• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Size Comparison
#1
bulb 
Rpmcarter brought up a good point regarding size in another thread. I know our cars don't get a lot of love and some of us are a little over-sensitive about it (including me), so I did a little comparison test here. Consider it medicine to sooth our bruised feelings.

1971 Mustang: 3,261 lbs (V8), 109" wheelbase, 190" length, 75" width.
1971 Chevelle: 3,296 lbs (2 door V8), 118" wheelbase, 198" overall length, 76" overall width.

Also, the Mustang didn't come as a station wagon (thank God). Who's the fat pig now?

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1971-1972-...ations.htm
http://www.ehow.com/list_7624126_1971-ch...specs.html

Steve



[Image: 25yvyp3.jpg]
  Reply
#2
rofl

Actually, when you compare a '71-'73 against a '70 - the '70 actually looks like the 'fat pig' because the lines of the '71-'73 are more complimentary to the extra 'size.'

1969-1970 Mustang:
Wheelbase, inches: 108.0
Length, inches: 187.4
Curb-weight range, pounds: 2,690-3,210 (1969); 2,721-3,240 (1970)
Width, inches: 71.3-71.7
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1969-1970-...ations.htm

1971-73 Mustang:
Wheelbase, inches: 109.0
Length, inches: 187.5-190.0
Curb-weight range, pounds: 2,907-3,261 (1971); 2,995-3,216 (1973)
Width, inches: 75.0
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1971-1972-...ations.htm

Yeah - all 4" inches of width, 3" inches of length, 21 lbs, and loss of a few inches of height makes our car SO MUCH BIGGER. Pfft - whatever. Rolleyes

Eric

[Image: mach1sig2.gif]
  Reply
#3
No no no...Acording to mustang monthly they ballooned too a hefty 4,000 pounds {rolls eyes} bahahahahaha
  Reply
#4
I think the major problem with our cars is that they are "Mustangs", which is why everybody will compare them to the older ones. And I mean we all agree that they do not have much in common with the 69-70, eand even less with the 64-68.
If this car had been marketed under a different name, maybe something martial like (Cougar's) "Eliminator" or the like, it could have stood its own ground.
On a related matter:
I remember that on a German Mustang forum someone posted what the next generation Mustang was supposed to look like and it showed a car that resembled a mix between an Audi TT and a Nissan GT-R.
Most people did not like it and I posted:" I like it a lot. It's a great looking car...... but somehow it's not a Mustang."

And I think this is the main problem. Our cars are cool cars, just not cool "Mustangs". They were no longer Pony Cars.

I mean, if you look at our convertibles, they have more in common with Mopars B-Bodies than with their Mustang ancestors. (Which is cool with me, as I love Mopars! Big Grin )

[Image: 1z21rv4.png]

Mike

"If I were you...... I´d rather be me."  Tongue

Check out my video:
http://www.7173mustangs.com/thread-my-mustang-in-action

  Reply
#5
sm3570;107662 Wrote:Rpmcarter brought up a good point regarding size in another thread. I know our cars don't get a lot of love and some of us are a little over-sensitive about it (including me), so I did a little comparison test here. Consider it medicine to sooth our bruised feelings.

1971 Mustang: 3,261 lbs (V8), 109" wheelbase, 190" length, 75" width.
1971 Chevelle: 3,296 lbs (2 door V8), 118" wheelbase, 198" overall length, 76" overall width.

Also, the Mustang didn't come as a station wagon (thank God). Who's the fat pig now?

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1971-1972-...ations.htm
http://www.ehow.com/list_7624126_1971-ch...specs.html

The 73 Chevelle in my garage

[Image: 2rr7aiv.png]

Just cruising along minding our own business when BAM!!! The LAWS show up.
  Reply
#6
marks73;107689 Wrote:
sm3570;107662 Wrote:Rpmcarter brought up a good point regarding size in another thread. I know our cars don't get a lot of love and some of us are a little over-sensitive about it (including me), so I did a little comparison test here. Consider it medicine to sooth our bruised feelings.

1971 Mustang: 3,261 lbs (V8), 109" wheelbase, 190" length, 75" width.
1971 Chevelle: 3,296 lbs (2 door V8), 118" wheelbase, 198" overall length, 76" overall width.

Also, the Mustang didn't come as a station wagon (thank God). Who's the fat pig now?

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1971-1972-...ations.htm
http://www.ehow.com/list_7624126_1971-ch...specs.html

The 73 Chevelle in my garage

Of all the things you are getting fixed, Ron White says "you can't fix stupid" whatever that means in this caseConfused
  Reply
#7
Tnfastbk;107697 Wrote:
marks73;107689 Wrote:
sm3570;107662 Wrote:Rpmcarter brought up a good point regarding size in another thread. I know our cars don't get a lot of love and some of us are a little over-sensitive about it (including me), so I did a little comparison test here. Consider it medicine to sooth our bruised feelings.

1971 Mustang: 3,261 lbs (V8), 109" wheelbase, 190" length, 75" width.
1971 Chevelle: 3,296 lbs (2 door V8), 118" wheelbase, 198" overall length, 76" overall width.

Also, the Mustang didn't come as a station wagon (thank God). Who's the fat pig now?

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1971-1972-...ations.htm
http://www.ehow.com/list_7624126_1971-ch...specs.html

The 73 Chevelle in my garage

Of all the things you are getting fixed, Ron White says "you can't fix stupid" whatever that means in this caseConfused

I'm thinking I'll have the 496 in it before the surgery. Who knows. Maybe pigs can fly! Big Grin

[Image: 2rr7aiv.png]

Just cruising along minding our own business when BAM!!! The LAWS show up.
  Reply
#8
I believe Luxstang makes a GREAT point!

Per my memory, the "piling on" as it relates to the Mustang being big started around 1968 and got worse in 1969 and 1970. Once the "writers" started drawing attention to the (what I saw as a gradual) "weight" increase of the Mustang, it became a bigger (in my mind) issue.

That having been said, I believe the later Mustangs are "head and shoulders" (as they should be) above the early Mustangs in terms of performance (all types) and safety. That is one of the reasons I try to build my "older" Mustangs to a level that includes "modern" updates.

As far as the weight issue, just build a combinations that makes enough useable HP and torque to reach your desired goalSmile.

...my $.02.


BT

Do the RIGHT thing.
  Reply
#9
I went to high school with a guy who had a '69 Mach 1 (daddy bought it). The first time I saw it, it was parked right behind my car, the first thing I remember thinking was how much smaller my car appeared than his, especially height wise. My roof line was much lower.

Our cars don't weigh anymore than any other muscle car of the time. Just a little more than the very early mustangs.

[Image: 25rnz1y.jpg]

~Buddy
  Reply
#10
IIRC, I had this discussion with my Camaro loving friend, and his '74 was listed as 50lbs heavier and an inch wider than our cars.

1973 Mach 1 Q code 351 4V, 9A paint, standard interior, 3.50 rear, C6 trans.
  Reply
Share Thread:  


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Value Comparison Pdr1966 0 192 06-01-2018, 09:07 PM
Last Post: Pdr1966
  carb size firedawg77 5 664 08-29-2017, 07:31 PM
Last Post: L.C.Gray
Magnum Wheel tire size Supabedo 7 1,165 09-06-2016, 05:18 PM
Last Post: 73429mach
Magnum Tire Size and Backspacing with Pics 73Vert302 7 1,461 05-19-2015, 03:13 AM
Last Post: 73Vert302
  1972 shifter thread size ? savagess 7 1,657 04-21-2015, 07:11 PM
Last Post: mustang68
runninpony mustang comparison superduty 2 529 03-25-2014, 08:45 PM
Last Post: 71mach351
  Tire Size Conversion Chart Boss1Ray 3 1,779 01-09-2014, 01:11 PM
Last Post: Boss1Ray



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)