Wikipedia on the 71-73

[Thin Lizzy]

Has anyone read the write up of the 71-73 Mustang on the Mustang Wikipedia page entitled "Downfall." It comes across as a really negative description, especially the comments describing the car as "Fat and lazy" and the cars design as a "styling misadventure." As far as I can see it's someone's opinion and subjective.

Are there any Wiki editors out there? If so it would be great to see this page edited into a more objective description of the car.

Below is the Wiki description:

Downfall
Developed under the watch of "Bunkie" Knudsen, the Mustang evolved "from speed and power" to the growing consumer demand for bigger and heavier "luxury" type designs. "The result were the styling misadventures of 1971–73 ... The Mustang grew fat and lazy," "Ford was out of the go-fast business almost entirely by 1971." "This was the last major restyling of the first-generation Mustang." "The cars grew in every dimension except height, and they gained about 800 pounds (363 kg)." "The restyling also sought to create the illusion that the cars were even larger." The 1971 Mustang was nearly 3 inches (76 mm) wider than the 1970, its front and rear track was also widened by 3 inches (76 mm), and its size was most evident in the SportsRoof models with its nearly flat rear roofline and cramped interior with poor visibility for the driver. Performance decreased with sales continuing to decrease as consumers switched to the smaller Pintos and Mavericks. A displeased Iacocca summed up later: "The Mustang market never left us, we left it."

 

[Mikes73]

Those statements made by them are absurd, almost everybody that checks out our fat and lazy mustang loves the body style, so much for misadventures lol.

 

[rocket366]

Interesting

Thanks for posting that!

Paul

 

[Hemikiller]

Complete BS, it came from the late 80's Mustang Restoration Handbook, which was written when the only "real" Mustangs were the 65-70s. Notice they leave out any mention of the 429CJ/SCJ and the Boss 351, two of the fastest mustangs ever made - don't want to "dilute" the purity of the breed.

https://books.google.com/books?id=O4cgtFh_asEC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Bdrennan]

All I can go by is the "eye test". I have NEVER driven my car without at least one person giving me the "Thumbs Up".

It may not be a Super Car, buy my 351C runs pletty good for me. Sounds Awesome and makes me smile. If "Purists" don't like, or respect that. Well, they can pound sand.

I personally don't like the looks of the 65 coupe. Very benign looking, but that is just my opinion.

I have been in love with the 71-73 body style since I was young. I used to walk by a 73 fastback everyday on the way to school. I remember that was the meanest looking car I had ever seen. Now I have my 73 convertible and I find myself in the garage just looking at it all the time.

Again, that is just me and to each his own. However, I like driving something you never see. Makes people do a double take.

 

[peche 71]

I've heard from people that they think the 71-73's have much more character and personality in the way they look.

 

[Boss1Ray]

Cudak888 (Kurt) took a lot of time as a WIKI editor to correct the negativity and post some very good information about our cars. But some _____ keeps getting on there just to try and cause trouble and post stuff like you see there now.

Ray

 

[jb73Mach]

Maybe he can get back on and include a link to this site for those who appreciate 7173s.

 

[cudak888]

I have only made efforts to clean up the "Ford Mustang (First Generation)" main article (in nauseating detail, especially under the Conception and Styling subheader - the original car is notoriously attributed to Donald Frey, David Ash, or Joe Oros, even though it was a team effort also involving Gale Haldeman, who gives one of the best summaries of how the car came to be in his interview with Collectible Automobile), not the Ford Mustang summary page for the entire run of the car.

That said, I don't particularly have time to work on the main article. That section has been there since 2014 - if not earlier - and it's well cited. Replacing it will require a well written replacement.

I'll consider replacing the section if the forum can collectively give me a finished or half-finished draft of text to work with. It must be a well-researched summary of the final years of the first generation Mustang; preferably including '69 and '70, and Ford's decision to downsize to the II. Make it detailed, brief, NEUTRAL, and back it with sources of equal strength to those presently cited.

-Kurt

 

[will e]

I am not going to sweat it.

 

[Jim and Jutta]

Well there was one thing accurate about our cars, "poor visibility for the driver" but I disagree with the rest, plus where in the heck did they come up with a weight gain of 800lbs when the 71-73's came out?

Ford Mustang Mach I 351 2V V-8, model year 1970, 3240 lbs base curb weight. Ford Mustang Mach I 351 2V V-8, model year 1971,curb weight 3391 lbs.

= A staggering 151 pounds heavier

 

[jeremycfr]

Well there was one thing accurate about our cars, "poor visibility for the driver" but I disagree with the rest, plus where in the heck did they come up with a weight gain of 800lbs when the 71-73's came out?

Ford Mustang Mach I 351 2V V-8, model year 1970, 3240 lbs base curb weight. Ford Mustang Mach I 351 2V V-8, model year 1971,curb weight 3391 lbs.

= A staggering 151 pounds heavier

My 2015 weighs more.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Boss1Ray]

The newer Mustangs are wider as well.

Ray

Sent from my HP 10 using Tapatalk

I have only made efforts to clean up the "Ford Mustang (First Generation)" main article (in nauseating detail, especially under the Conception and Styling subheader - the original car is notoriously attributed to Donald Frey, David Ash, or Joe Oros, even though it was a team effort also involving Gale Haldeman, who gives one of the best summaries of how the car came to be in his interview with Collectible Automobile), not the Ford Mustang summary page for the entire run of the car.

That said, I don't particularly have time to work on the main article. That section has been there since 2014 - if not earlier - and it's well cited. Replacing it will require a well written replacement.

I'll consider replacing the section if the forum can collectively give me a finished or half-finished draft of text to work with. It must be a well-researched summary of the final years of the first generation Mustang; preferably including '69 and '70, and Ford's decision to downsize to the II. Make it detailed, brief, NEUTRAL, and back it with sources of equal strength to those presently cited.

-Kurt

Kurt,

I now don't think the article as mentioned originally was the one you worked on. I do remember you spending a lot of effort on cleaning one up for us. I am appreciative of your time and research.

I have relented to the fact that you can't control the misinformation on the net about our cars. Trying to keep the info here correct is tough enough.

Again thanks for your contributions

Ray

Sent from my HP 10 using Tapatalk

 

[Flatback72]

Back in 2012 I edited the page by adding the lines highlighted below in yellow. Within a day somebody else had changed it back

 

[tony-muscle]

Well there was one thing accurate about our cars, "poor visibility for the driver" but I disagree with the rest, plus where in the heck did they come up with a weight gain of 800lbs when the 71-73's came out?

Ford Mustang Mach I 351 2V V-8, model year 1970, 3240 lbs base curb weight. Ford Mustang Mach I 351 2V V-8, model year 1971,curb weight 3391 lbs.

= A staggering 151 pounds heavier

Weight of a 2015 Mustang V8 is 3700 lbs. Therefore, after 44 years of technology advancements it gained 300 lbs.

1971 M-code Mach 1

 

[Chopper]

It's not poor visibility when everyone's left in your dust!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk