On the fence...

[Mister 4x4]

... do I renew, or not? My subscription to Mustang Monthly runs out after April 2015 issue, and I don't think I'm liking the new editor.

Since Rob Kinnan took over as the "permanent" editor, he's done nothing but freeze out and insult '71-'73 Mustangs.

His first issue (Jan 2015): Went on and on about how things are going to change for Mustang Monthly, to include dumping anything (but factory news) about everything newer than the Fox bodies. I'm thinking, "OK - that should afford more room for tech, features, and whatnot about everything, to include more '71-'78s"... and - nada, zip, zilch, zero, null.

Feb 2015: He totally delivered - there's even a '73 on the cover! Major feature story about the Cover '73 (albeit with a swipe regarding size within the first couple of lines)! There was also a feature story with back-handed compliments to the '74-'78 Mustang IIs, while totally dissing the '71-'73s. His words: "At the same time the market turned to small cars the Mustang got big and heavy with the debut of the ’71 models—exactly the opposite direction the market was going. What had gained popularity as a ponycar suddenly became an intermediate sedan, alienating many new car buyers." I don't know about you, but I finished reading that issue with the feeling that I'd done something wrong, kicked a puppy, or otherwise committed a foul with regards to my choice in wanting my '71. Meh - whatever...

Mar 2015: Nothing. No features. No technical. Not even any pictures of '71-'73s in the background of any articles, announcements, or even advertisements! Oh - wait! There was a camo-wrapped '71 on the last page in the Readers Rides section. WTF?! There was obviously plenty of room for features of no less than 4 - count 'em - 4 '67s (2 FBs, a coupe, and a 'vert), and a '66 (I think... the ones before '69 pretty much all look the same to me ). The main technical article dealt with wiring, and was only for '68-and-older.

So, I get my electronic renewal e-mail a few days ago, just ahead of the current (Mar 2015) issue showing up in the regular mail. I haven't decided whether or not to renew because honestly, I'm sick of seeing nothing but love for '68s-and-older, and typically nothing... literally, nothing, for our model years. I'm sorry, but an entire issue with only a single page ad for disc brakes using the same restomod car we've seen for 6 years now as their eye candy is not worth the subscription price... especially, not when there are 9 more just like them, with the 1 issue each year with either a Boss 351 or a '73.

Am I off-base here? Don't get me wrong, I like seeing the nice cars, reading some tech that applies enough to get imagination working, as well as the odd-ball car show shot with a '71-'73 in the background. But throw me a bone here... just as with the even more looked-down-upon Mustang IIs (although I gotta wonder), without our "heavy, intermediate-sized sedans," Ford would not have celebrated 50 years.

His "Hoof Beats" article this month says, "Let me know how we're doing," and I'm struggling with it - because, like Ron White details in his Blue Collar skit, "I know I have the right to remain silent, however I do not have the ability." I like to think I can be well-spoken enough to not come off like an ass... but I don't know that I'd be able to.

 

[sicndhed]

I've let a few magazines expire. Many seem to be going down hill IMO, and less pages. Some came back with much better offers to sign up again. Several had two years for $20. At that price I did a couple that I would have let go at the renewal price The internet is killing print.

 

[Mister 4x4]

Yeah, I did the same thing with so many of my other favorites (Jp Magazine, Four Wheeler, Off Road, et al). They'd gotten to the point of recycling the same old stuff year after year, just with new pictures each time.

I also just hate the idea of cutting it loose, right before a run of some actual '71-'73 love, ya know? (Because you know as soon as I let it lapse, there will be all sorts of stories and articles... that's just how it works in my world)

 

[Kit Sullivan]

However unflattering his assesment of the 71-73s being too big when the public wanted small may be, it is essentially an accurate statement.

The 71-73s WERE badly out of step with what the general public wanted, hence the dismal sales.

However, "out of step" doesn't mean "bad car", just "wrong car" for the time.

I think the 71-73 are jewels that were far ahead in design, not really appreciated from an aestethic view until 15-20 years later.

 

[mjlan]

I've been a subscriber to Mustang Monthly since 87 or something like that, and I found myself not too thrilled with the subject matter lately as well. It seems like all of the buyouts and ownership changes have diluted what that mag used to be, whether that's on purpose or by accident?

I'm not even that sour on the lack of 71-73 coverage, but it seemed like it was the last mag that was devoted to preserving the classic Mustangs, where the other mags were about modifying and seemed very cookie cutter. MM was always a good reference for how stuff should look and what was right, and they were the only ones doing that it seemed.

Maybe the sales were way down, but since it was an established title with a loyal following shifting the focus was the only way to keep it going.

Or maybe I'm too nostalgic and I need to get with the times?

 

[Mister 4x4]

However unflattering his assesment of the 71-73s being too big when the public wanted small may be, it is essentially an accurate statement.

The 71-73s WERE badly out of step with what the general public wanted, hence the dismal sales.

However, "out of step" doesn't mean "bad car", just "wrong car" for the time.

I think the 71-73 are jewels that were far ahead in design, not really appreciated from an aestethic view until 15-20 years later.

Noted... and you're probably right on with your assessment.

However, it's ancient history now, and there are people celebrating Pintos, Mavericks, Rancheros, and other more "unlikely" favorable models [at the time] with their stories of how cool they were... survivors and even nicely restored examples are pulling in good money at auctions. There is also a growing market for our year models, otherwise more and more newly reproduced parts would not be coming out seemingly every month or so... Nor would every wanna-be gear head be making up stories about how rare their basic fastback models are and asking 5-figure prices for rust buckets on Craigslist and ebay.

My point: "All Mustangs... All The Time," to me means something a whole lot different than the current practice of "'71s-and-newer need not apply."

Just sayin'

I've been a subscriber to Mustang Monthly since 87 or something like that, and I found myself not too thrilled with the subject matter lately as well. It seems like all of the buyouts and ownership changes have diluted what that mag used to be, whether that's on purpose or by accident?

I'm not even that sour on the lack of 71-73 coverage, but it seemed like it was the last mag that was devoted to preserving the classic Mustangs, where the other mags were about modifying and seemed very cookie cutter. MM was always a good reference for how stuff should look and what was right, and they were the only ones doing that it seemed.

Maybe the sales were way down, but since it was an established title with a loyal following shifting the focus was the only way to keep it going.

Or maybe I'm too nostalgic and I need to get with the times?

No - you're right. Things have changed somewhat. I'm sorry, but Donald Farr "leaving" without any kind of real "Goodbye," "I've had enough," or "I got fired," kind of editorial?! My take: they re-org'd, he didn't like the direction they wanted to go, and bailed. But even then, you don't just "let" someone with his history go like that. Something stinks on that front... but that's really not the main reason I'm currently unhappy... and still on the fence.

 

[mrmach1]

Wrong car at the wrong time. I'll give you that but so we're the rest of American auto manufacturers. When the 71-73 mustang was designed the entire industry was going in the same direction but geopolitical events are almost impossible to predict

And given the amount of time needed to change direction on an entire auto manufacturing process. There was little Ford could do. If you look at most of the other cars of that era from Ford and other American manufacturers you will see what I'm talking about. Oh I agree about MUSTANG MONTHLY and I've not renewed my subscription as well and don't plan to either.

 

[Don C]

The only thing you'll get from riding the fence will likely be slivers.

Even though editor's personal choices often get priority a good editor will respond to reader's views and requests. A letter to the editor may help, especially if there is more than just one or two. I would suggest that everyone that subscribes to, or buys Mustang Monthly off the newsstand, send in a letter to the editor, stating just what you're saying here, "I've been a subscriber for xx years and would like to see more 71-73s".

With the quality of some of the cars that our members have, it would be good to offer some up for feature articles.

 

[Mister 4x4]

Wrong car at the wrong time. I'll give you that but so we're the rest of American auto manufacturers. When the 71-73 mustang was designed the entire industry was going in the same direction but geopolitical events are almost impossible to predict

And given the amount of time needed to change direction on an entire auto manufacturing process. There was little Ford could do. If you look at most of the other cars of that era from Ford and other American manufacturers you will see what I'm talking about. Oh I agree about MUSTANG MONTHLY and I've not renewed my subscription as well and don't plan to either.

Stepping off-topic a bit: I don't really buy that hogwash about "wrong car, wrong time" or any other iteration of the same. The Camaro and Firebird/Trans Am got bigger, fatter, and heavier a full year ahead of the Mustang... and they did just fine (Hello... still sold cars... enough to warrant keeping them around). In fact, there wasn't a major platform change until 1982. Every auto manufacturer detuned or offered smaller-output engines to boost fuel economy... and most models survived just fine. GM seemed to thrive even, when compared to Ford and Mopar - I don't have numbers and I'm not going to look them up, but I know GM kept on with their 'cooler' cars, while Ford and Mopar backed out of the 'cool car' business for the most part. Seems kind of like Ford chose to "play it safe," rather than stay in competition on many fronts. That's why the Corvette, Camaro, and Firebird/Trans Am pretty much owned the '70s, as any kind of surviving muscle cars went (or whatever you want to call them).

Good stuff... but I still don't think all that ancient history warrants continuing lack of respect for our model years of Mustangs... especially, not from "All Mustangs... All The Time."

Good point, Don. Maybe we could put together a campaign or something, depending on what kind of support we could muster up here.

 

[Jim and Jutta]

I stopped buying magazines and newspapers years ago, compared to the internet the information is limited and in many cases outdated, plus the internet is free and saves trees. Besides most magazines and newspapers have an internet site if you really like them as a source.

 

[judge]

I would suggest we send pictures and stories. Help them do their job. Maybe they will developed an appreciation for our big cars. They are in a tough business. It takes advertisers to keep them going. And we need to support the advertisers so they see a positive return for spending their hard earned money in the magazine. Anyway we need to develops a relationship with them, not help put them out of business.

 

[71mach1lady]

I would suggest we send pictures and stories. Help them do their job. Maybe they will developed an appreciation for our big cars. They are in a tough business. It takes advertisers to keep them going. And we need to support the advertisers so they see a positive return for spending their hard earned money in the magazine. Anyway we need to develops a relationship with them, not help put them out of business.

Exactly right, magazines are having a really hard time and many titles are going under. We advertise our business in some pretty major titles for a tenth of what it would have cost ten years ago. The time is coming for our 71-73's, would be a shame to bail now right when they might actually be getting some respect. There is a good chance that our 71 Mach will go to SEMA this year. Companies are starting to recognize the market and build product for them and that means the publishers will want to be showing these cars

 

[mrmach1]

Wrong car at the wrong time. I'll give you that but so we're the rest of American auto manufacturers. When the 71-73 mustang was designed the entire industry was going in the same direction but geopolitical events are almost impossible to predict

And given the amount of time needed to change direction on an entire auto manufacturing process. There was little Ford could do. If you look at most of the other cars of that era from Ford and other American manufacturers you will see what I'm talking about. Oh I agree about MUSTANG MONTHLY and I've not renewed my subscription as well and don't plan to either.

Stepping off-topic a bit: I don't really buy that hogwash about "wrong car, wrong time" or any other iteration of the same. The Camaro and Firebird/Trans Am got bigger, fatter, and heavier a full year ahead of the Mustang... and they did just fine (Hello... still sold cars... enough to warrant keeping them around). In fact, there wasn't a major platform change until 1982. Every auto manufacturer detuned or offered smaller-output engines to boost fuel economy... and most models survived just fine. GM seemed to thrive even, when compared to Ford and Mopar - I don't have numbers and I'm not going to look them up, but I know GM kept on with their 'cooler' cars, while Ford and Mopar backed out of the 'cool car' business for the most part. Seems kind of like Ford chose to "play it safe," rather than stay in competition on many fronts. That's why the Corvette, Camaro, and Firebird/Trans Am pretty much owned the '70s, as any kind of surviving muscle cars went (or whatever you want to call them).

Good stuff... but I still don't think all that ancient history warrants continuing lack of respect for our model years of Mustangs... especially, not from "All Mustangs... All The Time."

Good point, Don. Maybe we could put together a campaign or something, depending on what kind of support we could muster up here.

The last thing I was doing was disrespecting 71-73 mustangs. Just the opposite I was just defending it. Time changes so quickly and car designs can't ever keep up. Nobody loves the 71-73 mustangs more then me. I'm personally hurt whenever I read in a magazine anything that disrespected these beautiful cars. I started reading Mustang Monthly in 1984 and I especially loved the entire Lazirus project done by Jeff Ford. I've saved so many issues that I had to buy bins and store them in my basement. To me it has always been the bible for our hobby. Unless things change I've bought my last issue.

 

[sicndhed]

I don't know why our Mustangs get such little love but if it was bad timing for the "improved" 1971 version then the other auto makers were all reading the same tea leaves. The F bodies got bigger in 1970 and GM was very closed to killing the Camaro and Firebird at the end of 1972. Challengers/Cudas were pretty large in their final iteration and they died at the end of '74. What I remember from the era was how overnight there was interest in small cars once the oil embargo hit in October of '73. Prior to that I didn't know many people who cared about small cars unless it was sports cars and that was for the fun of driving a sports car not fuel efficiency. I think Ford timed the Mustang II introduction perfectly but I think luck was as much a part of it as upper management anticipating up coming trends. I don't believe Ford saw soaring gas prices when the Mustang II was given a green light years earlier.

One thing I remember from back around 1973 was a feeling of what's the point in buying a new car. Power was way down, bumper standards made many of the new cars ugly to most of us and 70s inflation had the price for these less desirable cars rapidly increasing. I worked at Chevy dealership in 74-75 and all the guys who had been in the business for years agreed that the overall quality of what were getting was falling quickly too. My friends and I thought the last of the "unregulated" muscle cars were worth the effort to pursue. Since those cars were between three and 10 years old finding nice examples was pretty easy back then. The Corvette did well but the type of person who bought one was different. I changed license plates for a lot middle aged guys with no interest in performance. Chevrolet had successfully begun to sell the car on its image rather than the performance (no longer present) that created the image. I suspect that many of the men who I saw drive off in new Vettes would be hanging around discos in another two years mentioning their "status" car to any lady who would listen.

 

[midlife]

I'm going to let my subscription lapse because of the way they treated Donald Farr, then had three new editors in four months. That's a poor way to treat a class act. What I heard was that he was let go with little warning.

This last month I actually saw a new maintenance item that I hadn't seen since I started (1998): the repair of the harmonic balancer snout.

 

[will e]

I mostly had the subscriptions for the tech articles and ads. Before the internet it was the major source of both tech and parts supply information. For a while I had a binder with articles I had pulled out for reference. But the internet made print obsolete. Why would I pay to see what someone else wants me to read about when I can search on the things I am interested in.

Sites like this were the final death knell.

 

[mustang68]

... do I renew, or not? My subscription to Mustang Monthly runs out after April 2015 issue, and I don't think I'm liking the new editor.

Since Rob Kinnan took over as the "permanent" editor, he's done nothing but freeze out and insult '71-'73 Mustangs.

His first issue (Jan 2015): Went on and on about how things are going to change for Mustang Monthly, to include dumping anything (but factory news) about everything newer than the Fox bodies. I'm thinking, "OK - that should afford more room for tech, features, and whatnot about everything, to include more '71-'78s"... and - nada, zip, zilch, zero, null.

Feb 2015: He totally delivered - there's even a '73 on the cover! Major feature story about the Cover '73 (albeit with a swipe regarding size within the first couple of lines)! There was also a feature story with back-handed compliments to the '74-'78 Mustang IIs, while totally dissing the '71-'73s. His words: "At the same time the market turned to small cars the Mustang got big and heavy with the debut of the ’71 models—exactly the opposite direction the market was going. What had gained popularity as a ponycar suddenly became an intermediate sedan, alienating many new car buyers." I don't know about you, but I finished reading that issue with the feeling that I'd done something wrong, kicked a puppy, or otherwise committed a foul with regards to my choice in wanting my '71. Meh - whatever...

Mar 2015: Nothing. No features. No technical. Not even any pictures of '71-'73s in the background of any articles, announcements, or even advertisements! Oh - wait! There was a camo-wrapped '71 on the last page in the Readers Rides section. WTF?! There was obviously plenty of room for features of no less than 4 - count 'em - 4 '67s (2 FBs, a coupe, and a 'vert), and a '66 (I think... the ones before '69 pretty much all look the same to me ). The main technical article dealt with wiring, and was only for '68-and-older.

So, I get my electronic renewal e-mail a few days ago, just ahead of the current (Mar 2015) issue showing up in the regular mail. I haven't decided whether or not to renew because honestly, I'm sick of seeing nothing but love for '68s-and-older, and typically nothing... literally, nothing, for our model years. I'm sorry, but an entire issue with only a single page ad for disc brakes using the same restomod car we've seen for 6 years now as their eye candy is not worth the subscription price... especially, not when there are 9 more just like them, with the 1 issue each year with either a Boss 351 or a '73.

Am I off-base here? Don't get me wrong, I like seeing the nice cars, reading some tech that applies enough to get imagination working, as well as the odd-ball car show shot with a '71-'73 in the background. But throw me a bone here... just as with the even more looked-down-upon Mustang IIs (although I gotta wonder), without our "heavy, intermediate-sized sedans," Ford would not have celebrated 50 years.

His "Hoof Beats" article this month says, "Let me know how we're doing," and I'm struggling with it - because, like Ron White details in his Blue Collar skit, "I know I have the right to remain silent, however I do not have the ability." I like to think I can be well-spoken enough to not come off like an ass... but I don't know that I'd be able to.

I don't know if you ever met Donald Farr but we have and he never seemed that interested in the 71-73 Mustangs he was more of a 69-70 Boss 302 guy. I know he owns a 66 but that belonged to his grandparents. Have been getting Mustang Monthly since the beginning they use to concentrate on the 64 1/2 -73 cars and the magazine was a lot better. Our car was featured in there Nov. 08 because of Jim Smart. Donald Farr is now editor of Mustang Times which is the magazine for the Mustang Club of America. Don't get me wrong Donald is a nice enough guy to talk to I just don't think 71-73's are his favorites.

 

[Mister 4x4]

The last thing I was doing was disrespecting 71-73 mustangs. Just the opposite I was just defending it. Time changes so quickly and car designs can't ever keep up. Nobody loves the 71-73 mustangs more then me. I'm personally hurt whenever I read in a magazine anything that disrespected these beautiful cars. I started reading Mustang Monthly in 1984 and I especially loved the entire Lazirus project done by Jeff Ford. I've saved so many issues that I had to buy bins and store them in my basement. To me it has always been the bible for our hobby. Unless things change I've bought my last issue.

No, I didn't take it that way - sorry if you got the wrong idea. I've just heard the "wrong car, wrong time" about '71-'73s, and "right car, right time" about the Mustang IIs, etc., etc., etc., and don't buy into it.

I'll admit that I continue to subscribe more because it's good material for the "reading room." But, the first issue I picked up (after a LONG time away from Mustang magazines) had a restomod '71 Mach 1 ("High Yield") featured, and it's what renewed the spark to have a '71 Mach 1 again for me... 2 months later, I had my own. But since then, I can count on both hands the number of '71-'73 specific articles, tech & features, that have been published... and that's about 4 1/2 years now. That's kind of disappointing.

Whether he liked '71-'73s or not, it still seemed like Donald Farr had a common formula used to appease the masses... and I'm not seeing it yet with this new guy. I don't recall ever reading anything like what Rob Kinnan wrote - bashing one to make another look better (kind of like saying, "she might be trailer trash, but at least she isn't from the ghetto."). I'd also heard he'd gotten unceremoniously bounced as well... so, while he might've preferred '69-'70s (he did own a Boss 302, after all), he didn't deserve to get crapped on like that.

Meh - I think I'll renew for 1 more year (rather than 2 again), and go from there. If this guy sucks as much as I fear, at least I won't be into 'em for more than another 12 issues, eh? I think I will work on zapping him a note, though.

 

[MeZapU]

I had my original subscription to Modified Mustangs and Fords, but that publication died and they moved my subscription over to Mustangs Monthly to finish out my paid-for issues. Since Mod Mustangs went away, the Monthly magazine has started to stray from featuring approximately 90% original cars to now including about 50%-50% of original and modified cars. I too am on the fence about renewal but I'm seeing how things pan out over the next few months. Seems they are trying to satisfy a broader base of Mustang enthusiasts.

I have had my car featured in the past, and even submitted and had two articles published. One I was paid $200 and the other $400. I had another I was considering when I rebuilt an air conditioning compressor for a Fox Mustang. The Mod Mustang editor told me that while it was a great sounding concept that would be something fresh, it did not fit the theme of the Modified Mustang magazine. Now the Monthly magazine is not doing anything with Fox mustangs, so that story is pretty much dead.

Many times I start a project and just smash through it. After the fact I think that I should have taken lots of pictures and documented the process in order to facilitate another article. But few realize what a pain it is to continually stop and take the required chronological pictures. Good pictures. I sure wish I had a good helper or film crew who's only job it is to take pictures of what I'm doing. That would make it so easy. When you are a one man show, it's such a time consuming prospect that I just don't take the time. So many projects I believe are rudimentary that I do not consider them worthy. Then I see articles about installing a harmonic dampener sleeve and think how easy it would have been. (By-the-way, the freezing thing was really over the top in my opinion.)

Too bad I don't have a cubic dollar build I'm working on to highlight some of the newest gizmos on the market for some SEMA show car. Many times you need to read through the lines and see what is going behind the build articles. Often it is strictly product placement done with sponsor support. You can usually tell because they have a lot of name dropping. At the end of the day if the article has a good theme and is entertaining, then it gets the nod. The flashy cars get the cover. Race/show coverage of some major event. One or two tech articles of whatever they can get their hands on. Often times they need to fill space so they just work with whatever they have. Just the nature of journalism.

I'd like to think what I could write about next, but there are no quick and/or cheap projects in my future. Anyways. Just my thoughts.