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

7173Mustangs.com

Help Support 7173Mustangs.com:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Nice write-up! It's funny how 40+ years later very few care about what "class" it was in back then. Bring on all challengers (pun intended) our cars are just point blank one of the most stylish and best damn classic/muscle cars on planet earth!!! That's why we drive them with such pride, and others envy us as we pass!

:run_horse: :run_horse: :run_horse: :run_horse: :run_horse: :run_horse: :run_horse: :run_horse:

My $.02!

John

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
I seriously DOUBT a 71-73 Mach 1 would "handle & perform better" than a 1970 Boss 302....PLease don't let your unbridled enthusiasm for 71-73 Mach 1s cloud the facts...Mark
 
I seriously DOUBT a 71-73 Mach 1 would "handle & perform better" than a 1970 Boss 302....PLease don't let your unbridled enthusiasm for 71-73 Mach 1s cloud the facts...Mark
It definitely does handle better. At least on the road. I tried both. Believe me, it does.

In terms of performance ... That depends on personal preference.

 
Stock-to-stock, a 71 BOSS 351 would most definitely out-handle a BOSS 302. It would flat embarass a 69 B2, and would still handily beat a 70 B2.

Comparing Mach 1- to- Mach 1: same story there: the 71 would best the 69/70 versions.

And thats not putting down the previous models, its just that the 71s had many important updates and improvements, so they should handle better.

The small-block cars were decent stock, and with a few tweaks could be made into pretty good handlers.

By comparison, the big-block cars are terrible. No matter what you do to them, they just want to go in a strsight line. Having so much weight placed FORWARD of the front spindles does horrific things for handling.

But, they sure do look good!

And, I have "unbridled enthusiasm" for all classic Mustangs, and have owned several. In fact I think the 70 Mach is my favorite of all, based on looks alone.

 
I like all of the classic mustang's, camaro's, chevelles, corvetts, chargers, cuda's, challengers, etc. The'60's had and early '70's had the coolest looking cars ever.

As for mustang's, I think the 71-3convert's are the best looking convertibles.

they look sexy and racy. For fastbacks I think the 69 and 71-3's are the best looking. It's the curves, angles and sharp lines. I think the 71-3's look like race cars...going fast when they are sitting still.

Just my opinion.

Staci

 

Latest posts

Back
Top