Vintage Car and Driver article

7173Mustangs.com

Help Support 7173Mustangs.com:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Yes, I read this back when it was published and more recently. Doesn't matter what they said, always wanted one and finally got one. And love it!

 
^^^ Me too, unfortunately they didn't make them in convertible or otherwise happy days. In the end it came down to three cars, a friends survivor triple black 69 M code Cougar XR7, Boss 351 Mustang or a 4V vert. As I couldn't convince my mate to sell the Cougar (still has it) Boss 351 Mustang jumped up in price and more than I wanted to spend at the time. I'd never had a vert and decided to get one this time, so the Q code vert was it as 72 R code verts are rare as rocking horse crap and the one I did find for sale needed a ton of money spent on it.

 
You see, when they state this in the article:

"It's from the inside, from the driver's seat, that you discover how the Boss has been sabotaged by the stylists. It's like sitting in a bunker; You can hardly see out. The windows are gun slits, the belt line comes up almost to your chin and the nearly horizontal rear deck and wide roof pillars block off all but a shallow field of vision directly to the rear."

Those are all things I enjoy about the car. If I wanted to have the ultimate in visibility I would have bought a '75 AMC Pacer!

 
Thanks for sharing the article. I reckon the reviewer was a shortarse as he couldn't see out.

I wonder if this review skewed many people's opinion of the car, who otherwise might have liked it.

 
That magazine writer can just go on back to his POS Volvo 144. The '71 to '73 Mustang is a good car. I had a '65 and a '66 ( essentially the same, I know ) , and my '71 Mach is , to me, a better car than them. I noted the writer made it a point to call out the "GM" steering box, ( instead of calling out a Saginaw power box ), which along with comparing the Mustang to a Trans Am, leads me to assume the writer is likely more loyal to GM products. Just an observation. Visability issues? Ever drive a 70's to 80's Corvette? Ever try to look over the hood of a Lambo Countach, or see out it's rear window? I'll bet the Countach wasn't reamed over such things. The Jaguar XK-E Type has a wicked long nose, no bad write-ups. What that writer missed, is that the "Sportsroof", "Mach 1" rooflines were lifted directly from Ford's GT-40, as shown in an ad from Ford showing a new '71 Mach 1 in the foreground, with a GT-40 alongside in the background for comparison. The "Kamm-back" rear styling the simulated mesh applique' on the rear or Machs are styling cues from the GT as well. Maybe a thousand articles have been written about Ford's Gt-40 praising it as a tour-de force in styling.....so suck it up, oh noble magazine writer, Ford provided you with THREE rear view mirrors, which do very nicely to see backwards. The 71-73 's had more to brag about than bitch at....better brakes, better steering, 9 inch rear ends, 351c and 429 power teams, cross-flow radiators to keep you cool...come on Car and Driver, look under that girl's skirt! But you know...that article was written way back, I didn't really like the new Mustang for '71 when it first came out, compared to what I was used to seeing prowling the streets in 69-70 but it grows on you. It's not really the writer's fault, he probably only had the car for an afternoon, not enough time to experience a car fully I think, and '71-'73 owners today, know and enjoy what that guy never saw or could really experience.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not surprising. As many of us know, our beloved '71-'73 Mustangs were not respected for many years. Only fairly recently has that changed.....somewhat.

I've liked these Mustangs from day one. I'll never forget the first time I saw one and thinking "I've got to have this car!"

I thought it was one of the most intimidating cars I'd ever seen....and still do. I also think they look even better in person than on paper.

 
Wow - Great props to all who have posted here to defend our favorite cars!

BTW I have always liked my Boss 351. ALWAYS.

Anyway I decided to do a little 'spinning' of that article. Kinda like the unique reporting of the recent election coverage seemed to do at every turn! :whistling:

SO here is what I got - albeit loosely quoted - from this very Car & Driver Boss 351 article!

"almost every mechanical aspect of the Boss is efficient and competent"

"...on the basis of its external appearance. In fact, that side of it is generally attractive—striking rather than beautiful but it turns more than its quota of heads... "

"...the engineers emerge from the project as real heroes. Central to the Boss 351's personality is its 351 cubic inch HO (High Output) engine and it performs admirably. It produces a generous quantity of power for its size and yet is remarkably tractable and docile."

"Using the approved Ronnie Sox method of driving, which is to say wide-open throttle shifts, the times drop down to 13.9 seconds at nearly 102 mph. With performance like that, the Boss should easily do the job on its GM competitors... the Z/28 Camaro and Firebird..."

"It's just that the parts for the Boss are treated to a few extra operations in the manufacturing plant for increased durability (shotpeening and Magna fluxing for the rods and special heat treatment for the crankshaft). As glorious as that may sound to all of the world's main bearing mavens, it's the top half of the engine that is really exciting—the cylinder heads, to be specific. They are essentially the same as those used previously on the Boss 302 with staggered valves the size of man-hole covers and ports like laundry chutes. It all makes the Z/28 look like a gas mileage motor. The same generous proportions can be found on the camshaft lobes, which lift the Boss' valves to rare heights for a street engine. In fact, only registered extremists like the L88 and aluminum block ZL-1 Chevys have more valve lift than the Boss 351 engine."

"...the Boss is remarkably well behaved, considering its race-car-like hardware"

"Like the engine, the controls are responsive and predictable"

"Certainly shifting is a pleasure. The effort is light and the Hurst linkage is totally free of vice."

"Easily the most significant of the Mustang's mechanical advancements has been made in the steering. It's not particularly quick on center but it is remarkably precise—certainly as good as the best from Detroit—and small steering corrections can be easily and accurately made. Two distinct areas are due credit for the improvement; front suspension geometry has been completely revised for 1971, and all models with the competition suspension (front and rear anti-sway bars) are available with the... variable-ratio power steering gear. The test Boss was so equipped."

"...the drivetrain and the steering meet with our enthusiastic approval"

"it doesn't roll much and it will generate high lateral cornering forces in situations where you can use plenty of power to keep the tail out."

"...the Boss had one option which is easily worth its price of two additional monthly car payments—the AM/FM stereo radio…and its tone is so pleasing that you'll probably begin to wonder what's wrong with your living room hi-fi."

Sorry IT just HAD to be DONE! I like the article a lot better now that I see all the positive comments! :cool:

Ray

 
Very nice. Way to spin an article to your liking. There may be a job for you in mainstream media. :)
Thanks Jason ::thumb:: - I think!

Ray
That was a perfect example of a 'back-handed compliment' if I've ever seen one. Nicely done, Jason! ::thumb::

lollerz

 
It was just meant as a compliment. To be honest when I was initially reading the article those are the points I focused on naturally and just kind of skimmed over the rest.

 
ALL GOOD!

I just really like these cars . I just had to try and find some positive stuff in all the writer's comments. I think I will share it on the Boss 351 FB site too.

And Jason - thanks for the compliment! :D

Ray

 
Back
Top