Size Comparison

[cudak888]

@70cobrascj - The problem with that photo is that it's not of an S197 next to a '65. The '65-68s, especially the convertibles, are so flat in their styling that the exaggerated beltline of today's packages make them look like a tuna can.

I saw a '65 convertible in traffic today. Compared with the package size of the modern stuff surrounding it, the '65 might as well have been an European microcar. While I didn't initially think of Iacocca's whole "2,200-pound-European-inspired car" when that thought popped to mind - and I still don't think a '65 looks any more European than a first-gen Corvette - the visualization drove home Iacocca's idea in a manner I didn't expect.



Incidentally, it takes clever work to pull off a vehicle with the hard points of an S197. Sadly, all the nostalgia of the new car disappoints when the comparison is made (my opinion, of course).

The S550 would look pretty (visually) bulky here by comparison, but I'll give that design credit for doing a far better job of hiding its proportions, especially at the back where the decklid height was lowered to maintain a reasonably level beltline. The S197 - original and refresh - is, by comparison, an outright caricature that looks as if was penned for a "My First Mustang" book (sorry S197 owners). Even the S650 - problematic as it may be as a car - improves on the S550's rear visual bulk. Sadly though, I can't praise this effort too much as it is obviously a copy-paste of Hyundai's homework off the current Elantra.

Remember: It is always safe enough to restyle if the other guy did it first. No damn guts to take a risk; classic upper management.

Wow! a lot of good historical and factual documented references here...

Sad to say, I haven't had the opportunity to be behind the wheel of the earlier cars either, at least on the road. I've sat in a static 1970 Sportsroof doing work on it and have ridden in the back of a '70 Shelby GT500 convertible. The high beltline is the obvious difference as @BigBlue points out, but I seem to recall the earlier cars feeling narrower, even though the door-to-door width of the '71 should be no different than its predecessors. It has been 5-7 years since I've been in either of those two cars, so I'd have to get in another pre-'71 to reassess those memories.

I'm really curious about the driving feel of the earlier cars. As someone who all too recently discovered how absolutely sloppy Mopar gearboxes are - even by old car standards when paired with radials, caster-corrected UCAs, adjustable strut rods, and corrected alignment - I'm curious how many centuries behind the Bendix power ram is.

Let's put it this way: The Mopar box has taught me just how good we have it with the Saganaw/GM boxes.

While Halderman never directly referenced it, I'd point out that a "prime example from Italy" would be the AM115 Masarati Ghibli.



While not a Bertone design, the AM115 is a Giugiaro design from Ghia. Coincidentally, it was penned just a few years before Ford bought the styling house in '70.

Keep in mind, this is what some of the 1968 mockups for '71 looked like:





Mind, I have nothing to back that the Ghibli had any hand in this inspiration; this is nothing more than a casual comparison.

Let's not forget that the back end of the Lamborghini Espada - which is a Bertone design - is not exactly a shape unfamiliar to us:

This post in itself is worthy of publication in a magazine. Internet gold as usual.

Magazines are dead, social media killed the forum, the Borg owns YouTube.

There's no spotlight for good information to live anymore. We took the greatest communications tool ever devised by humans and 'ed it up.

As Kurt said, the 71-73s were badmouthed to no end, and still are...

Tell me about the Bendix power ram, my friend. Someday I have to get you over to drive the other half of my 1970's Car Chase Starter Kit to see how the Mopar slushbox compares against the Saganaw and the Bendix.

For your entertainment, a rant I authored on the subject at FBBO:

"Easy steering" is a vague (irony not intended) term and has multiple interpretations, as is "old car" steering.

...the 3-turn variable ratio Saganaw side-mount steering box in my '71 Mustang and the other 4-turn Saganaws I've experienced in 1970's-era Fords and Craprolets all meet the definition of "old car" and "easy steering." They're light and can be turned in with little effort. However - in my opinion - I wouldn't call them "sloppy," and in my experience, they are definitive in directionality. You turn the "easy steering" and - for normal street driving - it goes exactly where your brain estimated that amount of steering input would place the car.

I have nothing against this "old car" steering and I like it very much.

The Mopar box can just as easily be called "old car" and "easy steering," but not anywhere on the same level as the Saganaw box. I would absolutely classify the feeling as sloppy, excessively light (i.e., the shaft is not connected to anything light), and extremely vague. This isn't my assessment of a Mopar A or B-body with bias-ply alignment settings (yes, that experience is in my wheelhouse), this is my assessment after nailing down a correct, modern alignment with proper caster and camber.

That type of "old car" steering I can do without.

But I digress. Back to the program about how our cars are big, fat Blunderbirds again.

-Kurt

 

[PNWMach1]

As Kurt said, the 71-73s were badmouthed to no end, and still are by unoriginal, unimaginative people with no real skin in the game to make that call. Crazy how long it takes to shake off a bad reputation.
I've driven the smaller Mustangs and I can tell you, they do feel a bit lighter on their feet, although not the night and day difference it's made out to be. The real difference becomes apparent when you sit inside. The older Mustangs had a low beltline and a relatively gigantic greenhouse. It feels like you're in a small car. The 71-73 has a very high beltline, small windows, and curves that make it harder to see the corners of the car. It's mostly an optical difference. I've thrown both around corners in an indecent manner, and ultimately, I feel the 71-73 have more overall potential for handling. The wider track, lower center of gravity and superior aerodynamics are a better platform to start from than the previous models. The little bit of extra weight is easily compensated for. Look at the monstrously heavy S650s and how well they perform despite being 4000lbs.
Our cars are the most well executed, most polished form of the first generation, and I will die on that hill. Maybe not the prettiest, but the best overall.
The guys in VMF would be throwing tomatoes at me right now.

I've posted this photo before, but I think it illustrates your point well. The group I was driving with when this photo was taken were astonished how relatively similar the sizes were.

 

[cudak888]

I've posted this photo before, but I think it illustrates your point well. The group I was driving with when this photo was taken were astonished how relatively similar the sizes were.

The '65 looks enormous here.

Are the front springs in it new? The shadow against the ground suggests it is riding higher in front than in back.

-Kurt

 

[BigBlue]

@cudak888 "Magazines are dead, social media killed the forum, the Borg owns YouTube. There's no spotlight for good information to live anymore. We took the greatest communications tool ever devised by humans and 'ed it up"

God what a funny yet depressing statement. 100% right about that, though. Leave it to us humans to create the greatest things and then promptly screw 'em up.

Anyway, I installed the SPA-T variable ratio steering box in the car recently, so a back to back comparison with the Mopar box would indeed be interesting. Just need to be a brave little boy and get myself to take the drive over there. Hopefully with nice weather so it's not so unpleasant while I wait for AAA to pick me up on the side of the road.

 

[BigBlue]

I've posted this photo before, but I think it illustrates your point well. The group I was driving with when this photo was taken were astonished how relatively similar the sizes were.View attachment 97772

This is a good one; the proportions are so different, it almost looks like something's off with the picture. Looks like the '73 shrank and is supposed to be bigger.

 

[PNWMach1]

The '65 looks enormous here.

Are the front springs in it new? The shadow against the ground suggests it is riding higher in front than in back.

-Kurt

That 65 had led a hard life from what I recall. Guy had pulled it out of a scrap yard with a caved in roof. Welded on a replacement. Was told it was originally a straight six and he had swapped in a 260 he had laying around. Didn't get any details on the suspension but would guess he had changed out the springs as part of the V8 swap. Best part was that this car was his wife's daily driver.

 

[Flatback72.]

This is a good one; the proportions are so different, it almost looks like something's off with the picture. Looks like the '73 shrank and is supposed to be bigger.

It seems to be the angle the photo was taken from along with some lens distortion. Here is a cut and paste of the 65 (no changing of size) over the the 73. One thing I am sure of is that the 65 didn't have a wheelbase 12 inches longer than the 73!