WERM

Mustang was redesigned in both 1969 and 1971.

guionM

OK, here goes:

1) Mustang in 1969 was a redesign on a carryover chassis. The 1971 while also a redesign, was far more extensive. In short, Mustang was redesigned both years.

2) Between Chevrolet's 5,000 dealers plus Pontiac's, it would be humiliating if GM hadn't sold more F-bodies than Ford did Mustangs & Capris. It's bad enough that those 5000 Chevrolet dealers couldnt push as many Camaros as the 3800-4000 Ford dealers did with Mustang and 1500 Mercury dealers with Capri.

3) The Mustang beat Camaro & Firebird combined in 1967, 1970, 1974, 1981, 1988, 1989, & 1990. None of these years was the victim the 4th gen f-body. All except 1981 (with Capri) was done by Mustang singlehandedly.

4) Throughout the 1980s, the relatively old Mustang and the newer Camaro were engaged in a horserace (no pun intended) that was both close & seesawed throughout the decade. If it makes you feel any better, Firebird beat Capri in the years it was made.

5) Camaro sales spiked in 1997, corresponding to a new interior & taillights, & Mustang's in 98, the year of Camaro's new nose. Make your own opinions there.

6) Can't really argue the 4th gen's overall performance compared to the 3rd gen, so you got me there.

kizz

Selective memory, anyone?

You forgot that the f-body also lost in 1993, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. That's 8 out of 10 4th gen years trailing to the mustang. 80% loss, while no other generation did worse than 36% loss. Your 4th gen performance claim is true, but irrelevant, since apparently buyers put their money where their mouth is, and the lower-performance mustang somehow managed to dominate the higher-performance 4th gen.

1st gen lost by a pretty close margin of 976498 to 1091349; 2nd gen won 3162262 to 2779967; 3rd gen won by the biggest margin of 2369599 to 1775916; and as of 1999, 4th gen was behind 806279 to 946858, and only getting worse as you can see yourself from the dismal 2000 - 2001 camaro numbers. If you can dispute any of those numbers, be my guest.

Might I add that the oil crisis cars, the late 2nd gen and early 3rd gen; the ones that always have their motors and wheels swapped and spraypainted flat black and 3 shades of grey, the cars nobody wants anymore, were some of the best selling f-bodies ever, relative to the economy and the mustang. Pretty ironic, isn't it? the olds 403, turbo 301, L69, crossfire, iron duke, pretty much *anything* pre-TPI, those are the ones frowned upon now but in their time they were the very same ones that sold like hotcakes and helped to cement the f-body and ensure it wouldn't turn into a FWD Citation like some people wanted. How quickly we forget. The LS1 is not anyone's saviour, as evidenced by the 2003 camaro.. the non-existent one.

GT

kizz

The mustang may have gotten a refresh job in 71 or somewhere there about, but 69-73 is the 2nd gen. Only reason I pointed it out at all is to show that the asterisk on that list should be next to 69 not 71. Like I said, just a trivial detail, no big deal.

ProudPony

This IS my forte, so I must pipe in here... let's get Mustang evolution straight once and for all.

As far a Mustang generation evolution goes, it's like this...

1st gen (Falcon/Torino cars) -- 64.5 thru 73
2nd gen (Ghia/Pinto cars) -- 74 thru 78
3rd gen (Fairmont/Futura Fox bodies) -- 79 thru 93
4th gen (SN - stand alone platform) -- 94 thru present.
5th gen (DEW-lite platform) -- 04 thru ???

There seems to be an issue with '69 and '71 updates, so lets clear those up too. The refresh in '69 was pretty much skin/interior only, but the body dimensions DID increase slightly - the 428 CJ engines had been installed since '68, the 427SOHC and 390GT motors had been going in since '67 - so with these powerplants, there were no issues with engine bay space. The '71 had both skin and engine bay driven changes, but the main unibody did not change much otherwise and it remained on the same platform and assembly lines. It continued to share platform with the Torino, Cougar, and Montego. Ford wanted to facilitate the 429SCJ Drag-Pac into the '71 Mustangs but it has a much wider deck than the FE-blocks (390, 428, etc) or small blocks (302, 351W, 351C) Ford had previously been using . The engine bay was widened by @ 3" between shock towers, ALL '71-'73 Mustangs got export bracing between shock towers and firewalls, and the length of the engine bay was opened about 3-4" from firewall to radiator support.

I would also like to point out 2 bizarre points that are linked to the "fattening of the Mustangs" from '69-'73...

1) '71 was the ONLY time that the Mustang was "designed around the engine", and it was a flop in most opinions. MORE bizarre is that only 1865 of the 429SCJ (RamAir or not) equipped 71 Mach I's were produced, and the engine was dropped in '72 alltogether, leaving the R-code 351 Cleveland as the biggest engine available with 335hp... Talk about changing philosophy!! Perhaps it was dropped because the '71 BOSS 351 was faster in the 1/4, lighter, and handled better, all with better economy too?!?! While the bigger, heavier cars with wider wheel-tracking made them handle great and ride great, it made the car very cumbersome and unattractive to many, not to mention visibilty over the longer hood and almost NO rear-view with the fastbacks - ergo the sales drops thru '71, '72, and '73 over the '69-'70 models.

2) It was GM's own "Bunkie" Knudsen that defected to ford in the '60s and drove the design of the '69 thru '73 Mustangs to be so large. Bunkie was the driving force behind ALL Ford products getting mammoth proportions in the early '70s - the T-bird, the LTDs, the Torinos... everything except the Pinto and Maverick balloned under his authoritative signature. The cool thing about Knudsen was that he was performance oriented too - he had much to do with creating the Mach I back in '69 which ran all the way thru the '73 models under his eye. He also authorised Shinoda to develop the BOSS 429 , BOSS 302 , and BOSS 351 . (I love pics... )

I have yet to decide whether Bunkie was a sacrificial "plant" at Ford, put there to run things in the ground - or if he was actually a good thing... He sure made big fat ugly cars, but he liked to put power in them. He also authorized the development of Mach I and BOSS Mustangs, which are still legendary to this day. How many of you guys knew the Mach I was actually a concept largely thought up and promoted by a GM guy that couldn't sell it in the General's house?

OK - 'nuf history for 1 day...

guionM

Mustang owners & historians would strongly disagree & I can't say I blame them. The 69 was a rebody, while the 71 was much along the same lines as our 4th gen, but even moreso because the dimensions changed greatly & the styling changed directions. The '69 is what the S197 is stylistically based on. The '71 is the blunt nose version with the flatback:

1968: http://www.geocities.com/~mustangs68/
1969: http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/D...517/Mach1.html
1971: http://www.sml.lr.tudelft.nl/~home/r...s/mustan01.htm

As you see, the 68 & 69 were much the same, while the "71-73 were radically different. Mustang tends to go through many more updates than Camaro does.

Also, no selective memory (not yet anyway ), I simply wanted to show that Mustang did win the sales race before the 4th gen came out. You had me on the sales performance of the 4th gen....it has been disappointing. It's a shame too. The 4th gen is certainly the best built and quickest Camaros ever made.

As far as the 70s & 80s Camaro, of course they aren't desireable. There were so many of them. I remember in the late 70s, mid 60s Mustangs were still a dime a dozen. It's usually the rare cars that are sought after. That's why I think LS1 F-Bodies will be pretty valuable in about 10-15 years unless we have economy sedans that are as fast, which isn't all that unlikely considering there are a few FWD sedans today that are LT1 quick.

guionM

On the '69 Mustang link, you'll have to scroll down a bit to see it.

Z28Wilson

EEK! Sorry but I had forgotten just how nasty the early 70's Mustangs were...that '71 is..well....

guionM

You are 100% correct about Bunkie Knudsen. He & Iacocca had a royal conflict over Mustang, with Iacocca felling Mustang was leaving it's market & no longer attracting youthful buyers. He actually started the MustangII's "Arizona project" in 1969 (yes, BEFORE the '71 even came out. The Mustang's sales drop in '71 pretty much gave Iacocca all the ammo he needed. Ironcally, it was purely dumb luck (and nothing more) that the Mustang II came out at the begining of a major fuel shortage.

As strange as it sounds today, Mustang II saved the Mustang. It surely would have died (at least till the fox cars) if it wasn't for that car.

kizz

68 & 69 were similar, pretty much identical on the front, but from the door back I don't see any similarity. I see more similarity between the 69 & 71 than I do between the 68 & 69. If I stand corrected, so be it. mustangs aren't my area of expertise by any means. I just know that whatever they did in 69 caused a brand new look which looked bloated and too big and the look remained till 73, and I can't justify calling 64.5 - 73 the 1st gen. The 64.5/68's are the original looking ones which are pretty common and decent looking that they're still daily drivers for lots of people around here anyway. Even see a fastback now and then, just being driven daily.

ProudPony

Point well made. I don't disagree that there were alot of changes that year to be sure, but if you look at the MCA show classes, talk to the owners, or even look at the catalog offerings, you will see a decided majority choose to use 65-73 as the "originals", or the 1st generation delimiters. I didn't make the rules, I just learn to play by them.

Interestingly, the Mustang had interior and/or exterior changes every year from 64.5 thru 71. The 72 was the first year that there was no discernable changes to the car. Impending doom to blame there, with the M-II being developed. So change has always been a constant in the Mustang.

kizz - I hear your side, and agree about the '69 looking very similar to the'71. As for the '68 and the '69, well I can't say you are wrong at all because taste and impressions are personal things, not facts. But I politely disagree about the '68-'69 front end likenesses. The '68 had 2 headlamps, the '69 has 4. The '68 grill has a pony-in-corral, the '69 has pony across tri-bars. '69 has different running lamps and turn signals too. Also, if '69 coupe (not Mach 1) is optioned with side scoops behind the doors, they all appear to be fat and upside-down, pushing air out, not scooping it in! The '68 side scoops really appear to be scoops and are very slender. This is really goofy stuff to someone who doesn't collect them like I do, and I realize that, but to me the '68 and '69 look ALOT different. As for body/interior likenesses, they "pair" like this... 64.5-66 (same), 67-68 (same), 69-70 (same), 71-73, 74-78, 79-86, 87-93, 94-98, 99-now.


Also, the '71 - '73 Mustangs were styled largely after the '69 Shelby version of the Mustang - from grill opening to fog lamps and even hood scoops. Funny (not-funny actually) how they made the last big original Mustang look just like the last Original Shelby... hmmm...

Peace.

WERM

I would just like to point out that the 68 and 69 Mustangs share no exterior sheetmetal. Aside from perhaps the carpet, the interior was entirely different as well. Sounds like a new car to me.

kizz

Well good, the last 2 posts just go to prove my original point that the 68 was the last year of the original sheet metal and the original overall style, and that 69 was a whole new ball game with major updates. Then after I got replies suggesting I was a lunatic, I conceded to guionM that OK yeah, the 69 front is similar to the 68 front and maybe 64-73 are all related or based on the same platform. Well who knows. I don't know what year is the technical generation and what isn't, but I do know that what my eye likes is the 65-68, and what it dislikes is the 69-73 (69-infinity, for that matter), so in order for there to be such high contrast of opinions between the two, they must've done something major in 69 to make it the first year of some new style that seemed to have lasted till 73. Who knows. I'm going back to my firebirds

guionM

rtt

guess who

Here this tid bit will bust your *****.
Since you guys had leaned to putting the F-body against the Mustang (dual cars to basicly one) Why not add up every car Ford made running on the FOX body.Heck throw in every car that ran on the Mustang platform over the years,That (other then guionM keeping it even,Good job BTW) would be such a beating IZ28 would .

Lets see Ill do a list.It might not be all of them but the point will be made.

Late 60's
Falcon,Torino, Cougar, and Montego.

70's
Pinto.

FOX body.
Capri,Cougar,T-Bird,Mark 7,LTD II,Fairmont,Zeypher.

So when you want to add a chassis to chassis regaurding a certain chassis lets do it RIGHT!

(guionM good job on trying to keep this even,But I figured I'd chime in and make the game EVEN once more,Well er sorta.Acctually it isnt even at all anymore! )

Proud Pony Im sure you notice some I missed,But I think what I put is enough to shut this combined sales down.
Oh yeah,I get to put this one in

MPFAROUT-----------THIS POST IS FOR YOU!!!!!!