There are far more nameplates today than there were in the late 1960s.

You young guys are viewing the 1960s through rose colored glasses.
The typical 1960s car was a total piece of crap that had at best 150 HP by today's more honest HP ratings. High HP muscle cars were a tiny part of the overall vehicle sales in the 60s.

 

Young guys? I'm so far over the hill, I can't remember seeing the hump!

I agree that there are as many, if not more nameplates today--just not as many performance oriented nameplates--and not as many domestic. Just look at Ford's passenger car line up in 1969--Mustang, Maverick, Falcon, Galaxie, Fairlane--Torino, Thunderbird, XL (though it was really just a Galaxie with a different roof line) compared to the number of passenger car offerings from Ford today. It's been a while since I've seen an AMC Javelin, or an Olds 442, or a Plymouth Roadrunner. Now that I think of it, there simply aren't as many domestic brands as there were in 1969.

Yes, muscle cars were noisy, with less than pefect interiors, fit and finish. They were cheap. They were'nt terribly efficient either. I remember riding with my cousin in his '64 GTO and him joking that the GTO stood for Gas, Tires, and Oil, since it took a lot of all three to keep it on the road. Cars today are much better all around.

You may be right, most probably would not produce the horsepower advertised by today's standards. But I'd be willing to bet the 70 Hemi Cuda would produce a tad more than 150-hp, even by today's standards.

 

No rose colored glasses here and I am not that young....however I know all to well and probably more than most that these cars were cracker boxes since I restore them for a living. Sure they can't compare to todays cars in terms of NVH or efficiency but they had something over todays cars and that is lines and style!...and that is the reason they are still popular....The S197 Mustang has lines and style once again but most cars don't....look at GM and their Aztek and Avalanche....whoever designed those things should be taken out back and shot! but that's my opinion.

Quality got better through the years....'65 Mustangs were tin cans compared to the '69 Mustangs which are tin cans compared to the newest Mustang.....but you can't deny the style and lines of the early cars.

There are fare more "nameplates" today but few that are exciting and capture ones imagination like the many more that did back then.

 

I was referring the fact that the average 1960s car which came with 170 cid / 200 CID & 250 CID I6s and small V8s all putting out well under 200 HP by today's measurement techniques.

I worked in a garage in the late 60s and early 70s. For every 390 Mustang that came in for work, 20 or more 6 cyl and 289 / 302 2bbl Mustangs came in for service.

Yes the Hemi made lots of HP, but since only 11,000 street Hemis were sold from 1964 to 1971 ( about 1,375 per year which was roughly 0.03% of total annual vehicle sales in those years ) the Hemi had a negligable effect on the fleet average HP of 1960s cars.

Think about that....... Today Ford sells over 6 times as many GT-500s / year as Chrysler sold street Hemis in the 1960s, the "heyday" of the muscle car."

Same with real Ford 427 engines, During those years I could count how many of them I saw factory installed on one hand and have fingers left over. Ford did not want to sell street 427s. All Ford wanted to do was sell the 500 / year NASCAR required so they could race it. Same with the Boss 429, in 2 years only about 1,100 street Boss 429s were sold.

All I'm trying to do is correct the misconception many people here seem to have that all the cars from the 60s were 400+ HP fire breathing monsters. The majority of cars sold in the 1960s were under powered, ill handling pieces of crap. The average car today has far more HP than the average car from the 1960s.

 

Just my 2 cents...
My Mom and grandma got brand new 1966 Chryslers with 383s in them.
Mom's was the first car I drove.
55 in first gear of the 3spd auto.
That's the way I saw the '60s.
Grandma stopped driving when she turned 86.
Mom was still driving the big block until 1993.
Dad's driven V8s ever since the '60s.

 

I think Muscle cars and Imports may compete as far as features go but styling is always different. The one thing I love about a Mustang is that it can't be mistaken for anything else (this includes the non-retro 05-09 cars) I think a lot of the imports (350Z, Mazda RX8, Honda S2000) the three closest cars in Mustang price and performance in my estimation all have similar japanese influenced styling. I hope we never see a factory Mustang with a huge wing again (Cobra R) or euro tail lights(though the 10' tail lights scare me) or huge exhaust tips. I like plain old five spoke wheels no bigger than 18' a chrome pony in the grille and the long hood, short deck profile. I dont think the imports will copy in Mustang and as far as styling goes I also feel the Mustang will borrow from it's heritage or American competitors as long as they can thats just my opinion

 

I think there are still a lot of powerful domestic cars out there today, I must admit Ford is the worst as far as powerful vehicals come, all I can think of is the Mustang. Dodge,Chysler, and Jeep all have the high powered SRT versions of nearly every vehical in their fleet. The new SRT4 makes an impressive 285HP. GM has the Corvette, Z06, ZR1, SS cars. Pontiac has the GXP cars, Saturn with the Sky Redline, Who can forget the Cadillac V-Series..... I think bottom line its hard to be a Ford fan right now if you don't drive a Mustang or an F-150. I recently bought my first non-Ford in a very long time because of lack of options I was very unimpressed with the Ford lineup.

 

According to planet Challenger. The Hemi may soon become a thing of the past, sooner than we all think.

In the meantime, here's the link attachment.


http://www.planetchallenger.com/gene...ty-080122.html

 

Though they may get rid of the Hemi they can still stick the magnum v8 in there, i'm sure despite the news of the Hemi that the Challenger will keep a Hemi in the lineup at smaller production volume. I just don't see Dodge giving up on a car before it's launch. Seems like the Camaro will continue to be Ford's main competiton. I can't wait till the new stang, Camaro and Challenger start hitting the streets!

 

The magnum V8 is also a Hemi. The only difference is..It had the smaller 5.7 version, instead of the larger 6.1

Perhaps Chrysler may continue to offer the 5.7 Hemi, as an option, in the form of direct injection. if combined with their current cylinder de-activation technology. I don't see why it couldn't produce 30+ MPG.

 

I believe that the Maverick did not appear until the 1970 model year.

In 1969 the Falcon was on it's last legs, ending in the 1970 model year which were really just unsold 1969 Falcons.

Fairlane -- Torino were the same car just different trim levels, same with LTD, Galaxie, XL

1969 Ford passenger cars:
Mustang
Falcon
Torino / Fairlane
LTD / Galaxie
Thunderbird

2008 Ford passenger cars:
Mustang
Focus
Fusion
Taurus
Crown Vic

I count 5 distinct models in both 1969 & 2008. .

 

Maybe its not called a Magnum V8 like in the past but I was talking about the 4.7 V8 they put in trucks and Jeeps. They put out 302HP and for the most part they should equal or come close to the performance of the current GT.

 

When you mentioned Magnum V8. I thought you were referring to the V8, that's currently in the Magnum R/T station wagon.

As for the 4.7 V8 found in trucks, and jeeps. I just noticed it's still available in the Dodge Dakota, and Durango. Along with the Jeep Grand Cherokee, and Commander.

So if they can somehow, incorporate their multi displacement technology, along with direct injection for the 4.7..Not only will it still produce 302 HP.

But it's also very possible, that it could produce up to 35 MPG as well.

 

You're right Maverick didn't actually hit the streets until 1970.

Count again--on the list you've thoughtfully provided, you list 7 nameplates in 1969, and 5 in 2008 and completely ignored the XL.

If you want, throw in the Taurus X on the 2008 list as a Taurus wagon, I can buy that. But the Falcon, Fairlane, and Galaxie and LTD (Country Squire) each sold as a wagon. Then there are all the variants of the base models you could order; the Fairlane, Galaxie, and Torino offered different sheetmetal on with the same nameplate--two separate and distinct roof lines--not just trim level offerings like the 2008 lineup. Which one of the 2008 nameplates offers 2 separate roof lines and a convertible?

What about convertibles? In 1969, Fairlane, Torino, and Galaxie offered convertibles as did the XL. (I honestly don't remember a Thunderbird convertible that year. I think a power sun-roof was as close as it got.) But, I don't recall seeing a Fusion convertible, or a Taurus convertible offering in 2008.

 

In addition to what bt4 added you also are missing the fact that all/most of the cars in '69 could have a performance variance added to them in the form of a GT or other trim package and larger engine. For 2008 the Focus no longer has the SVT version so there is no performance option there, The Fusion has no performance option, the Taurus? Forget it...and the Crown Vic....nothing. The Mustang is the ONLY choice anymore for the performance oriented enthusiast.

Back in '69 You not only had the Torino but Mercury's Cyclone...both cars available in GT packages and a wide choice of engines from the 302 to the 428 Cobra Jet, The Galaxie also had the large engine options and the Thunderbird could be purchased with the 429 Thunderjet engine which was a factory 10.5:1 engine. The while not really a performance car could still be bought with a V8 leaving those who liked the style to modify as they wish.

There was just FAR more options available for the performance enthusiast back then over today.

 

I agree with Knight. After the 2005 Mustang was introduced Ford Mustang sales hit the roof and GM & Chrysler realized that to keep up they had to reintroduce models that they had abandoned years ago. I think the power base for the new Challenger and the Camaro are a little much for street use. What Joe average consumer will be able to afford the Challenger and the Camaro? GM and Chrysler are late comers to the game or shall I say a game they abandoned...whereas Ford as been in the muscle car game ( with the Mustang) since 1964 1/2. At least the S197 has similar design cues going back to 1968 both exterior and interior. The new Challenger exterior looks familar to the 1970's version, the interior though is a little overdone. The new Camaro does not look like a 1970's model and the interior is even sadder than the Challenger. I can't see those of us from the 1960-1970's generation wanting these models. The new generation of twenty year olds that do not have a memory of the past might be interested though.

 

I'm counting only distinct models, not different nameplates slapped on to the same models. I could bundle the Mustang, Falcon and Fairlane / Torino all into one since they were all built off the same platform.

You have to face the fact that the world has changed. Back in the 60s Ford built 500,000 LTDs, 400,000 Fairlanes, 300,000 Mustangs, etc. so they could have a bunch of engine models and variations. Today the market has moved to SUVs and crossovers and 150,000 / year for any passenger car is a good number, but not big enough to allow too many model and engine variations.

 

And a 2008 Taurus is as fast in a straight line and much faster in a corner than that 1966 Chrysler with a 383.

 

Just an FYI on weights of various late model Mustangs coming from a guy who has owned and weighed several. I have purchased three brand new Mustangs since 2000 and weighed them each with a 1/4 tank gas, no spare tire or jack, but otherwise bone stock when new. I went to the same Washington Dept of Transportation truck scale which is accurate to +/- 20 lbs. With no cargo, driver, or passengers, here is what each of my last three Mustangs weighed....

3,180 lbs = 2000 Mustang GT Coupe, manual trans, SOHC.
3,380 lbs = 2003 Mustang Mach 1, manual trans, DOHC.
3,470 lbs = 2007 Mustang GT Coupe, automatic trans, SOHC.

Ford's specs show that an S197 automatic weighs 180 lbs more than an S197 manual, so a 2007 Mustang GT Coupe with a manual trans, but otherwise identical to my car, should weigh 3,290 lbs. with a 1/4 tank of gas, but I have not personally weighed one to know for sure. Fill the tank up and put the jack and spare back in and it's a little over 3,400 lbs.

 

The world has changed? Thanks for the update, I might have missed it otherwise. But that is how this particular discussion started--how much has changed--did you miss that? You obviously missed the beginning of the discussion about NAMEPLATES--and that more performance oriented nameplates were available then, than now. And though you have made a nice dissertation on how today the market is much more segemented, you've done nothing more than illustrate a point that has already been made.