THUMPIN455

A response in another thread got me to thinking.. What was the original intent of certain cars? Especially the Mustang. We know what the intent is today of the cars being built. Some wear it right out on their sleeves, they scream I AM A HOTROD, or they just motor along and meekly say I am good on gas. But what of the origins of the cars we know and love now? We cant look at what they have become in the present day to see what the designers wanted 40 years ago. To learn that you have to go back even farther and find out what was important 10-15 years prior to an event. Nobody can tell the future, but almost anyone can tell you about the past. It would be like trying to say where the cars will go in 20 years. What they will look like, run on, or be called. Things can change dramatically in 20 years.

What shapes our ideas and persepctives on what these vehicles mean to us? How does that relate to what the designers 40 years ago wanted to build? What did they want from a new model back then? Whatever it is about what happened before most of us were born, we still like to argue about the purpose of the car we drive. We want whatever we have to be the best, in our eyes it is, yet was it intended to be the fastest, or best handling, or the most fuel efficient? What criteria of performance were the engineers going by? Performance in looks? or maybe 1/4 mile times? 0-60? Economy?

In the late 50s-early 60s it was more about appearance than anything. Styling made a car what it was. Performance wasnt held in the same regard back then. Glen is an icon of that era...lol.. most people needed basic transportation. If it didnt look like boxy little Falcon or stodgy Comet then the baby boomers would buy it. 40 years ago was very different from what we have today, espcially in demographics.

Baby boomers changed the face of the USA, they still are. Its the sheer numbers of them that have the impact. Us Gen X people are still waiting for all the baby boomers to leave us the good jobs, and stop buyin all the cool cars for ludicrous amounts of money. It was the kids born after WWII that the Mustang was intended for, inexpensive transportation. The looks hooked them, it was new and different. The segment of the population that liked the looks more than the performance was quite a bit larger. That is who it was geard towards, a car to get to school with, go out on a date in, a runabout as they called it.

For emphasis look at production numbers of performance cars with large CI/high HP V8s and then look at how many more I6 cars were built. Why is it so many people ask "What does it take to make my Mustang a V8?" Most were 6s for quite a few years. The 6 cylinder Mustang has been Fords saving grace since 64. Since the F body bowed out, Ford has had the run of the market just like they did in 64-67. And most of what you see are the V6, all the looks of the GT but without the insurance and fuel costs, and not to mention a higher sticker price.

in stark contrast to the Mustang is the Firebird. More Firebirds were built with V8s than with 6s. Infact often the highest production figures went to the performance models, such as the Trans AM, and Formula. It was built as a performance car and made into an economy car on the base models. Still its tough to find a 2nd gen Firebird with a 6 in it. The vast majority were V8s.

Camaro was the opposite, it was like the Mustang. More 6s built than V8s for quite a few years. Girls like the Camaro better it seems..lol. They just want a nice car, most dont care about how fast it goes.

For even more on this, look at the Cougar. Shares the same underbody as the Mustang, but when they came out in 67 every Cougar built had disc brakes and a V8. EVERY ONE. There wasnt a 6 in the Cougar from the factory untill after the gas crunch. It was intended as an upscale luxury performance model so it had the V8, disc brakes, and a slightly longer wheel base to make it ride better. Yes the Mustang had performance options, but it wasnt designed as a factory hotrod. Look to the Fairlane for that in 64.. eg Thunderbolt.

Before 64 performance cars were fullsize. Galaxie, Fury, Biscayne, Impala, Ventura, Bonneville, Catalina, Polara... those were the cars that had the hot engines, and those were the main cars raced on the strip before 64. After the GTO all that changed. look at what raced and won all the drag races before 66 and see what it was. HEMI, 406 Fords, 427 Fords, 421 SD Pontiacs... All those engines came in the fullsize cars. They were performance cars of the time.

So what did the designers want? First and foremost something that would sell. Why produce a car that doesnt sell? If you cant move them, you cant afford to make them. So how do you sell something? You find out what people want. Then you have to price it so they can actually buy it. Almost everyone I know whats a private jet, a Ferarri or two, and a million dollar mansion, few have that sort of thing. Affordable quality is the key to selling vast quantites of something. Be it toilet paper, coffee, televisions or cars. How many people own Cobra's? How many own V6 Stangs? Its a huge difference due mainly to cost not intent when designed.

Some are simply designed to be good, yet inexpensive. Others are just cheap. *cough** (kia)*cough*

Soaring

Man, you have had too much coffee. It wasn't necessarily the late 50's that American cars went for styling over performance. The mid 50's produced the 55, 56 and 57 Chevrolet's that were novel in appearance. The 55,56 and 57 Ford Thunderbirds, the 57 Studebaker Champion, the 57,58 and 59 Cadillacs, the 55,56 and 57 Ford Crown Victorias., and on and on....all were unique in appearance. Unlike today where all cars look alike to me. But, they were concerned about performance too. I remember very clearly of working on a 283 Chevy V8 so I could beat a guy with another Chevy 283. We drag raced back during the 50's just like I am sure the kids of today do, but it was somehow safer in our minds back then. The world was a lot more innocent place to live back then. Talking about changes over a 40 year period, take a look at the Japanese automobile industry. Back in the 60's, if you bought a Toyota, you would be buying the biggest piece of crap ever made. They fell apart in a very short time. Now, the Japanese made cars are some of the finest in the world as far as workmanship and reliability.
As far as the Mustang, there really were not any "sports" cars we could afford before the mustang came along. There were a few, but they were crap.....such as the MG. Other sports cars were generally European made, and very expensive. So, with the Mustang, we now had an affordable car that was fun to cruise around in, or to opt for a V8 and get a little more fun out of driving. The first Mustangs had the design and the right price, and that is why over a million were sold during the first year of production, so you are right about the price being right. Safety and gas mileage was not a concern back then. We never even gave it a thought. We would put a dollar worth of gas in our cars and drive around all night. Gas was 35 cents a gallon, and my high school job as a soda jerk paid me 50 cents an hour, so I worked for two hours to buy enough gas for a date. If you worked two hours at 10 bux an hour today, you could afford about 8-10 gallons of gas. So you see.....gas prices aren't any higher than they have ever been.......

Sean W.

damn dude, you wrote a **** load!

THUMPIN455

Yeah I do that... I have alot of info stored up there, and it comes out sometimes..

Hey Glen, yeah some people wanted it to go. More power is always a plus, but there is a much larger portion of the population that just wants it to run and not burn alot of gas doing it. Then there are the guys who removed or bobbed the fenders on old roadsters, dropped in warmed over flatheads and raced them everywhere.. Different breed of people. Car people and basic transportation types. Withtwo types of car people. Dirty and not dirty. Dirty ones will get it.

My point was the hook was styling more than performance. Yes performance was part of it, but the trinkets and doodads seemed to be the emphasis.. I still like the dash in the 56 Buick Special I had. The guage needles changed color and the speedo was an orange bar that scrolled across the dash. The needles would go from red, to green and back to red again. So when you started it, the oil press was red, when it got above a certain spot it was green. Same piece of plastic just a different color. Always thought that was kinda cool.

Soaring

Oh, I am fully aware of the general population just wanting it to be reliable and cheap to operate. That is one of the many reasons the Japanese cars have made such a big impression on the American public, and another reason why American Auto makers are suffering such as Ford. Maybe with the change in the CEO, Ford can pull itself out of it. Yeah, if you look at a typical parking lot, you will see a mixture of cars and trucks, but me thinks the vast majority are economy cars. Now, that would be a wal-mart parking lot in the rest of the U.S. with the exception of Texas. The typical parking lot here has about 75% pickup trucks, 20% large Cadillacs and Lincolns, 3% new Mustangs, and 2% foreign built cars.

72rustang

Why, the television commercials that tell us what we want, of course! Some very deep and ponderous stuff you have written here... might make a good introductory page for your Manifesto. I humbly suggest "Principia Automobilica" as a working title.

I agree that probably the majority, maybe not a great majority but nonetheless a majority, simply want the car to run when they turn the key, and they want to spend as little as possible to just keep the thing running for 8-10 years. That's the baseline IMO. So start with that and then add gizmos and gadgets and some looks that set the thing apart somewhat. Not the ideal car in my book, but maybe a way to sell a lot of product.

I do think Ford hit a serious home run with the new mustang... the base model itself is no slouch at all, and it only gets better from there. I think it appeals immediately to those not in the "I just want the damn thing to run" category.

Anyway, if you can accurately answer all of the questions you asked above, every major automobile manufacturer on the planet will be beating your door down with sacks full of cash. This isn't really a proper reply to your most righteous post, really just wanted to offer a thumbs-up. Sounds like you have some serious brain cells left despite your vast array of V8 automobiles and their emissions.

THUMPIN455

I dont sniff the tail pipe... well, not often.. okay.. not every day.... well not for long each day...

Cannonball888

Wow dude, that was too deep for me.
I think I'll wade back into the shallow threads.

restomod66

Dude,
Can I get cliffnotes on your original thought to summarize them!!! You are on a roll and it was deeeepppppppp!!!!!!

THUMPIN455

Mustangs and Camaros are viewed by many and marketed as economy cars with performance options.. 67-70 Cougars and All years of Firebirds are viewed and marketed as Performance vehicles with economy options...

Yet people will still say they have a powerfull muscle car even if it has a 6 in it, or a base V8 with a 2 barrel. They feel the need to defend the choice they made in buying it, that they didnt want a Civic, they wanted a Ferrari.. so to speak.

Its not a slam against the Mustang, as they were some badazz rides with the big engines, its just there were more built with 6's and base 2v V8s than the high powered V8s, and that is in contrast to the marketing used to sell early Cougars and the Firebird. Its tough to find a 6 Firebird Most are Trans Am or Formula models with the large V8. And the only way to get a 6 in a 67-78 Cougar is to put one in it. They were all V8s. Yet they shared the same archetcture as the Mustang and Camaro respectively.. (not saying they are all the same car, but Cougar/Mustang or Camaro/firebird are the same basic understructure)

I wonder why people are so adamant about defending the car they have from sayin its based on economy? its still a cool car and can be made into anything they want.