right, but not the length :whistling:

2017 vs 1972 Fastback

Height 54.37" <-> 50.1"

Width 75.43" <-> 74.1"

Length 188.35" <-> 189.51"

Wheel base 107.09" <-> 109"

Weight 3.805 lbs. (5.0 6speed) <-> 3.560 (351CJ)

Cheers

Frank

 

[Mister 4x4]

I know, right?

That extra 1 1/4"-ish of length clinches it then, I guess. :shootself:

Never mind the fact that the extra 3" of height and 1.5" of width is most likely where they stuffed the extra 250-ish lbs. rofl

But even so, the pic shows a 2014... not a 2017. Valid points on the 2017, but I'm curious as to how much bigger the 2014 is. I believe it might even be bigger than the 2015-17 Mustang "Solaras."

 

[73pony]

2014 4.6L V8 Coupe (per Ford) 72 Fastback (from above)

Height 54.5" 50.1"

Width 73.8" 74.1"

Length 187.6" 189.51"

Wheelbase 107.1" 109"

Curb Weight (MT) 3,480# 3,560#

SO the 2014 is taller but that is about it. And who gives a rats A**. I like em big.

 

[Mister 4x4]

So, the new Mustangs would be the biggest ever, then.  I stand by my [most recent] rant about the disinformation from "The Classic Mustang Authority."

 

[mwilson7]

Eric,

Who's Cal Special is that?  

It's actually a 2011-2012 body style not that this will make a big difference in the numbers.

 

[Mister 4x4]

The cars belong to one of our members: bender351

I found the pic via Google search and it led me to his Garage.

 

[B1John]

i have a 2010 Shelby GT500 and the first time I parked it next to the Boss I was surprised by how much smaller it made the Boss look. his is especially true for the height, big difference. This isn't a great shot but you can see that the hood is even a lot higher on the newer car.