J P Cavanaugh’s (2024) story about the 1969 Ford Mustang got me thinking about this hotly debated car. I say “hotly debated” because the comment thread of this reposted Curbside Classic article is filled with strong views about whether the redesigned 1969 models represented a step forward or backward.
The pro-1969 contingent points to the addition of high-performance models and sleek new fastback styling. The con side emphasizes the car’s added bulk, chunkier styling and higher price.
I tilt toward the cons. As we have previously discussed, I don’t think that Ford should have increased the size of the Mustang in order to cram into it big-block engines. Those should have instead been reserved for mid-sized offerings. Mustangs equipped with the likes of the 429 cubic-inch V8s sold in small numbers and didn’t make as much sense in a pony car from a performance standpoint due to less balanced weight distribution.
By the same token, I don’t think that the Mustang should have inched upmarket with the idea that the soon-to-arrive Maverick Grabber would anchor the bottom end of the sporty coupe market. To the contrary, Ford could have been much more prescient if the Mustang had shrunk back to roughly the same size and base price as the 1965 models in order to respond to rising import sales.
Our fake Mustang goes back to basics
Rather than the 1969 Mustang growing four inches in length, an inch in width and around 160 pounds in weight over the previous year, our fake Mustang mostly reverts to the original: 181 inches long, 69 inches wide and weighing around 2,500 pounds for a base coupe with a six-cylinder engine. However, the wheelbase is cut by three inches to 105 inches.
“But that would ruin the Mustang’s long-hood, short-deck proportions!” the fanboys might exclaim. At least to my eyes, our fake Mustang Mach 1 has entirely fine proportions compared to the real one below it.
Shifting the base Mustang downmarket would not have precluded offering new high-end models such as the sporty Mach 1 and luxurious Grande.
Mustang would have been closer to the Maverick
Our fake Mustang would have been only a few inches longer than the Maverick, which Ford introduced in mid-1969. Wouldn’t that have resulted in too much internal competition? I doubt that would have been any more the case than, say, the Chevrolet Camaro taking sales away from a Nova.
The Maverick, which was essentially a shortened and decontented Mustang, listed for $1,995 in base trim. In contrast, our fake Mustang in base trim and with a six-cylinder engine would have listed for around $2,400. That would have been more than $200 below the real base Mustang but only around $100 less than a base AMC Javelin.
To give you a sense of how unseriously Ford took the Falcon at that point, the top-end Futura coupe listed for $2,598, which was only slightly less than the $2,635 for a base Mustang notchback coupe.
Bringing the base Mustang’s price down would presumably have required some economizing, such as coming up with a modular dashboard design that was partly shared with the Maverick.
Euro-Mustang could have better responded to imports
By 1966 Volkswagen was selling almost 428,000 cars in the United States and imports had grown back to almost 7 percent of the market — and only two years later would surpass 10 percent.
There was arguably room for a domestic sporty coupe that made a play for import intenders with a six mated to a four-speed manual transmission, disc brakes and a sporting suspension. Yet all of the U.S. automakers ignored this market niche in favor of muscle cars. What if the Mustang had tested the waters?
Also see ‘Data on imports sheds light on their dramatic gains from 1964-80’
My guess is that a euro-style Mustang might not have initially sold in large numbers but could have begun to reset expectations about Detroit iron — particularly with import-friendly, car-buff magazines.
The Mustang needed all the help it could get. Total output in 1969 fell to under 300,000 units — and then in 1970 to roughly 197,000 units. That was a remarkably rapid fall from the nameplate’s peak of almost 608,000 units in 1966. While that may have partly reflected intensifying competition, with the luxury of hindsight we might ponder whether the Mustang quite literally outgrew its market.
NOTES:
Production figures and specifications are from Flory (2004, 2009), Gunnell (2002, 2004) and Mueller (2010). Market share data from Wards Auto (2017).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International; Lincolnwood, Ill.
- Flory, J. “Kelly” Jr.; 2004. American Cars, 1960-1972. McFarland & Co., Inc.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised Fourth Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- ——–; 2004. Standard Catalog of Volkswagen, 1946-2004. KP Books, Iola, WI.
- Mueller, Mike; 2010. The Complete Book of Mustang: Every Model Since 1964 1/2. Motorbooks, Minneapolis, MN.
- Wards Auto; 2017. “U.S. Total Vehicle Sales Market Share by Company.”
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- Fordheritagevault.com: Ford Maverick (1970)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Ford Falcon (1969); Ford Mustang (1969)
Ford did have the import sized Mustang in 1970. It was called the Capri and sold at Lincoln-Mercury dealers. Unfortunately it took another few years before it would get the 2 liter motor and then the V6.
I have never viewed the Maverick as anything other than a Falcon replacement with nothing to do as some lower end Mustang.
If any of the proposed shortening of the wheelbase occurred between the dash and front axle then the handling would have been further compromised with more weight on the front end.
What were the build numbers for the 6 cylinder, small block V8, and big block V8 (390, 428 and 429) during the 1964 1/2 to 1970 range. My suspicion is that the 6 had a substantial decline.
The emphasis on how an American 6 could be a viable import fighter, to me, has flaws. As someone who was import oriented, the American 6s were perceived as unsophisticated old tech. Detroit’s focus was on spending their energies on the V8s while the stovebolt 6s were placeholders. No degree of any sporting pretense.
It strikes me that Ford made a good move when it imported the Capri. However, it wasn’t a substitute for a smaller Mustang. For one thing, a Maverick-sized Mustang was better suited to the American market, partly because of its broader range of engines. In addition, the Capri would never have done nearly as well as a smaller Mustang because it was sold through a much smaller dealer network. This was a niche vehicle — nothing more.
I would flatly challenge your contention that shortening the Mustang’s cowl a few inches would have impacted handling — at least as long as you didn’t shoehorn a big-block V8 in it (which I have argued against).
We’re operating in the realm of speculation when assessing a smaller Mustang’s potential for inching into import territory, but I would suggest that the car didn’t have to match the sophistication of the imports if it had other advantages, such as greater power and durability. The key thing that was needed was to shift the reputation of sixes as only being used in econoboxes. You can’t do that if you don’t try.
Pontiac was the only brand that tried to target sporty coupe buyers with its overhead cam six. Sales weren’t great but one could argue that 1) Pontiac didn’t try very hard and 2) none of the cars that the six was used in were ideal for that engine (e.g., the Firebird was heavier than the Mustang).
Not sure that given the marketplace of the 1969, or what was expected for 1969 when the product planing was done several years before, that not including a big block in the option planing would not be prudent. Camaro had the 396. Pontiacs 400 was the same engine size as the 455. Chrysler had 383 which meant also the 440 would fit and the Hemi was their image motor. As soon as the 390 fit in a Mustang, which had started in the previous 67/68 iteration it meant that the 528 would be a fit.
The Maverick could have been a platform but it could not be considered as a Mustang alternative, at least not when introduced. All of its marketing was about how inexpensive it was and practical. Besides, the Mustang was already on its 4 year product plan cycle for its platform: new platform for 1967 & 1968, reskin for 1969/1970.
I nearly mentioned the Pontiac OHC 6. Yes, Pontiac did make a true effort to make a sophisticated 6 but still fell a bit short in not making it cross flow. I am not finding the difference in option pricing between the OHC, OHC Sprint, and base V8. I do remember a Road & Track article where they tested a Pontiac Firebird with the Sprint package and commented that the price was such that they thought it was for a V8. This may be the real reason for its demise. As much as the import minded enthusiasts liked the idea of an OHC 6 those that used real money either wanted the cheapest 6 or spent for the V8. For GM one can assume that the production cost of the OHC was greater than the stovebolt 6.
I do agree that Pontiac did not do enough to promote the OHC 6 and get some racing credibility attached to it.
Of course it “wouldn’t be prudent” to avoid plopping a big-block engine in everything that moved — at least from what Brock Yates called a “Detroit mind” perspective. In the second half of the 1960s there was so much conformity among U.S. automakers that an alternative to big-block mania wasn’t effectively tested. So the main data point we have is soaring sales of imports. Which I think says a lot . . . but Detroit-centric folks tend to downplay.
It isn’t clear to me who you are arguing with about the Maverick. I didn’t suggest that it was a Mustang alternative. To the contrary, I think there was room in the marketplace for both a somewhat smaller Mustang and an entry-level compact like the Maverick (although I think the coupe’s packaging could have been better). All that said, during the 1970 recession some folks who in 1965-66 might have spent the extra money needed for a base Mustang six might have chosen a Maverick Grabber instead.
The Pontiac overhead cam six was a worthy experiment but it also reportedly had some teething problems that undercut its reputation. It’s too bad that Pontiac didn’t keep the engine around long enough to perfect it. However, I vaguely recall someone saying that the engine was too tall to fit in the second-generation Firebird. In my book that’s not a deal killer given that the Firebird was so heavy that it was better suited to a V8, but I could see that being viewed as a negative factor by the bean counters who wanted to consolidate GM’s engine lineup.
Could Ford have adopted their Australian division’s approach to the Thriftpower Six earlier on when it came to crossflow alloy-head and OHC for the likes of the Mustang, if not an earlier HSC 4-cylinder with said features?
Lotus Rebel, as an Aussie I love the idea of ‘our’ sixes being more widely used. Common sense would say they should have been. And from the moment ours went crossflow in 1976, I could never understand a) why Detroit didn’t follow suit, and b) how they allowed Ford Australia to develop and produce what turned out to be some rather radical variants of the old 1960 design, culminating in the DOHC 24-valve turbo Barra.
If I understand correctly, the problem was that the six was regarded back then as the cheapskate’s engine (like a 1.3 in a Cortina); the salesmen wanted to move the buyer ‘up’ to a more profitable V8. That being the case, there was little incentive to make the best six they knew how; what was needed for US consumption was the cheapest six they knew how. Unlike in Australia, where the six was the bread-and-butter engine, and only rich folk bought a V8 for their family car.
Peter Wilding
My thinking is for the US Thriftpower six (& four) to feature some of Ford Australia’s developments, ideally earlier on although not as far as the Barra six with DOHC 24-valves & EFI.
An earlier HSC-like four (ideally with big block Ford Kent-esque qualities) would have been Ford’s answer to the Chevy 153 as a pre-Pinto/Lima four for a North American Cortina class model as well as an entry-level Falcon/Maverick (like the Chevy II/Nova’s 153 4-cylinder), which would have helped spread out the Thriftpower six’s advances like the crossflow alloy-head and possibly OHC (if not short-lived as with the Pontiac OHC 6).
Peter
A Sprint 6 vs Hemi slant six horsepower race would have been kinda awesome. The need to have as aerodynamic and light body for the best performance numbers would have kept the 2500 lb long hood-short formula in play. The lower hood made possible by the 225 would have made Mopar more aerodynamic. Ford would have started using the Cologne V-6 as their only realistic contender for performance mods. I am unsure how AMC would have approached it. Me personally? I’d flat out love a ’74 Pontiac Ventura X-body with a factory stock Sprint 4 speed with a Sprint Shaker Scoop and F40 suspension option. If only…
Constant Reader, the Hemi six was a totally different engine from the slant, with a vertical block. Yeah, it seemed odd to me at the time that they’d replace a ten year old design with a new engine, but it sure worked. In triple-Weber E49 factory tune the 265 hemi put out 302hp. No doubt the Pontiac could have been similarly developed, if GM had had the motivation.
IIRC in Chrysler Engines by Willem L Weertman, among the alternatives considered for Chrysler Australia before the Hemi-6 was chosen did in fact include the Slant Six with the possible addition of a 246 cu inch as well as a 90-degree V6 from the LA V8 some 17 years earlier.
Forget to mention Chrysler Australia would have received the LA V8 alongside the V6.
And in South Africa, an aftermarket specialist menaged to put the V8 302 Windsor under the hood of the Capri and called it Perana.
https://www.speedhunters.com/2020/08/perana-the-ford-capri-with-v8-bite/
Without looking up the dimensions, this Mustang doesn’t strike me as looking all that oversized, not like the succeeding model did. I am more familiar with the earlier generations however, and they were a handy, almost European size if you suspend your disbelief a bit, or something like that. Was it really necessary to add the extra width? How many people were buying the big blocks anyway? From what I have read, it seems a 4v 351 would have been the optimal setup in a Mustang.
While I realize they probably felt they had to offer big blocks because the competition did, saddling the Mustang with extra weight and bulk so the odd 390 0r 428 buyer could change the plugs more easily seems an unfortunate compromise.
The 1969 Mustang was six inches longer, three inches wider, 277 pounds heavier and $262 more expensive than a base 1965 notchback coupe. The latter car was fairly close to the 1969 1/2 Maverick in size and weight and priced only $378 more (albeit in 1965 versus 1969 dollars).
The goal of our fake Mustang was to get back to the original Mustang’s size and weight — and bring the base price down at least somewhat so that the car was more competitive with the imports. The real 1969 Mustang had grown big, fat and pricy enough that entry-level buyers were starting to abandon it. Meanwhile, when the Maverick came out its sales hit early Mustang levels.
I do agree that the Mustang should not have grown in size. It’s worth noting that it was during this time that Iacocca began development of the Mustang II, which would debut in the fall of 1973. So Iacocca already realized that the Mustang was abandoning its original market. The Mustang II was an attempt to recapture it.
The problem, from the perspective of the enthusiast magazines, was that the chassis tuning of the Mustang II was more junior-edition Continental Mark IV than American version of the Capri.
As for stuffing the big block V-8s in the Mustang – there was pressure from the dealers for this. Tasca Ford, a Rhode Island dealer, put together the initial prototype for the 428 Cobra Jet Mustang and then loaned it to Hot Rod and even took it Dearborn. Hot Rod readers were mailing articles on that Mustang to Dearborn, asking why Ford didn’t produce this car. Dealers, meanwhile, were upset that Ford didn’t have much “street cred” during this era. Chevrolet, Pontiac, Dodge and Plymouth ruled the streets.
So while I’m sure there was some “groupthink” here, Iacocca was also undoubtedly responding to dealer pressure to keep Mustang competitive with the GM and Chrysler competition.
Interestingly, while Hot Rod publicized the big-block versions of the pony cars and compacts, Car and Driver regularly said that the small-block V-8s in these cars made them much more pleasant to drive, while offering virtually the same performance.
The 390 engine became available in the Mustand with the 1967 model. As the 390 was a big block that meant that the 427/428 would fit.
From a Mustang forum: 72,458 Mach 1’s built and a total of 10,494 390 cars built in 1969
25% of Mustangs in 1969 were Mach 1s. How many 390s in non-Mach 1s is not something I have found.
I’m sure that the dealers wanted the 390 V-8 available for the Mustang in 1967. They were the ones who then pressured Ford when it turned out the 390 V-8 was a slug compared to the GM and Chrysler competition. Tasca Ford built up and installed the 428 Cobra Jet in a Mustang for that very reason.
Didn’t Shelby also played a role as well when he introduced the Shelby Mustang GT-500?
Still let’s not forget the 1971-73 Mustang who was bigger than the 1969-70 models.
Shelby was no longer involved. It was a marketing program run by Ford.
My point was that as soon as the Mustang got a big block in 1967 it did not matter which 390, 427, 428 engine iteration it was since they all fit.
But this series of postings changes my thinking about the 1969-1973 Mustangs: Lee Iacocca was responsible for the increase in the dimensions, not Bunkie Knudsen or Larry Shinoda ! The planning for the 1969 Mustang must have begun in late 1966 which means that the fault in planning is entirely in Iacocca’s ballpark. Why a super 351-cu.-in. V-8 was not sufficient to propel a slightly trimmer Mustang is beyond me. Why putting the biggest block in a pony car is a such a waste unless it is for a pure racing car, but that is my very biased opinion.
By the way, do I need a comprehensive eye exam or are the captions reversed on the real 1969 Mustangs and the artistically slimmed Mustangs ?
Finally, with DeLorean kicked upstairs at G.M. and the P.M.C. O.H.C.-sixes costing more to make than the Chevy 230 / 250-cu.-in. sixes, G.M. did not want to fix the problems with the engine. If you wanted a Pontiac six, it came from Chevrolet. It was better for G.M. to sell Pontiacs with V-8s.
I agree totally about the 351. Ford Australia did amazing things with it in the Falcon body, with 14 second quarters and allegedly a 140mph top speed. With the performance it was capable of, why would you want a big block? Just bragging rights really. Sure it might get to the end of a drag strip faster, but on the street, and in service?
Same with Mopar’s 340, and for that matter the 350 Chevy. To my mind there was really no need for big block pony cars.