• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Big mustang monthly mistake
#1
here is a link to an article buy mustang monthly About a 1970 boss 351. Of course they never made a boss 351 in 1970 and the car is clearly a 1971. I am surprised that nobody caught that in editing hahaha

http://www.mustangmonthly.com/featuredve...index.html

Eric


[Image: a58hgh.jpg]
DRIVE IT DON'T STORE IT!
  Reply
#2
Link not workingConfused
  Reply
#3
I keep seeing 1970 mustangs advertised as boss 351's don't these people do there research. The fact that you have a cleavland in the car does not make it a boss.
try it now

Eric


[Image: a58hgh.jpg]
DRIVE IT DON'T STORE IT!
  Reply
#4
72fastback;33137 Wrote:here is a link to an article buy mustang monthly About a 1970 boss 351. Of course they never made a boss 351 in 1970 and the car is clearly a 1971. I am surprised that nobody caught that in editing hahaha

http://www.mustangmonthly.com/featuredve...index.html

It was bought on January 14th 1971 so probably actually built in 1970 - maybe that's what they were referring to???

Brett
[Image: stangprofile3.jpg]
  Reply
#5


It was bought on January 14th 1971 so probably actually built in 1970 - maybe that's what they were referring to???
[/quote]

Maybe but they should still call it a 1971. No matter what year it was made it is still a 71 model year.

R.E.S.P.E.C.T FIND OUT WHAT IT MEANS TO ME. Haha

Eric


[Image: a58hgh.jpg]
DRIVE IT DON'T STORE IT!
  Reply
#6
72fastback;33147 Wrote:It was bought on January 14th 1971 so probably actually built in 1970 - maybe that's what they were referring to???

Maybe but they should still call it a 1971. No matter what year it was made it is still a 71 model year.

R.E.S.P.E.C.T FIND OUT WHAT IT MEANS TO ME. Haha

[/quote]

I was thinking the same thing, they start off with the factory worker image and that would have been in 1970 but later on they clearly refer to it as a 1970 Mustang. This is pretty unbelievable considering they are a Mustang Mag.


'Mike'
73 Convertible - 351C/4V CC heads/4bolt/forged flat tops/comp 270/rhodes/mallory unilite/tri-power/hookers/glasspacks/c6/3.50 limited slip/Gear Vendors/Global West sub frames, strut rods and shelby style traction bars/ Rear sway bar/tilt steering (not original)

Pics of modifications included in:
  Reply
#7
Ya they do a few mess up's...I emailed the editor cause they mentioned that the 1971-73 curb weight was allmost 4,000 pounds.....I told them that was bad press from the early 1970's cause of the gas prices and slander on the car...If you go too fords curb weights you will see it tops with all options 3200ish...maybe 3300 at max...Thats with out gas or driver....which is still less heavy than the 1969 and 70 models of mach 1 and boss..lighter than the camaro and trans am...But cause of the bad press people seem to think there really heavy....He emailed me back...And said that the 4,000 pounds mentioned in mustang monthly was probably a bit stretched cause of bias on them years of mustangs .....they really do get bad press and push it at times..lol...all though i was happy he took the time to email me back..or some one over there did..lol
  Reply
#8
yeah it shouldn't matter what year the car was built, its still a 1971 car. If you buy a brand new car labeled a 2012, but was actually built this year, its still called a 2012.

[Image: 25rnz1y.jpg]

~Buddy
  Reply
#9
I'm just getting tired of our cars getting snubbed so much. I mean, last year Mustang II's seemed to get more coverage. And how about that weird guy in PA with the house full of SVOs? I could also care less about Jack Rousch's collection or Jay Leno's disparaging comments about the '70s Mustangs.

Even the vendors (yes, you too Steve) know that MM is a pre-'71-'73 rag because their ads rarely have parts exclusive to the '71-'73s. They'll put up '64.5-'73 'universal' type parts, and the token "oh yeah, we have a couple things for '71-'73s too" floor mats or something. Check it out and tell me if I'm wrong.

Nah - as many '64.5-'68s as they stuff in there, they should be able to throw in a '71-'73 article (with pictures) just about every issue. I wish they'd expand the Reader's Cars section to more than just 3 or 4 cars as well.

Eric

[Image: mach1sig2.gif]
  Reply
#10
I hear your angst, Eric.

What if we just look at production numbers, and compare the number of 64.5 to 70 Mustangs produced compared to 71 - 73 Mustangs built? I'm too lazy to search for it, but if it's about 3:1 or 4:1, then we'd expect to see 3 or 4 magazine articles or parts manufactured for the early Mustangs for every 1 article or part produced for the 71 - 73 'stangs, right? We'll always be the red-headed step-children (and proud of it!), but could it be due more to math than fox body arrogance?

Just a point for discussion, my friend. Smile

Doc

Doc

[Image: 6y14ea.jpg]

Project started 8-7-10
Completed: All new suspension, rebuilt 351C H Code bored .030 over with mild cam and intake, new 3.50 TracLok, custom exhaust system
Current "mini-project": interior upgrade Undecided
  Reply
Share Thread:  


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
runninpony How I met my Mustang Fredensborg 3 143 07-15-2018, 07:06 PM
Last Post: Fredensborg
  A mistake in the making..... mustang_sam 22 4,271 07-01-2018, 09:33 AM
Last Post: rackerm
  How to buy a used Mustang Boss1Ray 0 145 06-24-2018, 09:23 PM
Last Post: Boss1Ray
  Rental Mustang question... soonerbillz 3 384 06-14-2018, 12:13 PM
Last Post: Boss1Ray
Wrench 1973 Mustang greyskier 3 244 06-08-2018, 04:40 PM
Last Post: greyskier
  "I SPY A MUSTANG" Boss1Ray 2 219 06-05-2018, 01:02 PM
Last Post: OMS
  Mustang crash eddyw 8 1,428 06-01-2018, 02:34 PM
Last Post: Boss1Ray
  Locating my 1971 Ford Mustang Boss 351 Rwilkosz 21 3,748 05-15-2018, 07:55 PM
Last Post: Rwilkosz



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)