Why are the 71-73 convertibles the best looking of the classic Mustangs?

[classicsguy]

I have read that 71-73 convertibles are the best looking of the classic mustang years..even by people who do not like these models. I love the look of the 65-68 not much the 69-70 in convertibles.What do you guys and gals think of why is the 71-73 the best looking despite their bigger size?

 

[JimNiki]

"Despite their bigger size?"

I don't know why people consider that a negative?

I wouldn't have bought mine or even fell in love with the 7-123's if they were any smaller.

 

[Austin Vert]

Yeah Jim,

Who gives a flying if they're a little bit bigger.

The bottom line is that these cars have their own style, flair and particular design appeal. I'm not saying that they are the bee all and end all of automotive design, but after 40 years of age, they are still turning heads and getting very positive, wow type feedback and response from the general public. That's a fact!! That speaks volumes!! That counts!! That ranks!! That is the truth for all to see!!!!

I'd pit my '73 Vert up against a '71 Cuda all day, and lets be honest, the Cuda is a good looker for sure, and one of the greats!





Greg.

 

[wwhite72]

Because Ford took styling cues from the 1969 Shelby. Also, consider the awful style of the camero, makes the mustang look better.

 

[Mister 4x4]

"Despite their bigger size." rofl Obviously, you've never seen a '71-'73 parked next to a 'new' model. LOL

Yes Greg - I would put your 'vert up against a 'Cuda or Challenger 'vert any day. ::thumb::

That's just a damn sexy beast no matter how you look at it:

And that's saying something because the '70-'74 Challenger is one of my all-time favorite muscle/pony cars (Top 3, for sure). I'm not as much of a fan of the 'cheese slicer' grille treatment of the 'Cuda... just looks cheap to me. But - things would be very different for me right now had I found a suitable and affordable specimen when I found my '71 Mach 1.

One of the best things working for the '71-'73 Mustang 'verts is that they almost look better with the roof up (not that they look bad with the roof stowed, by any means). I've been thinking for many years now that the '71-'73 Coupes would've been just that much cooler had they made the roof line look exactly like the 'verts with the roof up (again, not bashing the Coupes, either - everybody was just into the whole 'Ghia' rear window treatment back then... Ferraris, Corvettes, Lotus, etc.).

But over all, I'm in agreement with the '71-'73 'verts being the best-looking of the herd - and it's pretty damn tough to beat a '67-'68 Shelby 'vert, that's for sure.

 

[Austin Vert]

Thanks Eric for your kind words, and interesting feedback on this topic.I like Challengers'70-'72 myself, but my'73 definately delivers the goods.I really get a solid thumbs up from from a lot of people whenever i drive or show the car around.Yep, these '71-'73 Mustangs have got that special magic and style to them for sure.

Greg.

 

[pegasus]

I don't know?? love the 69 firebirds and 55-56 F-100's and a few others. I've owned a few classic Aussie cars XA, XB coupes and sedans. BUT I really can't get over how good/cool my 72 looks either sitting still or moving I think it just looks fast-cool and down right sexy, even tho I might be a tad bias, But fook I'm just flat out in love with my 72, **** I'm not even going to start on my 71 J-Code. as a yellow n back car that puppy is just soooo nice,

 

[71mach351]

"Despite their bigger size." rofl Obviously, you've never seen a '71-'73 parked next to a 'new' model.

I have my new 2013 parked next to the 71 in my garage for winter storage . You are right about the size. So I looked it up . Every exterior dimension is the same to within an inch or so.

 

[CZ-75]

They look big because of the long hood. But the area behind the driver is quite short... Kind of like an E-type Jag

 

[phagan63]

I don't agree with the "bigger" description myself. My 73 vert takes up less area in my garage than my 2010 Challenger.

I'm a bit torn on the "looks" department though. I'm sure I'll draw the ire of the deeply devoted Mustang lovers here. There's no doubt our 71-73's are gorgeous cars but ... given the chance to buy a 70 Challenger R/T for the same price I bought my 73 Mustang convertible ? ... I'm sorry Greg, but I'd opt for the Challenger :blush:

As luck would have it though, the cost of that 70 Challenger ; and my modest fire department pension, makes it an unattainable dream. That's why I have the 2010 instead :blush: So I am more than pleased with my 73 Mustang. I think that is another aspect that makes them so appealing, the relatively low cost when compared to some of the more "desirable" makes and models.

And then there's my 67 F100. It's a beater ... but I really love that truck

 

[Austin Vert]

Dear Mr Pegasus,

Boy, does your blue '72 look the goods!! She's a real sweet looker!

What kind of feedback are you getting from the street troops?

BTW - How would you feel if the rear rims had a deeper dished look to them?

I reakon that would be a real knockout look if you would or could do that, and also, anyone for tennis?

Hi Pat,

Hope you're well. Hey!, i know what you mean about the '70's Challengers.

Speaking of which, what do you think about your 2010 Challenger all 'round?

To buy one in Australia would cost big money with the needed conversion to right hand drive etc.

Now Pat, all you need to do, is look at my photo and make your's a Austin look alike to really give it the knockout treatment!!!

Hi CZ,

Yeah, the long hood gives the beast the dropdead georgous look for sure!

Hmmmmm - An E Type Mustjag, - I like that!!

Greg.

 

[Aussie67]

+1 on that blue 72. That is a knockout car.

Have to agree the cars do look big, but as you say, alongside a late model, not so much. It's very deceiving.

 

[phagan63]

Dear Mr Pegasus,

Boy, does your blue '72 look the goods!! She's a real sweet looker!

What kind of feedback are you getting from the street troops?

BTW - How would you feel if the rear rims had a deeper dished look to them?

I reakon that would be a real knockout look if you would or could do that, and also, anyone for tennis?

Hi Pat,

Hope you're well. Hey!, i know what you mean about the '70's Challengers.

Speaking of which, what do you think about your 2010 Challenger all 'round?

To buy one in Australia would cost big money with the needed conversion to right hand drive etc.

Now Pat, all you need to do, is look at my photo and make your's a Austin look alike to really give it the knockout treatment!!!

Hi CZ,

Yeah, the long hood gives the beast the dropdead georgous look for sure!

Hmmmmm - An E Type Mustjag, - I like that!!

Greg.

Hey Greg ! We're all "fine as frogs hair" here mate. I hope you and yours are doing well and enjoying the warm Christmas time weather there in Oz

Trying to keep a long story short ... Not long ago I was nearly married to an Aussie woman and planned on living there after I retired so ... yeah, I know what you mean about conversion costs to bring a car into Australia. Unfortunately our plans of marriage didn't quite work out. We're still great friends though and I'll probably be over there to visit sometime next year

So far I have enjoyed my 2010 Challenger immensely ! I bought it brand new and after putting 55,000 miles on it, have had no issues with it at all. It's still pretty much "stock". I've only added a cold air intake and complete handling package. It's the first "brand new" car I've ever owned so it's hard to make an honest comparison to any of the other newer cars. Comparing it to my older cars is like comparing apples to oranges, way too many differences.

I have to be honest, the previous owner of my 73 did most of the work on her before I brought her home so ... I can't take credit for the likeness with your beauty. However, it was her looks that convinced me to pry open my wallet and buy her I can't tell you how many compliments I get on the color scheme. Although she is still available for sale, so far I've received no serious offers and I'm growing more attached to her with each passing day

 

[Austin Vert]

Pat,

Glad your keeping well. Looks like you have taken to the Challenger well all 'round.

If you do ever make it out here down the track, and your travels bring you to Queensland, it would be fantastic to catch up and meet you. Just a thought.

By the sounds of it, you're having your own romantic affair back home,and falling in love with a certain Gold lady!

Take care mate!

Greg.

 

[pegasus]

G’Day Mr Austin,

Mmmm yer the deep dished rims would be a sweet look, But what I’ve got on there is the best I can do, We have some odd rego laws in W.A. one of them is ,You can only increase or decrease the track of a vehicle, front and/or rear by 1’ inch, so I had to custom order those rims, they have a 12mm offset, giving me 24mm total which is under the 1’ rule. They are 18x9.5 and have a 5.75’ back spacing, and they just scrape on the rear sway bar, it’s about 7/8’ diameter bar, need to find a rear bar with a different shaped side bend, if that makes sense, or go with a Total Control Products style bar which mounts under the diff.

That photo was taken at the national Mustang round up in Perth at the start of the year, Feed back was very possitive and more than i was expecting,

 

[gewalker]

I have a couple of theories on this:

1) "Gone in 60 Seconds" - not the (insert appropriate adjective here) remake with Nick Cage, but the original, no-budget Toby Halicki one. "Elanor" is a '71 base model rebadged as a '73 for the film and she's one of the baddest rides in the history of film.

2) Over time, the negative initial response to the big Mustangs has fallen by the wayside as people realize that these are really emblematic models. The early '70's Mustangs and Torinos in particular really document what a muscle car is supposed to look like in a way few others do. They're big, powerful, and tough-looking. Great lines and lots of killer details.

Sometimes I come around a corner and see the side profile of my car and I just stop and look for a minute. They really are gorgeous cars.

 

[Kit Sullivan]

History tends to look at things with a revisionist's eye. Quite contrary to what many feel today about the 71-73 Mustangs, they were not well-regarded when they were avsilable new. A resounding "thud" is how they were recieved back then.

The radical styling of the rear was a real love-it or hate-it kind of deal when it came out. Most reviewers and the public in general just did not like the styling of the sportsfoof, and the coupe and convertibles were just bland compared to earlier Mustangs.

71 was a poor seller, and the 72 Mustang holds the current dubious record for being the worst-selling original Mustang...and maybe of all time.

73 picked up a little due to being the last of the original Mustangs, as well as the last Ford convertible.

I think the styling was far ahead of its time. That is why our cars are so well-recieved today. They look "classic", but they dont look "dated" like older Mustangs do.

 

[cudak888]

For those who continue to cite the '71 Mustang's size as a legitimate detraction, I submit the following photo and question:

"If the '71 Mustang's size is too big for its own good, what is the Dodge Charger's excuse for being America's quintessential muscle car?"

Heck, half of the Chargers today are rolling around on tires one size too small, making it appear as if the C-pillar and quarter panel are going to cave in over the rear wheels. In all fairness though, stock makes sense:

Still, it is an 18 foot barge, and I bet these same folks wouldn't bat an eye at the luxury-barge based, 1970/71 Plymouth Sport Fury GT 440-6.

-Kurt

 

[Kit Sullivan]

Comparing the Charger to the Mustang is not fair: the Charger is a mid-sized car, the Mustang was then known as a small, "sporty" car. The term "Pony Car" was coined due to the Mustang's phenomonal popularity at the time.

Most of the "the 71 Mustang is too big" blather came from those who were comparing the new 71 to the previous models. The new 71 was indeed the largest Mustang ever made up that point. Longer, wider body, wider track, heavier and better equipped. It is no doubt a better car in terms of quality, design and performance.

The problem is that it shared basic design elements with the Torino...a mid sized car. It looked like a "baby Torino". The styling also makes the car look even bigger than it is.

The Mustang was developed and introduced as a small, inexpensive yet stylish and sporty "secretary's car". That is where it found it astounding early success and popularity.

Simultaneously, the "Super Car" ( Muscle Car) craze was heating up fast, and mid-size and small coupes are where the interest in that craze was pointed. Naturally, the Torino and the Mustang were perfect candidates to compete in this arena, so they had new shoes to fill.

It is no secret that the original Mustang was never intended as a serious performance car, and much effort was expended by Ford to give it a more "muscular" image.

The first tepid big-blocks that Ford could barely stuff into the 67s were mediocre performers compared to current competition.

When Knudsen took over at Ford, being an avowed performance fan, the decision to make the new Mustang a serious contender for street super-car supremacy was cast in stone. This is where the Mustang made a severe change in direction. No longer a sporty little "secretary's car", it was now a serious performance coupe.

Part of the reason for its enlargening was to make room for the new 429 and all the associated bracing and suspension to handle that big-block. Plans were for a beefed up 501 cubic inch Cobra Jet, and the continuation of the BOSS 429. Of course we know none of that came to be.

Mandatory safety equipment also influenced increases in size and weight in all vehicles...the Mustang could not escape that.

So, are the 71-73 Mustangs big? Yes, compared to earlier Mustangs.

But who cares? I like this model the best (obviously). It rides, handles and performs better than any previous Mustang. I think it looks great, as good as any other "classic" car, if not better.

The new Mustang is HUGE compared to our cars, and neccesarily so. Massive amounts of safety and emissions requirements make it so. Can't compare then to now.