What is it like driving '65 - '73 Mustang and how does it compare to a S550??

[Fly2High]

There is one more thing I think the older cars did better and that was use of space.

Someone already mentioned that the engine compartment looked better and was much cleaner. I have seen other modern cars engine bays and they can look better than what we have now. They just need to do it. I loath the plastic covers. Just make the actual intakes and headers be exposed and keep the plumbing neat.

I also feel that trunk and interiors were more usable in older cars. I have never been in a early Mustang but did ride in a '89 fox body. The back seat was usable and no one felt cramped. I know I am in the minority but the fact that it had a hatch also made the trunk and fold down seats more usable. I would love to have a hatchback/fastback Mustang again. With all the ,'I need lots of airspace' SUV craze, I would think that might satisfy those who want a performance car but make the available space more usable. I have had 2 ('86 Daytona Turbo Z and a '10 TC) and my sister had a '90 240SX and none of them leaked from the hatch. the 240 did have a leak around the taillight but some butyl rubber and a reinstall and that was fine. In total, we had those car over 35 years without a leak. It can be done.

Finally, I think that the current touchscreen is a lousy idea. I prefer a tactile sensation and prefer actual knobs, dials and switches to a touch screen. I find myself asking the passenger to do things or pull over when I want to use the touchscreen. It just takes your eyes off the road for too long. I know it is the current trend but I hope it goes the way of the dodo. Digital dash is fun but I tend to prefer the classical look of analog mechanical gauges. Yeah, I have the 12" digital but I am not sure it adds much. Just more reasons to be distracted. This car is for driving ad you need to be aware when driving one.

Sponsored

 

[Fly2High]

That no-travel seat aside, you just got in and drove. It's not like there was anything truly advanced to compare it against.

You were probably more aware of the driver's involvement in, well, driving. But less aware of how crude the various systems were at the time. Basically, you just dealt with it, and enjoyed the freedom that driving gave you. I don't think anybody ever thought 'geez, these 4-wheel drum brakes flat-out scare me' or that needing about twice as much rotation of the steering wheel to make any given turn as we do today was worth complaining about.

Actually, the 1960's Mustangs were - relatively speaking here - noticeably refined relative to the cars of the 1950's.



I think that last part is particularly true with respect to today's emphasis on 'refinement' and 'features'. Where "good enough to enjoy driving it" isn't good enough. Where refinement has insulated us from many of the sensations under the guise of "reducing NVH". Too far, for sure, and the poster-boy for that might be where mfrs now feel they have to either make a pipe to bring engine sounds into the cabin or fool us with electronically synthesized sounds.



In a couple of words, 'raw' vs 'polished'. Which applies across the board from 1960's cars vs today's.


Norm

Exactly!

I think we were forced to recognize that if our car took a long distance to stop, we incorporated that into our driving and our decision making to keep ourselves safe. Same is true for steering


As for raw vs polished, I can agree. Some of the early stuff looks like they bolted a lawn chair in the car and there was next to nothing between you and the outer door skins and the firewall as well. The dash was just thick enough to hide the wiring and heater blower and exchanger.

At the same time, our doors today look to be 3/4 of a foot thick! why? OK, safety but I still ask why when other cars have the same ratings with thinner doors.

 

[Jimmy Dean]

There is one more thing I think the older cars did better and that was use of space.

Someone already mentioned that the engine compartment looked better and was much cleaner. I have seen other modern cars engine bays and they can look better than what we have now. They just need to do it. I loath the plastic covers. Just make the actual intakes and headers be exposed and keep the plumbing neat.

I also feel that trunk and interiors were more usable in older cars. I have never been in a early Mustang but did ride in a '89 fox body. The back seat was usable and no one felt cramped. I know I am in the minority but the fact that it had a hatch also made the trunk and fold down seats more usable. I would love to have a hatchback/fastback Mustang again. With all the ,'I need lots of airspace' SUV craze, I would think that might satisfy those who want a performance car but make the available space more usable. I have had 2 ('86 Daytona Turbo Z and a '10 TC) and my sister had a '90 240SX and none of them leaked from the hatch. the 240 did have a leak around the taillight but some butyl rubber and a reinstall and that was fine. In total, we had those car over 35 years without a leak. It can be done.

Finally, I think that the current touchscreen is a lousy idea. I prefer a tactile sensation and prefer actual knobs, dials and switches to a touch screen. I find myself asking the passenger to do things or pull over when I want to use the touchscreen. It just takes your eyes off the road for too long. I know it is the current trend but I hope it goes the way of the dodo. Digital dash is fun but I tend to prefer the classical look of analog mechanical gauges. Yeah, I have the 12" digital but I am not sure it adds much. Just more reasons to be distracted. This car is for driving ad you need to be aware when driving one.

not much you can do about that. between the frames and doors and fenders all having to be thicker for crumple zones and safety reasons, along with body lines themselves, space under the hood has to be taken up by significantly more stuff, exhaust and emmissions control equipment, sensors and controllers, pumps and such. I mean, an old car had what, three sensors on the motor? water temp, tach, and oil pressure? then one off the battery and one off the transmission? A total of 6 wires under the hood not directly off the battery? plus spark plug wires. A New motor has what, 20+ sensors for well, everything? hundreds of wires, multiple computers? old motor had maybe a line from the valve cover to the carb for egr, now you have 4 O2 sensors, 2-4 cats 2 mufflers, PCV valve, EGR? all sorts of different monitoring and controlling equipment. My old 460 I have to unplug one wiring harness and a fuel line and I can pull the engine out. some newer vehicles it is easier to pull the body off the car than the pull the engine!

 

[Fly2High]

not much you can do about that. between the frames and doors and fenders all having to be thicker for crumple zones and safety reasons, along with body lines themselves, space under the hood has to be taken up by significantly more stuff, exhaust and emmissions control equipment, sensors and controllers, pumps and such. I mean, an old car had what, three sensors on the motor? water temp, tach, and oil pressure? then one off the battery and one off the transmission? A total of 6 wires under the hood not directly off the battery? plus spark plug wires. A New motor has what, 20+ sensors for well, everything? hundreds of wires, multiple computers? old motor had maybe a line from the valve cover to the carb for egr, now you have 4 O2 sensors, 2-4 cats 2 mufflers, PCV valve, EGR? all sorts of different monitoring and controlling equipment. My old 460 I have to unplug one wiring harness and a fuel line and I can pull the engine out. some newer vehicles it is easier to pull the body off the car than the pull the engine!

I cannot disagree but it is something better about the older cars. Sure, you had to work on them but at the same time, you had the room to do so. I use to joke that when I had to work on my '73 Olds 98, I would sit on the fenders with my legs dangling into the engine bay to work on a 7.4 L engine!! It was easy to see the floor even with that huge motor in there. There was room for basic tools to be used. Cannot say that now.

 

[Jimmy Dean]

I cannot disagree but it is something better about the older cars.

yeah. I have a 460 in my 82 bronco and I can climb into the engine bay with that massive motor in there. my new 86 bronco with the windsor I could sleep underneath that hood if I took out the compressor.

 

[Fly2High]

Speaking about engines, that too is something I liked about older cars. You could work on the engine and you didn't need a computer degree to do so. I have one and I still find it challenging at times. Also, too many specialty tools to get all that sensor data and how often do you really use them. It doesn't pay for the home mechanic to buy many of the computer type tooling since they may use it all of once or twice. Modern cars may be more reliable (ok, MUCH more reliable) but they are ridiculous to work on.

There is a certain joy when you work on your own car and keep it running well. I can say that I kinda take it for granted that my car will start every morning but that is the price you pay for this. The engine is too complex for most so the wallet comes out and the hood stays closed.

 

[Norm Peterson]

There is one question I would like answered.

Did you feel the cars today having so much torque and hp are safer to drive than any other year Mustang or there was a sweet spot in the Mustang lineage where it had just the right amount of power and performance that the average Joe could use fully?

The easy statement is that they're safer to drive at any given speed.

Safer with respect to ultimate acceleration and cornering capabilities, not so easy. Losing control later rather than sooner generally means you're going faster, and crash energy is a speed squared thing.


Norm

 

[Norm Peterson]

not much you can do about that. between the frames and doors and fenders all having to be thicker for crumple zones and safety reasons, along with body lines themselves, space under the hood has to be taken up by significantly more stuff, exhaust and emissions control equipment, sensors and controllers, pumps and such.

File most of that stuff, including the safety/crumple zone stuff, under stuff we just didn't even think about. On 'body lines', one thing that the lack of safety mandates permitted was leaner - dare I suggest 'more graceful' - styling. A 1966 Mustang just looks lighter than the S550 and S197, and it's not because you can see things like how much metal is there or how thick it is.


Norm

 

[Jimmy Dean]

File most of that stuff, including the safety/crumple zone stuff, under stuff we just didn't even think about. On 'body lines', one thing that the lack of safety mandates permitted was leaner - dare I suggest 'more graceful' - styling. A 1966 Mustang just looks lighter than the S550 and S197, and it's not because you can see things like how much metal is there or how thick it is.


Norm

yeah, being able to have lower belt lines since you weren't really trying to reduce damage from side impacts, straighter hoods since there was no mandate to reduce damage caused in a pedestrian accident. thinner roofs that would crumple in a rollover allowed for more greenhouse space giving them a very airy look. I think the lower belt line though is the biggest, and can be seen on many different vehicles, especially trucks, look at a 90s or older truck vs anything today, how less bulky they were around the doors

look at how much more open and light this looks than a S550.

vs

 

[Cheo]

Like many have said, noisy, smelly, and a handful to drive but wouldn’t trade it for ANY modern Mustang. 1969 Mustang GT Sportsroof 351W 4spd

 

[Norm Peterson]

yeah, being able to have lower belt lines since you weren't really trying to reduce damage from side impacts, straighter hoods since there was no mandate to reduce damage caused in a pedestrian accident. thinner roofs that would crumple in a rollover allowed for more greenhouse space giving them a very airy look. I think the lower belt line though is the biggest, and can be seen on many different vehicles, especially trucks, look at a 90s or older truck vs anything today, how less bulky they were around the doors

look at how much more open and light this looks than a S550.

vs

"open and light" . . . that gets into something I hadn't even thought about before . . . limousines aside, glass was clear in 1960's cars.


Norm

 

[Fly2High]

Yes, and as a result glare from all light sources was worse (day and night), the sun would heat the interior more rapidly, and you could get a sunburn through the glass.

Hate to say it but glass does absorb UV. That is why those auto tint glasses don't work in the car. Sure, more gets though than darkened glass but glass is a UV absorber even without tint.

https://www.physlink.com/education/...,these energetic & somewhat harmful radiation.

 

[Norm Peterson]

I think we were forced to recognize that if our car took a long distance to stop, we incorporated that into our driving and our decision making to keep ourselves safe. Same is true for steering
. . .
At the same time, our doors today look to be 3/4 of a foot thick! why? OK, safety but I still ask why when other cars have the same ratings with thinner doors.

Back in the 1960's people readily accepted more risk than they do today, and were more willing to do their own management of life's risks. It was just a whole different attitude, and not limited to where cars were concerned.

Best I can do to explain this is that we drove with the attitude that, statistics and prom-night crash-scare movies be damned, we weren't going to crash. Today it's everybody from the NHTSA and the CPSC down to those who would sell us insurance against everything constantly telling us that we're supposed to focus more on the possibility of crashing and the rest of the bad things in life actually happening, than on doing what we can individually do to keep them from happening in the first place.


Norm

 

[Norm Peterson]

Yes, and as a result glare from all light sources was worse (day and night), the sun would heat the interior more rapidly, and you could get a sunburn through the glass.

More things we just dealt with and didn't worry about.

Left arms probably got sunburned more often than right arms (courtesy of no A/C in many cars), but then again we were outdoors more than people are today.


Norm

 

[Norm Peterson]

With a family history of skin cancer, "just deal with it" isn't a viable life strategy in my book. Though I suppose people then also "just dealt with" lung cancer too from all the smoking they were doing indoors and out. Just because it was done, doesn't mean it should have been.

We dealt with cars the way they were because that's the way they were. The only way they were. It was either that or stay in the house. I'm not even sure how well the effect of sun exposure on skin cancers was understood back then. I certainly don't remember sunscreens advertised as such back then. Those came later, and only with low SPF numbers at first.

People got sunburned at the beach, not from driving to get there, and those who found out that they were susceptible to being burnt learned to be careful (this includes one of my best friends through public schools, and later on, my gf/wife). Outside of limousines, nobody rode in a car that had tinted windows, and all cars looked "lighter" as a result. Today's car glass that carries at least a little tinting from the factory adds visual mass that just makes them look heavier.


Norm

Sponsored