T.J. wrote:Knurled wrote:I find them to barely be a step above the Mustang II. Never saw the appeal of those years at all. The earlier cars I can appreciate. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.ohms wrote: . But lets be honest. The original Eleanor was ugly.The '71-73 Mustang was the best looking Mustang before or since.
Knurled is correct, and the rest of you are wrong. The 71-73 Mustang is the best. Examples:
Yeah, you're not making your case there, they all look like ugly Javelins, so I can understand your confusion....
Trans_Maro wrote: 60s cars look wrong with big ghey hotweels-looking wheels and tires. Nothing bigger than a 15" wheel.
I finally got rid of the 15s on my 72 Firebird for 17s....much much better IMO of course.
My 78 will be keeping it's stock 15x8 snowflakes, but only because I'm keeping that one original. Same with the 71 chevelle and it's stock rallys.
turboswede wrote: Yeah, you're not making your case there, they all look like ugly Javelins, so I can understand your confusion....
Good point. Probably explains my love for XB Falcons, too...
I restored a '73 Mustang convertible.
Anything that's not a Mach 1 is a dog. The one I restored had a 2bbl 302. That thing couldn't get out of its own way if it tried.
Since it was a convertible, a wet noodle had less flex than this thing. There were more rattles than rocks in a can. Every time I hit a bump, I had to make sure the back end of the car was still attached.
Oh and this was after it was restored. 
Count me in as another that digs the '71-'73 mustang... but its gotta be a fastback. Maybe because it reminds me of Madmax. In fact I like all muscle/pony cars with a fastback or slanted back of that era.
A buddy of mine had a 72 or 73 Mach 1 when we were in High School.
Worst rearward visibility of any car EVER. Those fastbacks are ridiculously claustrophobic. If only they were fast enough so you didn't have to care who was behind you! His was not quick.....or fast. It was kinda cool though....in a huge kind of way.
The bigstangs might be too big, too heavy, et cetera for what I'd like to do with them, but, man, do they look good ...
Nicolas cage? Sounds like something you'd bolt in and race LeMons/ChumpCar 
nicksta43 wrote: You're either bating us or severely demented. The pinnacle of all things Mustang was:I agree with this. I loath Ford products but this is the only one I would ever own.
its the 71-74 that i think is ugly, not the 67/8s!
At risk of dodging tomatos, IMO the ugliest Mustangs were the 1979-93 Fox body, as it looked less Mustang than even the Mustang II.
I appreciate the 65-69 for their historical status, the 71-73 as they were much inspired by the 1969-70 Shelby, and the 2005-current as a tribute to the heyday of the Pony Cars, but my favorite bodylines are found on the 1970 Boss 302... the car I watched Parnelli race at Riverside. 
In reply to Flyin Mikey J:
You sir, did not grow up in the 1980's.
I made a photocopy of the CD road test of the '85 Mustang GT at the local library and carried it around with me wherever I went for weeks.
ddavidv wrote: Those cars would hold zero interest for most of us if not for her. If you've ever driven one (and I have) you won't care how it looks; they drive like AMC Matadors.
They are probably the only classic American car that I would consider owning, in the sense that any car I own WILL be driven so I don't throw money down for aesthetic value.
I like the feel, I adore the driving position (sit up, knees practically in your chest, steering wheel in your lap), I like that you could get them with a 429 but you're more likely to find a 351C model (which is also pretty sweet)....
Disclaimer: My first car was a '72 Ford. Not a Mustang, its bigger, somewhat doofusier brother. Same steering wheel and driving position though, just about a thousand more pounds. 429s don't seem to actually care about how much weight they pull though.
AquaHusky wrote: Also, the alignment guy said doing an alignment on them sucks because you have to take the wheels off to make adjustments. But I love the looks of them old Mustangs.
There's a cam bolt on the control arm and you move the nuts on the tension rod. It's 100% aligned from under the car.
Javelin wrote: Knurled is correct, and the rest of you are wrong. The 71-73 Mustang is the best.
Time to blow some peoples' minds.
In reply to ohms:
Yes, I understand and agree with you.
crankwalk wrote:nicksta43 wrote: I wish the remake had any other lead actor. I freaking hate Nicolas Cage with a passion. The only movie I think he has had a good performance in was Raising Arizona. After that he sucks. I have the original on DVD, as well as the original Italian Job. I like all of them, just hate Nick Cage.Also Fast Times at Ridgemont High
I have never seen this movie.
You must see that movie.
Zomby Woof wrote: You must see that movie.
Next he'll say that he never saw Ferris Bueller's Day Off.
In reply to Knurled:
I have seen that movie.
Knurled wrote:Zomby Woof wrote: You must see that movie.Next he'll say that he never saw Ferris Bueller's Day Off.
Funny story: I just saw that movie for the first time (ever) on Monday. Oh. My. Science was that an epic movie!
Also, don't diss the 80s-1993 Mustang. It was better looking than most of the cars of that era. Particularly in the 1990s when they put the neat-o tail lights on there with the body colored slits.
How can you not love this?
confuZion3 wrote: Also, don't diss the 80s-1993 Mustang. It was better looking than most of the cars of that era. Particularly in the 1990s when they put the neat-o tail lights on there with the body colored slits. How can you not love this?
Easy. Because the GT model suffered from what I call Saab SPG syndrome: Superfluous Plastic Garbage. They look cluttered, and I've never liked those taillights. The LX was SO much cleaner.
You'll need to log in to post.
