Sure, enough people bought them during the height of the Arab oil embargo crisis back in 74/75. However sales began to fizzle in 76/77. And by the time sales rebounded in 1978. It was already too late. As Ford had gone ahead with it's plans for the Fox platform.

That being said, there's a huge difference between sales numbers being based upon just 4 years of existence, over the 14 year generation of the Fox Body Mustangs. So I really don't agree that the same can be said about the Mustang II, being relative to the Foxes at all. As they shared nothing in common sales wise, nor anything else for that matter.

The bottom line is this. The Mustang II lived only a 4 year generation, and became a failure towards the end of it's production run. Where as the Foxes survived a 14 year production run. The longest lived generation in Mustang history !

 

back to back body styles? S197 is YEARS later.

 

Because I was beginning to think that he was right, until 97GTO3SVT replied back to my last post. That's why. However the only reason why I was logged on until 1:AM last night, was to catch up on submitting replies that I was unable to reply to earlier because of the hockey game I was watching, didn't end until after 11:00 PM last night.


That being said. I have much better things to do, than to friggin have conversations with myself at 1:00 AM, and yes I was very tired and had to get back up at 5:00 to get ready for work.

 

Anyways shifting gears back to the 10' Mustang what do you guys think of Ford replacing the big chome pony in favor of the 69-71, current Shelby GT style pony and tri-bar? I really hope in the near future Ford takes cues from the 69-71 cars....... I'd love a modern interpretation of a 69-70 fastback with the front end of a 71' Mach 1. To me the only draw back of the 71' was the shape of the fastback but I feel the front end of the 71' model was the most bad-*** looking Mustang of all time!

 

97GT03SVT: The '71--'73 porkers weighed hundreds of pounds more than the original '64-and-a-half Mustangs yet used the same chassis and wheelbase! They had more overhang at each end than Dolly Parton! It ain't about "mean and aggressive looks"--it's about building decent cars, and this slobbering POS would have killed the Mustang--and maybe Ford--if they hadn't replaced it with the much maligned '74 model--whose sales of over 300,000 in 1974 alone showed how much people despised those dreadful pachyderms that preceded them! BTW, to save the Mustang in '74 Ford had to go back to the styling of the original Mustangs to erase the memories of those Monuments to Obesity.

 

The wheelbase was lengthened and the track was widened on the 71-73 Mustangs.

 

You are correct, but the difference was only 1", less than a 1% change.

1965 - 1970 WB = 108
1971 - 1973 WB = 109

Track on the 1971 - 1973 is 3" more than the 69-70 and a whopping 5.5" more than the 65 - 66.

Whenever I see an original 65 -66 Stang, I get a chuckle as to how far inside the body the wheels are tucked, looks pretty funny compared to a S197 Stang, but that's how they made cars in the 1950s & 1960s.

 

The big jump in weight occured in 1969. The 1971-73 Stangs only weighed 150 lb more than the 69 - 70s.

And FYI there is no such thing as a 1964-1/2 Mustang. They we designated as 1965 model year cars.

 

Look, I didn't say that the current Mustang was the greatest car ever made. My reasons for purchasing it. is because it strongly resembles the 1st generation models, that I admired growing up in the mid 60's.

If you notice in my signature, I've also owned 3 Fox bodied Mustangs. In which the last one, was a 93 SVT.Cobra, and I've even owned a Mustang II. Although I cannot deny that my current GT. is definitely the best built Mustang I've ever owned.

You also mentioned that you personally feel a problem with the current car in your opinion. is the lack of cosmetic changes from year to year.

Well the same can also be said for the SN-95. As the only cosmetic changes that I can recall, were the tail light changes from 94-95 through 96-98. Other than that. there were no other changes, that I was aware of until the 99 re-fresh. However even after the re-fresh, I didn't notice any further changes at all.

So again, I really don't see how this is relevant, nor do I understand where your going with this. As for the reasons behind Mustang sales being slow right now. Who really knows for certain. For it can be due to a variety of reasons. At this point, all were really doing here is speculating.

However I do agree with you, and if I were not in the market for a new Mustang. I also wouldn't spend $30,000 for an 08' GT coupe, if I were able to get a low mileage 05' for under $20,000

 

Thanks for the kind words Topnotch. I truly appreciate it.

 

Sorry if you thought I was attacking you personally it was actually directed to members who have quoted it as the best Mustang ever.... but most of the members of this forum have S197 cars so many tend to show a bias. As for the cosmetic changes 99-04 did a better job than 94-98. Though the changes are minor they helped the car look fresh over the years some examples off the top of my head are that over the course of it's run the hood, spoiler, headlights (tinted after 00'), wheels.though those are minor tweaks it makes a difference when you park a 99' GT next to a 04'. With the current gen besides wheels I couldn't tell the difference between an 05' and an 08' (which by the way is good for you because your car still looks brand new, you can say it's an 08 )

 

I don't understand why we are bashing on body styles that we don't like..... I happen to like the 71 Boss and Mach 1 cars. I personally think it is a cooler and meaner looking car than the 65. The original 65-66 cars are actually my least favorite of the classic years, and by the way stock for stock the Boss 351 was pretty much the fastest classic era Mustang in history. Take a look at the stats for the 65-66 cars besides the GT350s they were nothing to write home about.

 

No worries Phil, as I didn't take your post as an attack. As I said before, I actually liked the SN-95 re-fresh in 99.

Although the 99-04 re-fresh, was a complete makeover. I'm still unable to tell the difference between a 99, over an 03-04. As they seem to look the same IMHO.

Why Ford doesn't at least change something as minor as tailight/grille's to keep the current model fresh, is anybody's guess.

I also wouldn't be in the least bit surprised, that even after the 2010 re-fresh. Were more than likely, not going to see any further cosmetic changes/tweaks. Until the all new model, launches in April/2014

 

The plans to go forward were a good thing obviously.

They certainly aren't the same cars for the same times, but as you know, product planning has to be done on the basis of volumes. I maintain that if the volumes for the first few years had not been what they were, Ford product planners might not have been convinced to plan for the next version.

I wouldn't term them a "failure" but a car that needed an update

And yes, fortunately, they did survive 14 years, because they gave creedence to extending to the SN-95 generation. My prefered Fox would be a '93 fastback LX - need to add one to the collection someday!

 

Yes, it is. However, I would think you easily can see the influence, hence my comment about lightning striking twice.

I agree with you that it is a great looking car.

One reason it resonates with me is because I see the styling cues of the old in the new. My opinion about this car might be different it did not "look back".

 

S197 mustang is probably the BEST looking coupe out there. better than bmw, porsche, benz, audi coupes...ALL OF THEM!

i pull out of my garage. doesnt matter if there is a bently continental GT next to me (and that happens often, my garage has RICH people). people are checking out my mustang and dont give a HOOT about the bentley GT

Thai's design ROCKS. so, for ford to improve on it is VERY VERY difficult. Thai has moved on and is not involved in the redesign from what i heard.

And now with the italian concept mustang giving design cues....no no no no!

 

I agree here.

 

He was the nameplate engineer and worked on the car, but did not design the look at all....He's an engineer not a designer

 

Its pretty remarkable if you take into account that the majority of auto makers pretty much wrote off the sporty coupe market. Another part of the F-twins demise was GM's general feeling that the market was going away and why spend money on updating a car that had no market potential. IIRC, Ford made a business case for making money on 80k stangs a year. I'd say they didn't have much faith in the sporty coupe market either. Had they realized that the current car would have been such an outstanding sucess we might have seen something even better than what the S-197 is offering (if only for the reason that more development money could have been spent and recouped).

Then again, with the economy going to crap, and day to day costs going through the roof, Ford's pessimistic segment view might have been a good thing. GM and DC are going to have a tough time when everybody iss focusing on stretching thier money so that they remain comfortable.

 

Auto trends are kinda weird huh. Ford just brought a coupe Focus to market with rumors of a Fusion coupe (an idea I like!) The coupe has made a comeback even the imports are getting back into the mix. Nissan has recently added a Coupe version to the Altima and Toyota is rumored to being back the Celica. Mitsubishi is rumored to bring out a coupe based on the EVO to keep along side of the Eclipse. Hyundai is also bringing a rear wheel coupe to join the lineup. and lets not forget the Challenger and Camaro who knows though these cars are not all american like the past all these cool spots coupes may mimic the options of sporty coupes on the roads during the 60s!