The 71-73 were definatly heavier then the 3216 you are quoting. honestly what ever book you are quoting it is off by 400-500 lbs.

They weren't 4000lbs either though.

 

Yeah it is out of line. The current mustang comes nowhere near to having either of those engines you listed. I just happen to have inherited a 72 mach with the 351 clevelan, and lets just say the current mustangs engine bay looks anorexic. Let alone the fact that engines nowaday are much more advanced in terms of weight and packaging. Drop a 72 351 cleveland into the current mustang and you'll make the GT500 look like a featherweight.

Rear window defroster, folding rear seat ... Come on, those are ounces at best.

However, look at the size of the 05+ about 4 inches taller the my 72, same length, and the height of the trunk ( rivals the Sears Tower). Of course its portly.

 

Regardless of what weight is right for the 71-73, comparing cars that were made 35 years apart isn't really valid.

I think when compared to a Fox however, it shows how much the Mustang has grown. The Foxes had a radio, defroster, airbags etc (that you think add so much weight) and was much lighter and smaller. That is where the Mustang needs to come back to. My 5.0 is more similar in size to my girlfriends Honda Civic than it is to an S197.

Its a great design, but its just too big.

 

Had a 71 - 429 CJ. Believe me it was no lightweight.

Curb weight listed in the 1972 Ford buyers guide (published by Ford) is 3,206 lb for a '72 Mach 1 sports roof with 3 speed manual & NO options.

A 429 is a good 250 lbs more than a 302 and the top loader 4 speed is 75 lbs more than the dinky 3 speed manual the 302 Mach 1 is listed with. Add in power steering, power brakes (a must with the 429), A/C, larger tires,wheels, bigger springs, etc. and the weight adds up very fast.

As a said a 71 fully loaded vert with 429 can top 4,000 lbs. Nicely equiped 429 sports roof is 3,800 lbs.

 

I really hate to burst your bubble, but the 05+ is NOT the same length as the 71-73 models. Check out the following comparisons, and you'll see for yourself that the 2005+ models are approx 1.5 inches shorter than the 71-72 sportsroof models. The 73's grew an additional 1/2" at 190.0 inches approx a full 2 inches longer than the current 05+ models.

The 1971 Ford Mustang

The redesigned Mustangs in showrooms for 1971 reprised base and Grande hardtops, a convertible, and Sportsroof fastbacks in regular and Mach 1 trim, plus a new Boss 351 version. Stylists didn't try to hide the expanded dimensions that Ford president Bunkie Knudsen and his product planners ordained. If anything, the new look seemed to emphasize the sudden growth spurt.


The Grande hardtop was one of three versions of the Ford Mustang
available in 1971.
Though wheelbase was stretched just an inch to 109 inches, overall length tacked on 2.1 inches to 189.5. More significant was a near three-inch gain in overall width, to 74.1 inches, matched by broader front/rear tracks of 61.5/61.0 inches. Height was fractionally reduced to 50.1 inches on SportsRoofs, 50.8 on other models.




SPECIFICATIONS MODEL: 2005 Ford Mustang GT
WHEELBASE: 107.1 in.
LENGTH/WIDTH/HEIGHT: 188.0 x 73.9 x 55.4 in.
Curb Weight 3483 lbs.

 

That is less then a 1% difference in length, to me that might as well be the same. Burst your own bubble and go look at them side by side. Then comment.

Seriously tho, go line the two cars up and see which one looks larger. The 05 makes the 72 look like a dwarf (no slur on little people intended).

 

The S197 front end is tapered to the sides like a ship's prow while the 71-73 front is blunt and straight across the front so it looks a lot longer. It's like the difference between the front end on the regular '69 Mustang and the '69 Shelby Mustangs.


The S197 is a lot taller though; every car made these days is very tall and they all have high beltlines.

 

The roof height of a 69-70 model is about at the top edge of the glass/weatherstripping on a 2005. Remember, cars in 1970 didnt have the structural and safety requirements demanded by both the public market and the gov't ( not everyone drove big off road 4x4 trucks either. ) Two things that come right to mind are head curtain airbags and the FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ) 2008 rollover requirements.

 

I don't need to burst my bubble, for not only have I looked at them side by side, but I've also driven a 71 Mach 1.

And as far as I'm concerned, it's the 72 which makes the 05 look like a dwarf, and not the other way around (no pun towards our smaller friends intended)

 

To me, the car is already starting to look smaller. I don't know if they have implemented that strategy though.

 

Agreed, but why are the belt lines so high? I mean seriously look at the height of the trunk deck lid?

My guess is that the governments failure to regulate front and rear bumper height has led to lower sitting cars becoming taller with higher beltlines. My father's Navigators front bumper would come right in through the side glass of my 72 Mach, where my 05 it would hit mainly door panel.

 

Seriously?? Ok...I'll agree to disagree with you, because I can't understand how someone who has seen these two cars side by side thinks a 71 looks bigger.

But with the ride height (ground clearance) of the 71 you'll have to agree that there is far less car there. I mean take the wheels off and let the cars sit on the floor pans and I'd bet the 05 is 6-8 inches taller then the 71. Right?

 

I was sitting in traffic this morning in my '06 Mustang and I couldn't see the road ahead of me. My vision was blocked by the rear of a '03-'08 (couldn't tell the exact year) Toyota Corolla. The Corolla's trunk lid, spoiler, & rear window were blocking my line of sight.

Everyone wants to sit up high like in a truck/SUV....

 

Exactly! do they really want to sit up high like an SUV, or are they subconsiously doing so because it makes them feel safe, or yet are they doing so because that is all the market has to offer them. their only other choices for new cars are to drive an S2000 or a miata, all the cars out there have huge beltlines, which is why they are all so tall. IMHO it is because the OEMs have to build them this tall get high ratings on crash tests.

I would; however, be worried if a four door sub sedan wasn't blocking the view of a sport coupe.

 

Going up in height gets more space in a vehicle without making it's footprint larger.

 

Hence, the panel van. But it also detracts from a sporty car's sport'n looks, raising and accentuating the visual mass, creating a more slab-sided appearance and likely raising the actual mass and CG. All fine for a panel van or sedan perhaps, but detrimental to a performance car.

Worse, aesthetically, to my eyes is the current trend to rather high beltlines. Aside from giving the side of the afflicted cars the visual height and contouring of a warehouse's north wall, it tends to give a very confined, isolating, bunker-like feel to the interior, quite in contrary to the communing and interacting with the open road outside the rolling gun turret.

And worst is that the high beltline utterly messes up the timeless tradition of cruise'n with ones elbow resting out the open door window opening, at least without necessitating follow-up surgery.

 

But for what purpose? I have more headroom in my 72 then in my 05. Granted the main reason is seat height (no power anything in 72). Going up doesn't help me. (I will conceed my argument to fellow brethren who are 6'3" and taller, my buddy at 6'4" has a hard time in the passenger seat). It just hurts performance. The taller the vehicle the worse it's center of Gravity, the taller the vehicle the heavier the air is at highway speeds (various aerodynamic exceptions apply).

 

Just for the record, I didn't say anything about the 71-73 models being bigger than the current 05-09 models. I had clearly stated that the 71-73 sportsroof models were longer than the 05-09 models, NOT bigger !

I do however definitely agree that the current 05-09 models, are bigger and taller, as in overall width along with being taller. In fact, I've stated in past threads about the current car's high-waisted beltline, along with being too wide, and porky looking.

So in that respect, there is no denying the fact about the current S-197, being much larger than the 71-73 sportsroof models. In which I never claimed, that it wasn't.

However my only objective, was to point out that the 71-73 models were longer than the current S-197 models, and nothing more

 

Seeing a S197 is so much better handling than a 71-73 it can can run circles around them, the extra height doesn't seem to have hurt much.

 

Well after 5 years of that dinky little 02 Mustang I had, I welcome and love the size of the s197 any day. I finally can stretch when the need arises without bumping my left elbow into the side glass. (I had a 96 Cougar V8 before the 02.) Nothing like tooling around in a BIG fast, full blown muscle car!!! It's like a throw back to the 69-70 Mustangs and 68-71 Torino's. (My favorites.) Also (if I may) the 1970 Chevelle SS, Buick GS, Olds 442 and GTO.(My favorites outside of Ford.) I love road hugging weight... There is no impression like full size muscle that can blaze down the track at insane ET's. I may be the minority here fella's (and ladie's) but 3500 to 3800 lbs of muscle car is fine by me. Weight equals strength!