WHY? are 71-73 stangs so big?

[Greg]

I used to think they were big as the long style hoods and the flat rear sports roof and owning a 66 mustang and a Volkswagen bug. Now that I have some 70's Lincolns and a newer truck they seem perfect sized and more like a sports car. I've always liked loaded cars and the 71-73's can rule in that area of the first generations.

 

[Ron Tanzi]

Would anyone out there agree with me that our cars are their own generation? They are based on the 69/71 Torino platform not the Falcon.

Ron

 

[Hemikiller]

Speaking for my self, i have had a gut full of negative critisism that has come from many different quarters of society over the years (especially from the 1965 to 1970 brigade), regarding the oversized, bloated, large dimension 1971 1973 Mustangs.

Been dealing with that BS since my first '73 back in 1989. Us 71-73 types always were looked down on. Then, people found out about the Boss 351 and all of a sudden, the 71-73s are "cool".

Would anyone out there agree with me that our cars are their own generation? They are based on the 69/71 Torino platform not the Falcon.

Ron

I consider our generation a hybrid, and could get on board with that. The 66-71 Fairlane chassis was quite different underneath. While our cars share the exact same radiator support, front fender aprons and #1 and #2 crossmembers as the 70-71 cars, the rails and the towers back is completely different. The front clip is mated to essentially the same floor pan and rear clip as the 65-70s. I had a 70 Torino GT way back and one of the projects I wanted to complete was to retrofit a 71-73 Saginaw steering box to eliminate the external power assist setup.

As far as weight is concerned, the 69-70 were not that much lighter than 71-72 cars. The 73s added about 80lbs when comparing identical cars, with the bumper and shock absorbers. See the Mach 1 listed weights below.

Some specs below from the dealer facts books. Keep in mind the 70 & 71 are

1970 advertised weight



1971 advertised weight




1973 advertised weight

 

[cjstaci]

The 71’s look longer, only 2inches longer than the 69-70, that would hardly be noticeable. Since the front end is squared off, not tapered like the previous years, it adds to look of being longer.
The reason the 71-73 were wider was because they wanted to put the BOSS 429 in them, but never happened because Ford quit the racing program in 71. The Boss will fit nicely and would look awesome. Just think, 800or 900hp pump gas Kasse B-429 with AC

 

[Stanglover]

Been dealing with that BS since my first '73 back in 1989. Us 71-73 types always were looked down on. Then, people found out about the Boss 351 and all of a sudden, the 71-73s are "cool".


I consider our generation a hybrid, and could get on board with that. The 66-71 Fairlane chassis was quite different underneath. While our cars share the exact same radiator support, front fender aprons and #1 and #2 crossmembers as the 70-71 cars, the rails and the towers back is completely different. The front clip is mated to essentially the same floor pan and rear clip as the 65-70s. I had a 70 Torino GT way back and one of the projects I wanted to complete was to retrofit a 71-73 Saginaw steering box to eliminate the external power assist setup.

As far as weight is concerned, the 69-70 were not that much lighter than 71-72 cars. The 73s added about 80lbs when comparing identical cars, with the bumper and shock absorbers. See the Mach 1 listed weights below.

Some specs below from the dealer facts books. Keep in mind the 70 & 71 are

1970 advertised weight

View attachment 62390

1971 advertised weight


View attachment 62391

1973 advertised weight

View attachment 62392

Interesting, but why is a Boss 351 190 lbs heavier than a Mach 1? That seems odd to me, or is that a misprint?

 

[tony-muscle]

I think that a lot has been inherited from the 70s when racers such as Shelby were not supportive of the bigger sizes. Shelby's ideal car was a light car such as the Cobra with a big engine. He really liked the early Mustangs but he already was considering the 1970 too big for racing. I agree that from the pure racing perspective low weight is key but there are a lot of features in the 71-73 cars that made them better than its predecessors. That said, a lot of the crowd from those days that are around in car shows will have that mentality since that's what they were focused on back in the day. So all these comments have been passed over the years without much merit in today's standards of high performance street use.

 

[will e]

I've owned mine for a few decades. The hate that used to be there for these cars has mostly dried up. Just yesterday I was talking to a guy about my car, he had come over to take pictures. I said "Yeah, most Mustang folks don't like these cars". He replied "I don't think that's true anymore".

I liked our body style for the extra room it afforded me. I am a bit taller than most so I enjoyed the extra room.

 

[Ron Tanzi]

Been dealing with that BS since my first '73 back in 1989. Us 71-73 types always were looked down on. Then, people found out about the Boss 351 and all of a sudden, the 71-73s are "cool".


I consider our generation a hybrid, and could get on board with that. The 66-71 Fairlane chassis was quite different underneath. While our cars share the exact same radiator support, front fender aprons and #1 and #2 crossmembers as the 70-71 cars, the rails and the towers back is completely different. The front clip is mated to essentially the same floor pan and rear clip as the 65-70s. I had a 70 Torino GT way back and one of the projects I wanted to complete was to retrofit a 71-73 Saginaw steering box to eliminate the external power assist setup.

As far as weight is concerned, the 69-70 were not that much lighter than 71-72 cars. The 73s added about 80lbs when comparing identical cars, with the bumper and shock absorbers. See the Mach 1 listed weights below.

Some specs below from the dealer facts books. Keep in mind the 70 & 71 are

1970 advertised weight

View attachment 62390

1971 advertised weight


View attachment 62391

1973 advertised weight

View attachment 62392

We do have the luxury of having a fuel tank that is not the trunk floor. I forgot that the floor pans/frame rails are "roughly" the same as the 65-70 cars. Are you on board that our cars are their own generation? As always, great data Hemikiller! You know your stuff.

Ron

 

[Mister 4x4]

Here's some more visual proof that our Clydesdales aren't as big as everybody thinks. Took me a long time to find all these pics.

'70 Boss 302 vs. Late Model


'70 vs. '71


'71 vs. Late Model (I think the Late Models look smaller by themselves when you consider how proportional the wheels are to the overall size of the car).


Late Model vs. '71-'72. The Late Model looks like a mini-van in comparison.


Even the '69-'70 Shelbys look bigger than the '69-'70 Mustangs... and they're the same platforms. Probably has to do with the more squared-off front corners... which coincidentally look an awful lot like the '71-'73 noses (or vice versa, more like).


It's the same across the board with the other manufacturers, too. I know my wife's 2015 RS Camaro looks huge compared to my buddy's '67.

 

[Hemikiller]

Interesting, but why is a Boss 351 190 lbs heavier than a Mach 1? That seems odd to me, or is that a misprint?

Those weight figures will be base model cars. Mach 1 base would be 302/3speed/8inch rear. The Boss would have the 351C/toploader/9" plus the larger and heavier 15x7/F60-15 combination and a rear way bar.

 

[71ProjectJunk]

If interested, attached photo is my actual scale weight with full tank, tool kit and misc. trunk stuff(20 lbs), 1972 Mach, 351c, manual tranny:
FYI: my 72 is 105 lbs LIGHTER then my friends 1970 428 Mach with c6, weighed the same day. (it was a great day for me with friend betting lunch and beer )

This makes much more sense than the idea that the 71-73's are 150-200 lbs heavier than the 69-70's. The story is that the 429/460 big blocks weigh about 140-170 lbs more than the 351 C. So, if you car had the 429/460 it would have weighed probably 35-65 pounds more than your friends 69-70, which is not a big deal, and the 429/460 engines are heavier than the FE. I would be willing to bet that that if you took 2 empty shells, one of a 71 and one of a 70, the weight difference would be less than 100 pounds, would not be surprised if it ended up less than 50 pounds.

 

[Greg]

I really could care less what generation they are considered, but since they have always been called first generation, I'm fine with that even though to me they have always been somewhat different like the 74-78 Mustang II's are different from ours. And being the 74-78 are called Mustang II's that means ours might have to be considered 1 1/2 generation if we want to differentiate. Yes people have hated the 71-73's, but the 74-78 Mustang II's have had far more haters. How many of you hate them? Haters have kept our cars more affordable in the past and still more affordable than the "actual" first generation cars. We all see cars we hate somewhat. I hate all four door look alike cars you see everywhere. Let them hate all they want. I miss my 74 Mustang 4cyl. Loaded Ghia with sunroof and would like to find one some day, but are harder to find than our cars nowadays because I believe they were hated all the way to the crusher.

 

[AcesArneson]

If interested, attached photo is my actual scale weight with full tank, tool kit and misc. trunk stuff(20 lbs), 1972 Mach, 351c, manual tranny:
FYI: my 72 is 105 lbs LIGHTER then my friends 1970 428 Mach with c6, weighed the same day. (it was a great day for me with friend betting lunch and beer )

Nice ride

 

[AcesArneson]

Indeed, but this subject could get 'off track' in a hurry if we start comparing "size"!!
As someone with some design training, it comes down to perception created by lines. Certain lines can create the illusion of bulkiness, while others create the illusion of sleekness. Get the idea? On our cars, I think the illusion is caused by the styling along the fenders, through the doors, blending out in the quarter panel. Take that away and these cars would look no bigger then the 70 body. Also, the 71-73 cars are a bit lower and also give the illusion of being bigger.

I think they look so long because of the nose. Look at what this guy did with a hood scoop. Seems like over-kill to have NASA hood with a Hood-scoop but it does break up the lines and make the car look beefier and not so long.

 

[Stanglover]

Those weight figures will be base model cars. Mach 1 base would be 302/3speed/8inch rear. The Boss would have the 351C/toploader/9" plus the larger and heavier 15x7/F60-15 combination and a rear way bar.

Ah, yes. You're a genius.

 

[Cleveland Crush]

Here's some more visual proof that our Clydesdales aren't as big as everybody thinks. Took me a long time to find all these pics.

'70 Boss 302 vs. Late Model
View attachment 62410

'70 vs. '71
View attachment 62411

'71 vs. Late Model (I think the Late Models look smaller by themselves when you consider how proportional the wheels are to the overall size of the car).
View attachment 62412

Late Model vs. '71-'72. The Late Model looks like a mini-van in comparison.
View attachment 62413

Even the '69-'70 Shelbys look bigger than the '69-'70 Mustangs... and they're the same platforms. Probably has to do with the more squared-off front corners... which coincidentally look an awful lot like the '71-'73 noses (or vice versa, more like).
View attachment 62414

It's the same across the board with the other manufacturers, too. I know my wife's 2015 RS Camaro looks huge compared to my buddy's '67.
View attachment 62415

Great job on the side by side photos Mister. Another teachable 71-73 moment for the unwashed masses, whom do not have a clue about the pinnacle of first generation Mustang development!

 

[steves73]

My 73 cougar is 3700 lbs. Cleveland and Fmx. I heard the Fmx is heavier than the C6, and that front bumper must be 100 lbs.

 

[71ProjectJunk]

Only thing I can think of is a bad radiator cap, or the tube that goes out of the radiator cap, or the hose that comes out of that tube is clogged. So, basically the radiator cannot "breath" as it cools down and the coolant contracts.

 

[machcrazy]

Would anyone out there agree with me that our cars are their own generation? They are based on the 69/71 Torino platform not the Falcon.

Ron

 

[machcrazy]

I've always thought without a doubt the last full size years 71 - 73 were the most stylish American sport car. Finally a model that truely rivaled the corvette.