Wow...They are really slamming on are cars on Wiki now

[VegasFastback]

Well no mustang has rear seats that a adult can realy use..hehe.I never been able to fit in any of them sence i was a kiddy...Plus they was designed for kids....the new mustangs are just as bad..I had to ride in the back of one too the drag strip..And with the front seat all the way forward..I still hardly fit..lol..And my neck hurt after the ride from leaning forward or keeping my body leaned over into the other seat..lol..No head room at all..Mustang 2 and 5.0...Omg...Nightmare...But same with camaro's and everything at the time....As for front leg room and such..I give it our years a+ for any mustang i have drove...Being 6'5" i realy know my space..hehe..Plus if you have the fold down seats like mine..You can hall alot of stuff back there .....+1 being written by someone who never been in one..lol

If you read the history the mustang's rear seats weren't designed to have passengers in them but to hold groceries.

I read the rear seats was designed for a small family..2 adults up front and 2 kids in back... originaly it was designed to be a 2 seater sports car....It was claimed that the decision to abandon the two-seat design was in part due to the low sales experienced with the 2-seat 1955 Thunderbird. To broaden market appeal it was later remodeled as a four-seat car.

It was before they even started selling the T-bird. One of the execs, the president I think, at ford drove one home and didn't like that there wasn't enough space in the car for thinks like groceries or other misc junk. So before they even hit the sales floor the next generation was being designed with rear seats. They kept this in mind when designing the mustang.

 

[droptop73]

Why bother with trying to educate those who refuse to be educated. Wkikpedia is the absolute worst "resource" ever developed.

BTW I moved my seats back 3", now the backseat is not even fit for very small children.

Moved your seats back 3 inches , holy crap you must be a GIANT ! Is that why we never see your car with the top up ?

I just like to sprawl out when behind the wheel!

 

[Kit Sullivan]

Its funny to me. As an original owner, I have witnessed this cars reputation and then legacy first-hand ever since late 1970, when I bought it.

When the 71s debuted in 70, the 65s were already starting to be heralded as "classics". It is mostly because of the enormous popularity of the original. By 1970, that popularity cooled off so much that the Mustang was treated as "just another car" by most everybody. The radical Daytona/ GT40 inspired styling was so bizzarly different that it garnered polarizing opinions...most either loved it or hated it. In 65,.they all loved it, there were no haters. And no previous Mustang to compare it too either.

The 71-3 had to live up to the 65, and it never could have. You can't live up to the publics unrealistic and inflated memory of a legend. Even if you made the legend originally.

Here are some examples:

KISS: Phenomanally popular in 1977, record stores could not keep albums in stock. Three short years later in 1980, they could barely sell anything. 5 years after that...all done. But they soldiored on, and could never live up to thier legendary status. Even though they were making music at least as good as before, often far better.

STAR TREK: The original was a cheap, low budget show than barely survived for three short years from 66-69. Every Star Trek product tocome after was better in every way: better production values, stories, acting, directing...everything. But none compares to the original in the publics eye.

40 years later and the radical 71 styling has been gotten used to, doesn't look so radical anymore. The problem wjth the 71 styling that most dont quite remember is that it looked very similar to the 71 Torino, and that WAS a bigger car. Most viewed the 71 Mustang then as more of a smaller off-shoot of the Torino platform than a rightful next-gen Mustang in its own right.

I never cared, the 71 was then, and remains to this day my favorite of all Mustangs.

And you think getting parts for 71-3s is tough today! You should have been around in the late 80s-early 90s. There was nothing!

 

[RobbyKillowatt]

If our mules are 3" wider how can they be more cramped?

Sounds to me like someone isn't very good with math.

I'm a good sized person (this means I am fat)

My biggest problem is rolling out of the big beast and that is because I am disabled.

As for Lacking power my baby can smoke the tires until I hit 2nd. gear because I have wound out 1st. gear to the point that I didn't want to blow the engine. I've smoked the tires for more than 100 feet NHRA style. I'm talking tree top high smoke that filled the intersection of a four lane road. If that isnt power then what is? Oh by the way I only have a 279:1 rear axle ratio in a 8" rear end. I can't wait until I stuff a 9" rear end with a 379:1 gear ratio wit limited slip differential. Will that still make me slow? :huh:

 

[Kit Sullivan]

...I've smoked the tires for more than 100 feet...tree top high smoke that filled the intersection of a four lane road. If that isnt power then what is? Oh by the way I only have a 2.79:1 rear axle ratio in a 8" rear end. I can't wait until I stuff a 9" rear end with a 379:1 gear ratio wit limited slip differential. Will that still make me slow? :huh:

That's not really power, that's just a lack of traction. An "open" rear-end can do burnouts all day in just about any car...even a 71 6-cyl Mustang can do a "one wheel peel".

When you get your new limited-slip diff, the tale will be told as to how much power you really have.

 

[Jim and Jutta]

Fat and lazy?




I couldn't resist. Here's the actual unmodified photo. It still clearly shows our cars are anything but fat and lazy as described by Wiki.

 

[mdan575]

I don't care what anyone says love my car. I have not ridden in another car that I can leave the windows down at 60 and very low noise. Everyone is building 65-70. So a 71-73 is always a fresh face. Also I know some have seen this article but many probably haven't. Great article but the last engine tested is the most important.

http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/hrdp_1001_muscle_car_engine_shootout/viewall.html

 

[coreysvt]

the thing about them being fat and slow... my dad had a 72 mach with a 2 barrel cleveland that was purchased new. He was big into street racing back then and after a little hot rodding (4 barrel heads, carb, cam, headers, ect) the car was a beast. He has tons of stories of racing some of the fastest cars of the day like 440 and 426 road runners, chargers, 454 Chevelles, ect. He didn't win them all, but most he did, and he had quite a name around here with the old street racers. When older people find out who my dad is the first thing that comes out of their mouth is "oh you're Byrdtowns son (Byrdtown was his nickname), he had a fast Mach 1 back in the day"

so maybe they where bigger, but definatly not slow.