On the fence...

[EdM]

... 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.

If you are bothered that much by a magazine then, yes, by all means drop it.:huh:

 

[hyena429]

Think i rather up a subscription too Nat Geo than mustang monthly anymore Better on the toilet reading!! lmao

 

[rpmcarter]

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.

Yep your RIGHT Kit.

Fastback wheel base 109 inches

Camaro wheel base 108

Fastback 187.5 inches long

Camaro 188 inches long

Fastback Curb weight 3261

Camaro Curb weight 3213

Fastback 75 inches

Camaro 74.4 inches

Fastback 50.1 inches

Camaro 50 inches POINT 5 :s MY GAWD what a difference!

Looks like agreeing with what really caused the cars not to sell was the LACK OF INTELLIGENCE from the media who looked at our cars and reported what they THOUGHT they saw. But the facts above speak for themselves our 71-3's are HUGE BIG CARS compared to the competition. OH let me guess Kit you will come back and claim Camaro was not in competition with Mustang :whistling:

Mr. Kinnon is nothing more than the same kind as the media types before him. A guy jumping on a theme that worked for years. Now lets compare our cars to yes a small sample of other cars available to pick from with the exception of the PINTO and VEGA POS cars. The 'general public" you acknowledge must have been broke and couldn't AFFORD a decent car. Hell they are buying KIA now.

Montego

Cougar

Nova

Chevelle yeah check out THAT short sports car

Super Bee (yeah I know they were not in competition with Mustang)

Road Runner (yeah I know they were not in competition with Mustang)

Satellite

YOU NAME IT.... our cars were VERY competitive but the design was so ahead of itself the car LOOKS larger than it really is. Hell its almost the size of my 67!

So back to the point of Mustang Monthly, I've said it before ...they couldn't give a crap about our cars. Its all about the new cars. I havent looked at a MM in 8 years.

 

[BrewSTL]

Seems like a fun topic to join in on and give my 2 cents. I apologize if I mention anything that someone else already has since I am more giving my opinion to the opening post.

The fact remains that where acquiring parts for the 71-73 has become much improved over recent years, there is still a huge demand for quality in almost every department of aftermarket parts. This fact alone demands respect, IMO, of the general mustang population. When I look at a mustang magazine and see about 6 67 mustangs, all with Eleanor kits, I am ready to flip my lid. I hope no one gets me wrong, a classic car is a classic car. I'm just tired of praising cars built 100 percent out of aftermarket parts. You don't know living until you are willing to go to the worlds end to get your hands on those perfect oem deluxe door panels that you don't have to carve up or pay someone to do so all at the risk of a ridiculous fit.

This car is finally getting the respect it deserves by many because let's face it, it was light years ahead of its time. We live in a world where people today pay huge amounts of money for style and are willing to sacrifice things like seeing out of your rear windshield.

One of the reasons I thought this car was so awesome growing up is because I got it. This was a vision. This was what was coming no matter what. The world just wasn't ready yet in the early 70's. To still be kicking dirt at it is ridiculously stubborn.

 

[mrmach1]

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.

Right-on brother you said it perfectly. The one thing about the 71-73 Mustang is they are pleasing to the eye from every angle and that can't be said about many cars regardless of when they were built.
Yep your RIGHT Kit.

Fastback wheel base 109 inches

Camaro wheel base 108

Fastback 187.5 inches long

Camaro 188 inches long

Fastback Curb weight 3261

Camaro Curb weight 3213

Fastback 75 inches

Camaro 74.4 inches

Fastback 50.1 inches

Camaro 50 inches POINT 5 :s MY GAWD what a difference!

Looks like agreeing with what really caused the cars not to sell was the LACK OF INTELLIGENCE from the media who looked at our cars and reported what the THOUGHT they saw. But the facts above speak for themselves our 71-3's are HUGE BIG CARS compared to the competition. OH let me guess Kit you will come back and claim Camaro was not in competition with Mustang :whistling:

Mr. Kinnon is nothing more than the same kind as the media types before him. A guy jumping on a theme that worked for years. Now lets compare our cars to yes a small sample of other cars available to pick from with the exception of the PINTO and VEGA POS cars. The 'general public" you acknowledge must have been broke and couldn't AFFORD a decent car. Hell they are buying KIA now.

Montego

Cougar

Nova

Chevelle yeah check out THAT short sports car

Super Bee (yeah I know they were not in competition with Mustang)

Road Runner (yeah I know they were not in competition with Mustang)

Satellite

YOU NAME IT.... our cars were VERY competitive but the design was so ahead of itself the car LOOKS larger than it really is. Hell its almost the size of my 67!

So back to the point of Mustang Monthly, I've said it before ...they could give a crap about our cars. Its all about the new cars. I havent looked at a MM in 8 years.

 

[Mister 4x4]

If you are bothered that much by a magazine then, yes, by all means drop it.:huh:

You're right, of course... but that wasn't the point of this thread. I'm trying to find out how others feel about Mustang Monthly in general. I'm getting a pretty good feel for that.

My biggest reasoning for the 'wait and see' is because if I shut it down, and there's an issue with something pertinent I miss, I don't have a place where I can consistently go to get my own copy. I still prefer reading a "real" magazine/book to electronic versions - yes, I have a Kindle and an HP Slate tablet, but I just don't like using them as much as most people do (which I know probably sounds odd because I'm in the IT business, but there it is).

That, and I already have a pretty good rack full of issues in the reading room, and re-reading the same old issues gets old. Like other paper products in the "Library," ya gotta keep the stock fresh, after all.

 

[cobra3073]

GREAT thread in my opinion!

I have invited Mr. Kinnan or someone from the editorial staff at "Mustang Monthly" to address some of the opinions that have been brought forward here.

Who knows, this might be an opportunity to REALLY get our points across and dispels some of the "myths."

BT

 

[Mister 4x4]

GREAT thread in my opinion!

I have invited Mr. Kinnan or someone from the editorial staff at "Mustang Monthly" to address some of the opinions that have been brought forward here.

Who knows, this might be an opportunity to REALLY get our points across and dispels some of the "myths."

BT

Wow - you rock, BT! ::thumb::

In that case, I would like to point out my errors in the original post: it was not 4 '67s, but rather 2 '67s, a '66, and a '65 (features), and the tech articles were about electrics for '68-and-older, and leather interiors for '68-and-older convertibles. Gotta get my story straight if I'm the guy doing the griping. (Despite being accustomed to it, I still don't appreciate the lack of love for our model years and the blatant hateful comments of comparison when they're mentioned.)

I just think that more of the all-encompassing tech articles (the electrical could've been expanded to show '71-'73 connectors as well as mention some of the unique items, as has been done in the past), and maybe a re-formatting of features to go something like: 2 or 3 '65-'68s, 1 '69-'70, 1 '71-'73, and/or a Mustang II - could even rotate between the picking 2 of the "non-vintage" ('68-and-older) models for each issue.

I think our model years are catching a resurgence in interest with most people (non-Mustangers, in particular). The wealth of Craigslist ads and ebay items and increasing numbers at the mainstream, high-end auctions - even Counting Cars and Gas Monkey Garage have featured them on TV shows. My own experience, the day of the local Air Force Base car show (city-wide) that my '71 debuted as an actual "car," was testimony of that to me. Driving it on the trailer to the site garnered nothing but waves and thumbs-ups, there was a crowd around it as I was filling it up at the gas station nearby, and there was always someone looking, pointing, talking about it to their friends, and asking me questions all day long. All of my friends who'd seen the progress from the beginning couldn't believe it was the same rusty old pile in the pictures I'd showed them for years. The ones who'd seen it in-progress at the Auto Hobby Shop were amazed it had turned out so well. It won a "Best In Class" award, despite the numerous awesome '70-'79 muscle cars it was competing against (participant voting only), and a lady drove by as I was unloading in front of my house only to return a few minutes later with her husband, who wanted to talk about the car for another half hour.

So yeah, I think our model years need more exposure and whatever disdain or negativity was around during their time needs to just go away (and those certain vintage Mustangers need to get over it, already).

 

[Kinnan]

Hi all,

Rob Kinnan here, the new editor of Mustang Monthly that most of you are slamming in this thread. Cobra3073 emailed me the link to this thread, and I feel I need to respond here.

I am not "freezing" out '71-'73 cars. As was mentioned, we just had one on the cover of February! Saying that we're ignoring these cars because there wasn't one in the March issue is ridiculous. You can't take just ONE issue of ANY magazine as the only example of their editorial focus.

Mustang Monthly will most certainly include all Mustangs from 1964 1/2 to 1978, and in fact we're putting together a project at the moment with a '73 coupe designed to be a low-buck, bolt-on build made to open track events. Nothing radical at all, this will be a car that anyone can build, and we're using your favorite body style. We also have a feature on one of these cars, as well as a feature on a truly badass Mustang II with a Triton V10 that you'll see in a future issue.

Just give us, and me, time to get this magazine where we want it to be. I had nearly nothing to do with the January issue, barely a hand in Feburary, and a little more in March. The April issue is all me and Mark Houlahan, but we're still dealing with what was left on the table when I got here while we gather new material. Like I said, stick with us for a few months before you decide to bail. The June issue is going to have a whole new look, and i really think you'll like it.

Rob Kinnan

 

[sicndhed]

Hi all,

Rob Kinnan here.....

Thanks for stopping by::beer::

Don't be a stranger.

 

[cobra3073]

Hi all,

Rob Kinnan here, the new editor of Mustang Monthly that most of you are slamming in this thread. Cobra3073 emailed me the link to this thread, and I feel I need to respond here.

I am not "freezing" out '71-'73 cars. As was mentioned, we just had one on the cover of February! Saying that we're ignoring these cars because there wasn't one in the March issue is ridiculous. You can't take just ONE issue of ANY magazine as the only example of their editorial focus.

Mustang Monthly will most certainly include all Mustangs from 1964 1/2 to 1978, and in fact we're putting together a project at the moment with a '73 coupe designed to be a low-buck, bolt-on build made to open track events. Nothing radical at all, this will be a car that anyone can build, and we're using your favorite body style. We also have a feature on one of these cars, as well as a feature on a truly badass Mustang II with a Triton V10 that you'll see in a future issue.

Just give us, and me, time to get this magazine where we want it to be. I had nearly nothing to do with the January issue, barely a hand in Feburary, and a little more in March. The April issue is all me and Mark Houlahan, but we're still dealing with what was left on the table when I got here while we gather new material. Like I said, stick with us for a few months before you decide to bail. The June issue is going to have a whole new look, and i really think you'll like it.

Rob Kinnan

THANKS for the quick response, Rob!

...and as sicndhed noted, please don't be a stranger.

BT

 

[Mister 4x4]

Saying that we're ignoring these cars because there wasn't one in the March issue is ridiculous. You can't take just ONE issue of ANY magazine as the only example of their editorial focus.

Ummm - well... that's a true statement, unless you're a '71-'73 owner who has been a faithful subscriber for over the past 4 years (48+ magazines... and in that time less than 12 features - when combined with Mustang IIs). There are typically 4 "featured" car articles per issue, with an average of 1 '71-'78 every quarter. Usually 2 tech articles per issue, with 2 articles with any kind of nod to '71-'73s every year. There is usually, however, at least 1 picture of a '71-73(regardless of feature, advertisement, or as part of the background in a car show header pic, etc.) "somewhere" in the issue.

So far, you're 1 for 2 (OK technically, 2 for 2, since you had a '71-'73 AND a Mustang II in Feb's issue) - but... prove me wrong, I dare you.

BTW - using terms of endearment like "intermediate sedans" will not earn any points with us "Clydesdale*" owners.

* That's one of those terms of endearment as well, BTW. But they're kind of like racial slurs: we can use them on ourselves, but from everybody else it's an insult. See what I did there? rofl

Just give us, and me, time to get this magazine where we want it to be. I had nearly nothing to do with the January issue, barely a hand in Feburary, and a little more in March.

January - noted.

February, fair enough (but that was kind of the "good one" to take credit for ) - that's also the one with the unkind words about the '71-73s in the Mustang II article you authored, BTW. Tsk, tsk.

March - all yours... zero '71-'78s anywhere - not even advertisement pics - except for a single Reader's Ride car you can barely make out because of camo-wrap... but it is what it is. I guess we have to let you have that one, despite all of the other content being '68-and-older-centric.

I get it with your job as editor - first and foremost, you can't please everybody all the time. I do indeed understand, I used to be the guy who produced the website and newsletter for my local Off Road club and had zero support or input from the club members themselves... but they sure expected me to put 'something' out there that was professional and entertaining - with nothing to work with. In fact, the majority of all the websites I've been involved in creating/maintaining usually has zero input and little feedback with no real value, "Just make something cool." And usually, "that's not what I had in mind," after following that instruction. It's more-often-than-not a thankless job because someone got butt-hurt when they didn't see their car/truck/whatever featured or talked about. Like I said, I get it.

But you don't have the same perspective as '71-'73 Mustang owners when it comes to the love/hate relationship with the rest of the Vintage Mustang crowd - they mostly love to hate us. It's one thing to write-off some other "Vintage Mustang Forum" as being just a bunch of arrogant d-bags after giving them more than a fair chance, but to see more of the same treatment, either by insults or being disproportionally ignored by an "authoritative publication claiming to be All Mustangs All The Time," it's hard to keep the optimism alive when picking up the latest issue, and seeing all the '68s-and-older, Shelbys or not, with the random obligatory '71-'78 tossed in whenever the sundial casts the right shadow.

And we actually have it SO much better than the Mustang II crowd, it's almost shameful to say anything at all.

OK - so I renewed for another year. Prove me wrong... I dare you.

THANKS for the quick response, Rob!

...and as sicndhed noted, please don't be a stranger.

BT

In all of that, yes - Thank you for taking the time to visit. I hope the site will give you an idea of how much appreciation the '71-'73 model years have been gaining in the past several years.

Also Thank You again, BT, for inviting him to come see it for himself. ::thumb::

And I do indeed hope he decides to stick around or at least check-in now and then. There are a LOT of awesome cars and awesome people here! I just want to see more favorable representation, that's all.

 

[71mach1lady]

Cobra3073, thank you for inviting Mr. Kinnan and thank you Rob for posting here. We just joined this bunch in December and we have been very impressed with not only the forum but with the pride and love 71-73 owners have in their (our) cars

 

[Luke]

GREAT thread in my opinion!

I have invited Mr. Kinnan or someone from the editorial staff at "Mustang Monthly" to address some of the opinions that have been brought forward here.

Who knows, this might be an opportunity to REALLY get our points across and dispels some of the "myths."

BT

Excellent work Sir

 

[rpmcarter]

GREAT thread in my opinion!

I have invited Mr. Kinnan or someone from the editorial staff at "Mustang Monthly" to address some of the opinions that have been brought forward here.

Who knows, this might be an opportunity to REALLY get our points across and dispels some of the "myths."

BT

Well they arent exactly myths so be real careful...I mean after all .1" is factual not just a rumor. 1/2" is indeed a 1/2 inch so technically he can get you with facts. they are INDEED BIG MONSTER cars with those enormous deltas oh and dont let him trip you up on that 48 lbs difference vs a Camaro...that is a BIG BODY car we got vs that little Camaro

 

[Kit Sullivan]

I was a subscriber to "MM" from the beginning: Bought the first issue at "Kroger's" on Memorial Dr, filled out the drop-card in the issue and kept that subscription until 2007.

That magazine went through a ton of changes over they years...some for the better, some not. When "Petersen Publishing" was sold and the magazine moved to new production facilities, I feel it went off the rails at that point.

Originally focused on the "classics": 65-73...they eventually soon included the 74-78 Mustang IIs to a lot of flack from readers, but i was OK with that. The "Fox" came some years later to be included, and then it lost focus.

Then, I think "5.0 Mustang" came out and they shunted the "Fox" over to that title.

Different editors over they years have had thier fans and detractors, I like Donald Farr the best. I liked Jeff Ford the least (even though he favored the 71-73 'Stangs).

To me, the problem is a lack of creativity on the part of the editorial focus of the magazine these days. I have been a contributing monthly writer to a couple of industry magazines for about 15 years now, and each month it is the same struggle: How do I write something fresh and interesting about the same old crap I write about every month?

That magazine has been around for about 30+ years by now, and with a fan base attracted mostly to a product made for about 8 years, I can understand the struggle to keep it fresh and relevant, while basically regurgitating the same old info month after month. Tough job.

But I do it, and my "solution" each month is to make it NOT about what it is about...if that makes any sense. The Mustangs from 65-73 have been hashed about in print in nearly every way possible by now...there is no new ground to tread there.

But what about the peripheral stuff attached to the car: The people, places and things happening at the time the car was a relevant Ford product?

I have had ideas for articles for that magazine many times over the years and have submitted a few.

1) Stories from vendors, and how they designed certain parts to function and meet production needs. Thier connection and intractions with Ford? That could provide many months of interesting articles.

2) Monthly articles on how Mustang influenced other outside subjects...like fashion items, toys, other makers cars, entertainment, etc...Lots of fertile ground there.

3) Stories about how past successes and failures within and outside of Ford influenced newer Mustangs...what worked and what didn't.

4) Interviews with people OUTSIDE of Ford and how the Mustang exeterted influence on what they were working on.

5) Ultra-nerdy and detailed OCD tech section...the kind of stuff that people here get all worked up over sometimes. Go much further i nto the details of some of thier items they have written about.

Example: Magnum 500s: You could probably devote an entire issue to all the stuff relating to Magnums: Motor Wheel, the designers and ideas behind the design, the manufacturing needs and government regs, the recalls, the magnums for other brands, the repros (another whole book could be written on that!), Why Ford went with them instead of designing thier own wheel, etc... Just endless stuff to delve into. They did an article about magnums, but it was basic stuff with no great detail. Guys like us want more! And then...all the OTHER wheels they offered over the years!

This could give ripe fodder for years: Seats and seat covers, steering wheel designs, how colors are picked each year and why, how and why stripes were designed as they were.

6) and of course, the people: The most intersting part of the magazine to most people who read it. The people who drive the cars, and how it fits into thier lives. They do a lot of pieces about a particular car and its owner, but it is always more about the car than the person.

"Hemmings Classic Cars" was a great magazine, much better editing and writing when it first premiered than MM. But it went downhill too.

They just need some fresh blood over at MM. As it is now, I can hardly get through a couple pages before I lose interest.

But...it has been continually published for over 30 years now, so they probably know something I don't!

Just my opinion...means nothing really.

 

[mustang7173]

All,

Some interesting responses. The Design for the 71 to 73 was developed 1968, when all the emphases was on performance, people wanted power, going fast was one of the most important factors on the purchase of a new car. Especially on a performance / sports car like the Mustang. Then the US Government stepped in, along with the insurance industry and pretty much squashed the first muscle car era. Enough Said!

Mustang Monthly, well it is a little slim these days compared to the days of yester years. One area I would like to see discussed is the reproduction side of things. There is a lot of crap out there that do not even hold a candle to the originals. Maybe if we can start having feed back to the vendors, that might make them improve their products.

In the March 2015 issue, they had a Do it yourself Harmonic Balancer repair section. Nice! They could also have a section on vendors who can repair, service reviews from the readers. I have seen some reviews on the internet to where I would not give the time of day. May people just do not have the time to research this.

Mustang7173

 

[Kit Sullivan]

Many times it has been reported that the government "killed" the performance car, and i have always kind of been at odds with this stgarement. There is not now and has never been any regulation about limiting any cars performance ability, beyond the 85-MPH max allowed on speedometers for a few years there in the 80's.

The car manufactureres have always been allowed to build and sell as powerful and high-performance car as they want as long as it meets safety and emissioin regs in force at the time.

Now, there is no doubt that bumper laws, other safety regs and emissions complaince all put a burden on developing performance cars, and the insurance industry put the other whammy on the market...but they were never told they could not build or sell them, just that they had to meet regs as well.

Today, of course...they have had many years of technological advances to do just that: get outstanding performance and meet all regs too.

We are truly living in another golden age of performance and we all take it for granted. It can't last forever...

 

[Jeff73Mach1]

Kit, I think you are underestimating the impact of C.A.F.E. standards on performance cars. While they did not "Kill" performance, they made reaching those goals important and that in effect did heavily restrict the use of big blocks and high performance small block V-8's for passenger cars.

I read Mustang Monthly on occasion and was a previous subscriber. There comes a point where the reader has read everything that they are interested in and then the subject matter has to change. Personally I could care less about paint codes, which wheels are correct for a particular year, and whether or not my air cleaner housing is correct.

I'm interested in the performance of my vehicle and how I can improve my vehicle for track and street performance in a manner that also makes it more durable and reliable.

Some subjects that I would like to see covered in depth that cover all older mustangs include

3G alternator conversions, 1 wire alternator conversions, high torque mini starters and wiring conversion, which factory gear reduction starters interchange, battery relocation. Tech articles that would help lots of readers would be to fully explain what a vacuum gauge is capable of, how to use a multimeter properly, basic electrical repair i.e the proper way to solder, crimp, size wires make repairs to fusible links etc.

I started reading car mags when I was 13-my father wasn't interested in cars and did not teach me the skill set I needed for even basic work.

The internet did not exist. I learned some things from my older brother, but Hot Rod and later Car Craft gave me enough information to go find sources to support my interest and desire. (Keeping a beat up old heap running so I would have a car helped too!)

I doubt anyone is going to like every article or every feature vehicle, but what I have found is that I am drawn to the vehicle builds that are within the abilities and budgets of the average enthusiast. They need not be perfect, just interesting.

 

[mustang7173]

Hello Kit Sullivan,

On the Government regulations, I was looking at the 72 -73 mustangs with their retarded timing and reduced compression to reduce the emissions. The 1973 Mustang 4 V engines mustangs were not allow Ram Air due to failing emissions standards.

Yes, they have made advancements on the performance side of things. We can only hope that more technological advances can be adapted to our 71 -73 mustangs via real world installations via Mustang Monthly.

mustang7173