Oh, the double standards....

[MeanMachine]

So I just read another short write-up about the 1971 Mustang, and was disappointed to see how, yet again, the remarks focused on size and weight. No telling how many articles I've read where words like bloated, portly, or Clydesdale described the model, or coupled with remarks like declining sales (Mustang actually outsold rival Camaro in '71, '72, and '73...but I digress). Rarely do I sense real research done into the history of the car, when reading an article, describing how it came about or why it grew in size, or even focus more on attributes than critiques (can we talk Super Cobra Jet, fastest production Boss, handling, musclecar war big block?)

Oh the double standards; back when I had subscriptions to muscle car magazines, I don't remember reading articles knocking the size of the '71 model Chevelle SS, Roadrunner, or Charger (all of which were longer, wider and taller than the Mustang by my research). In fact, during my search, I found the '71 Mustang is fairly close in size to the famed '73 Trans Am SD 455...but shorter in length.

Lastly, if the '71 Mustang is a "land yacht" based on its dimensions and weight, why don't I read comments knocking the new GT500, which is taller, wider and just as long.…oh, and weighs a whopping 4,100+lbs?!  (that, of course, is a rhetorical question....I certainly know why).

If the '71-'73 Mustangs are forever compared to the original '64 1/2 - '65 model year, why isn't the same done with the latest generation??  Did I mention a 'double standard' ??

 

[trillizo_y_uno]

It's kind of funny, but in reality the 71-73 Mustang is actually a pretty small car comparatively.  I think the long hood just makes it look much bigger than it actually is.  I'm always amazed at how much room I have around the car when I have it the garage.

 

[Hemikiller]

Pretty much standard schlock that illustrates how many of these "writers" are simply regurgitating information that was poorly fact-checked when it was first published. Some of it is derived from auto magazine articles of the day, and furthered along by the likes of Donald Farr and Peter Sessler.

FWIW, I believe the "700 lb" weight gain that was purported to have happened to the 71s was *actually* in comparison to the original 65. The base 1970 models floated around 2900lbs, while the base 71s tipped the scales at 30XX - ish. 

BTW - Chargers and Chevelles were mid-size cars, not pony cars like the Mustang & Camaro, so they would compete with the Torino/Montego models. 

 

[MeanMachine]

BTW - Chargers and Chevelles were mid-size cars, not pony cars like the Mustang & Camaro, so they would compete with the Torino/Montego models. 

True, my reference was more from a "musclecar comparison", but if we're talking pony cars than I could replace Chevelle and Charger with Challenger and (Mercury's pony car) the Cougar Eliminator.  

 

[Tegemus]

Just to give you an idea of how our '71-'73's compare to a modern Stang, my '71 Mach 1 is only 1.4 inches longer than my 2011 Mustang convertible.

Barry

 

[MeanMachine]

Just to give you an idea of how our '71-'73's compare to a modern Stang, my '71 Mach 1 is only 1.4 inches longer than my 2011 Mustang convertible.

Barry

Actually, I have a 2014 Track Pack GT as well and the dimensions I have on it show it's actually only 1" shorter than my '71. 

 

[mjseakan]

Didn't the 73 grow even bigger because of that clunky "5 MPH" bumper?

 

[autonomousbronco]

I'd like to chime in and say that the new Batmobile (2021) has several similarities to our car's design. The long hood, tucked in grill, and near horizontal rear-quarter panels/rear window rake have an uncanny similarity to the 71-73's. I guess they were just ahead of their time.  

 

[Stanglover]

interesting read there guys. One thing to mention, wasn't the 69-70 only 2" smaller than the71-2? ONLY 2"!! I'd be happy to be 2" bigger, the car I mean.

 

[EdM]

So I just read another short write-up about the 1971 Mustang, and was disappointed to see how, yet again, the remarks focused on size and weight. No telling how many articles I've read where words like bloated, portly, or Clydesdale described the model, or coupled with remarks like declining sales (Mustang actually outsold rival Camaro in '71, '72, and '73...but I digress). Rarely do I sense real research done into the history of the car, when reading an article, describing how it came about or why it grew in size, or even focus more on attributes than critiques (can we talk Super Cobra Jet, fastest production Boss, handling, musclecar war big block?)

Oh the double standards; back when I had subscriptions to muscle car magazines, I don't remember reading articles knocking the size of the '71 model Chevelle SS, Roadrunner, or Charger (all of which were longer, wider and taller than the Mustang by my research). In fact, during my search, I found the '71 Mustang is fairly close in size to the famed '73 Trans Am SD 455...but shorter in length.

Lastly, if the '71 Mustang is a "land yacht" based on its dimensions and weight, why don't I read comments knocking the new GT500, which is taller, wider and just as long.…oh, and weighs a whopping 4,100+lbs?!  (that, of course, is a rhetorical question....I certainly know why).

If the '71-'73 Mustangs are forever compared to the original '64 1/2 - '65 model year, why isn't the same done with the latest generation??  Did I mention a 'double standard' ??

Horsepower and handling, perhaps.

 

[Big Red Mach 1]

1973 Stang (Biggest, Heaviest) vs. 1969 Camaro RS (That no one complains about)

351C                                                         350

L. 193.8"                                                  186"

W. 74.1"                                                     74"

H. 50.7                                                      51.1"

Wheelbase 109.1"                                    108"

3,411LBS.                                             3,492LBS. 

So we're 8 inches longer on  73 with the huge bumpers. 71 and 72 would be better, but I wanted to take the biggest example. 

Same width. Slightly lower. 1" longer wheelbase. 81lbs. lighter. 

Anyone ever hear a complaint at all about the size or weight of a 69 Camaro RS or SS??? Didn't think so. 

 

[Spike Morelli]

Working in an engine shop, I got tired of hearing about how damned big and heavy the Ford FE series engines were said to be. Boat anchors they said. Well,....the shop next door had a weighing scale that they weighed compressed air tanks on, and I decided to make a side-by side weight comparison. I had no dog in this fight, just wanted to know the truth. I weighed a 427 Ford side oiler to a 427 Chevy 4-bolt block, both bare with caps....the 427 Ford block was lighter. I weighed a set of 427 iron medium riser heads complete with springs/valves/rockers/shafts, to a set of Hi-Perf 427 Chevy heads, rectangular port, just as complete as the Ford's , the Ford head assemblies were lighter. Factory cranks...ditto. If you are building up a performance engine, you are going to use aftermarket pistons, likely the rods as well, so I didn't really concentrate on those weights, being that the numbers can be all over the map depending on component application. No, I didn't compare weights of the Ford/Chevy intake manifolds, 'cause right off the bat we all know the stock Ford iron intakes are heavier than the Chevy, however, in performance useage, neither will use a factory iron intake anyway, and aftermarket aluminum intakes can run anywhere from fabricated lightweight aluminum, to cast aluminum, one or more carbs, tunnel rams, blower manifolds, magnesium, injectors, and so on, so I left the intake category out.

So bottom line, the DOUBLE STANDARD of opinions seems to pertain to the engines as well. I am not sure, but I think I even saw a weight comparison of BBC to early Chrysler hemi, and the 354/392 was lighter that the BBC, again, if memory serves. Any Chevy guys ever realize the 427 Ford is really a 425?   Bore x bore x stroke x.7854 x no. of cylinders. Same rated output as the Mk 4 Chevy with 2 less cubic inches AND less weight. The truth is out there........

 

[rackerm]

I couldn't agree more with you. Unfortunately, we and by that I mean many of our brethren Mustang lovers perpetuate the perception that 71-73 cars are bloated.... For example, I submitted to MCA pictures and the article of my car some years back and the MCA Times staff provided the title.... Ya think the folks at MCA would  know better.

 

 

[MeanMachine]

.....opinions seems to pertain to the engines as well.

The truth is out there........

So right, I was a big fan of 460s back in the early '90s (still am) and remember the bias toward Chevy 454s. But what may be more odd is the division among Ford fans over pushrod vs overhead cam engines, and the bias towards the modular 5.0L. Is it me, or does it seem that Mustangs with Coyote engine transplants get all the attention? It is a great engine, no doubt (I have one), but seems like the trend is to fit a modular 5.0 into every restomod out there, as if it's the only real engine of choice.

And when comparing 302s, (5.0 Coyote vs 5.0 Windsor), I've read comments implying Windsor inferiority and the blocks splitting at 500 horse. Ironically enough, Richard Holdener did a video recently about that 'theory' and tested 9 different combinations of 500+ horsepower Windsors on a dyno, some engines having had hundreds of tests done.....without splitting the block. (things that make ya go "hmmm")

 

[trillizo_y_uno]

So right, I was a big fan of 460s back in the early '90s (still am) and remember the bias toward Chevy 454s. But what may be more odd is the division among Ford fans over pushrod vs overhead cam engines, and the bias towards the modular 5.0L. Is it me, or does it seem that Mustangs with Coyote engine transplants get all the attention? It is a great engine, no doubt (I have one), but seems like the trend is to fit a modular 5.0 into every restomod out there, as if it's the only real engine of choice.

And when comparing 302s, (5.0 Coyote vs 5.0 Windsor), I've read comments implying Windsor inferiority and the blocks splitting at 500 horse. Ironically enough, Richard Holdener did a video recently about that 'theory' and tested 9 different combinations of 500+ horsepower Windsors on a dyno, some engines having had hundreds of tests done.....without splitting the block. (things that make ya go "hmmm")

Speaking of Richard Holdener, he recently showed a factory 351C M code pulling 450HP with a simple cam and intake swap

 

[MeanMachine]

1 hour ago, trillizo_y_uno said:

Speaking of Richard Holdener, he recently showed a factory 351C M code pulling 450HP with a simple cam and intake swap

I saw that one, he has some great content!

 

[Hemikiller]

Speaking of Richard Holdener, he recently showed a factory 351C M code pulling 450HP with a simple cam and intake swap

He has some great stuff on his channel, but the M-code test is a bit misleading.

First - he used custom Ross pop-up pistons, which puts the compression WAY above what a stock M-code had. Ford advertised 11:1 for 1970 and 10.7:1 for 1971, which are both complete BS. Using the 70 head specs, the best calculated ratio is 9.9:1, the worst, 9.5:1. Using 71 heads, it drops to 9.5 and 9.3.  The domes on the pistons have been machined down and he does say 11:1, so I can only assume that's where he's at. Still, that's NOT stock M-code territory. 

Second - the camshaft is a big question mark. He states "stock M-code camshaft", which I'm calling BS on. I've been in this game a long time, and I have *never* seen a stock M-code cam being offered in the aftermarket. Not once, not ever. Nobody makes one now and I seriously doubt anyone bothered way back when, except Ford. Anything that is under an M-code application is actually the 71-up 351CJ cam which is *way* more cam than the M was. I questioned him on the cam and he simply replied "Elgin makes one", which they don't. I can only *assume* he used a 351CJ cam of 206/221 .470/.490, so the horsepower increase would actually be even MORE dramatic with the tiny M-code unit. 

Either way, it really demonstrates the potential of the 351C platform for simple "bolt on" performance increases. 

 

[Spike Morelli]

Another thing.........the car magazine articles never really highlight the fact that the '71-'73 Mustangs came with a superior integral power steering box, ( the Saginaw unit), as opposed to the push-pull slave cylinder system used in '65 to '70 power steering systems. It's a much better steering system. Or how about the fact that most of the '71-'73 v8s came with 9" rears standard, which have proven to be darned near the standard of the industry in the hot rodding world. The Boss 351 was only in'71, and it can well hold its own with even the big block cars. Maybe the magazines just fell too much in love with the earlier pony cars to really give the last three years a chance. That's O.K., I'm still keepin' mine.

 

[1sostatic]

If the 71-73 variant of Mustang is a land yacht, my Jaguar XK8 is a Container ship. I can tell you this ... I know beauty is in the eye off the beholder... but...FFS ..Heck,  I have people in the UK who think Range Rovers are nice to look at ... YEAH! if you like looking at a post office sorting center with a bag of air strategically nailed to each corner.

The Larry Shinoda styled 1969/70 to me was far less refined in  many ways...especially styling and did look like porky the pig...,  but in 1971 we got a better layout, interior and road stance. When the project went back to Gale Halderman and team to do the next gen ... in 1971 he took the prize in the same way I like the 67 and 68s that I desire also. 

Land yachts are Mercury Marquis, Cadillac Eldorados,  and Lincoln continentals as automotive waterbeds to bounce around in  :biggrin: