WHY? are 71-73 stangs so big?

Help Support 7173Mustangs.com:

Greg

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
113
Reaction score
49
Location
Vallejo California
My Car
I have a 71 Mach 1 grabber blue and white, a 73 Mach 1 Copper and White with power sunroof and a 73 Convertible all loaded
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

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
342
Reaction score
75
Location
United States
My Car
1972 Ford Mustang Mach 1 bright red, standard black interior,pb,ps
gauge package.rim blow steering wheel,15" magnum 500s,351 C 2bbl running a 4bbl Holley 600,MSD 6a with stock distributor and Pertronix,Comp cam mild grind, The Engine(rebuilt by me in 2002 for the second time the first rebuild I did was stock in 1995) made 305hp and 358 lb ft on the dyno. 9" 2.75 rear end,Global west sub frame connectors,620 front coils.Rear defroster. My parents bought my car brand new the year before I was born. I cherish it like my child.
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

Well-known member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,668
Reaction score
935
Location
Killingworth, CT
My Car
71 Mach 1
65 coupe
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

70 weight.JPG

1971 advertised weight


71 weight.JPG

1973 advertised weight

73 weight.JPG
 
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
92
Reaction score
36
Location
Seattle
My Car
71 conv,429cj, 4spd 3.5 N-case, it's not an original but the running gear is correct.

69 Fastback, it's a project. going to be a built BBF with a Lenco 5spd. Looking to get the car in the mid 8 to low 9 sec and still be streetable. I just hope I get it done before I am too old to drive it. lol.
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😎
 
Joined
Sep 12, 2015
Messages
5,909
Reaction score
974
Location
SW Ontario
My Car
1971 Mustang Mach 1, M code, 4 speed.
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?
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
3,584
Reaction score
544
Location
Madison, WI
My Car
1971 M-Code Mach 1 w/408C stroker
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.
 
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
148
Location
Phoenix
My Car
'73 mustang convt.
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

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
342
Reaction score
75
Location
United States
My Car
1972 Ford Mustang Mach 1 bright red, standard black interior,pb,ps
gauge package.rim blow steering wheel,15" magnum 500s,351 C 2bbl running a 4bbl Holley 600,MSD 6a with stock distributor and Pertronix,Comp cam mild grind, The Engine(rebuilt by me in 2002 for the second time the first rebuild I did was stock in 1995) made 305hp and 358 lb ft on the dyno. 9" 2.75 rear end,Global west sub frame connectors,620 front coils.Rear defroster. My parents bought my car brand new the year before I was born. I cherish it like my child.
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

Too Big to Sneak
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
8,134
Reaction score
367
Location
San Angelo, Texas
My Car
1971 Mustang Mach 1
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
DSC00263-1-1.jpg

'70 vs. '71
mach1vs70mach.jpg

'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).
IMG_0476.JPG

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

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).
69comparison.jpg

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.
cars&coffee20180519-1.jpg
 

Hemikiller

Well-known member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,668
Reaction score
935
Location
Killingworth, CT
My Car
71 Mach 1
65 coupe
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.
 
Joined
Jul 27, 2021
Messages
744
Reaction score
542
Location
East Texas
My Car
1971 Mustang Mach 1 M code 351 4 speed
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

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
113
Reaction score
49
Location
Vallejo California
My Car
I have a 71 Mach 1 grabber blue and white, a 73 Mach 1 Copper and White with power sunroof and a 73 Convertible all loaded
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.
 
Last edited:

AcesArneson

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2019
Messages
54
Reaction score
18
Location
Fort Mac, Alberta
My Car
1973 Mustang convertible H code 351C-2V Playmate Pink
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

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2019
Messages
54
Reaction score
18
Location
Fort Mac, Alberta
My Car
1973 Mustang convertible H code 351C-2V Playmate Pink
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.
 

Attachments

  • 1973-ford-mustang-mach-1.jpg
    1973-ford-mustang-mach-1.jpg
    71.5 KB · Views: 19
Joined
Dec 14, 2017
Messages
113
Reaction score
84
Location
NW Pennsylvania
My Car
1972 Grabber Blue Mach One 351 Q code orig 4 speed. Now: 427C Titus
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

Active member
Joined
May 26, 2015
Messages
31
Reaction score
11
Location
Toronto
My Car
73 rusty convertible
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.
 
Joined
Jul 27, 2021
Messages
744
Reaction score
542
Location
East Texas
My Car
1971 Mustang Mach 1 M code 351 4 speed
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

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2018
Messages
17
Reaction score
17
Location
Temecula, CA
My Car
72 Mach1
351 Cleveland 4v
Automatic overdrive transmission
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
 

Attachments

  • FB_IMG_1648609315839.jpg
    FB_IMG_1648609315839.jpg
    67.3 KB · Views: 8
Top