A new Mustang costs about the same as in 1968.

[TorqueMan]

I just read an interesting story about costs and technical trends for everyday goods and services. For one of his yardsticks, the author used the Ford Mustang:

The price for a basic Mustang hardtop in 1968 was $2,707 ($19,598 in 2018 dollars); today the lowest priced Mustang goes for $25,680. That would suggest that the price of a basic Mustang has increased by 31 percent, but that would be wrong. Consider that adding features to the 1968 model that are now standard on the 2018 car, such as air conditioning, AM/FM radio, tilt steering wheel, power disc brakes, and power steering, would increase its price to $3,466 ($25,553 in 2018 dollars). And this does not take into account other standard modern features such as power windows, rear defrost, car alarm, back-up camera, intermittent wipers, power door locks, airbags, electronic stability control, and much more. In addition, the 1968 car got about 12.7 miles per gallon; today's model gets 31 highway miles per gallon.
​

Sponsored

 

[wanted33]

Yep, it's all relative. When folks say they remember paying 25 cents for a loaf of bread, I ask them how much they were making back then.

 

[LiquidFlame]

But somehow I'd still rather have a '68

 

[bluebeastsrt]

Not me. Ill always take the latest & greatest over something 50 years old. Drum brakes. No thanks. Fuel injection over carbs? 12 speaker sound system with satellite over an AM radio. Yes please.

 

[WhiteyDog]

Not me. Ill always take the latest & greatest over something 50 years old. Drum brakes. No thanks. Fuel injection over carbs? 12 speaker sound system over with satellite over an AM radio. Yes please.

Ha, the AM radio. Yeah, remember that quite well. And the FM converter you had to hook up to it just to have FM radio.

 

[TorqueMan]

But somehow I'd still rather have a '68

Well, a quick look around the intertubes turns up several examples for prices ranging from $30k to over $100k, so they're available. If you want to get one at original MSRP you're gonna need a specially equipped DeLorean...

 

[tom_sprecher]

Having had a few in the past 20 years, my most lasting impression is old cars drive like tractors compared to modern cars.

 

[Arthonon]

Not me. Ill always take the latest & greatest over something 50 years old. Drum brakes. No thanks. Fuel injection over carbs? 12 speaker sound system over with satellite over an AM radio. Yes please.

Yep, I'm totally with you. Growing up in the '70s and '80s, the older cars had a mystique about them because they actually produced power compared to what was being produced at the time. Now, though, the power has largely surpassed that of the '60s cars, plus they can handle a little bit, and we have all the other features that make them safer and more comfortable. I can see there being a little nostalgia about them, but the actual driving experience can't really compare.

 

[VooDooDaddy]

But somehow I'd still rather have a '68

No me. I got my license in the fall of 1986, and my first car was a '70 Nova with a hot little small block under the hood.

Me and all of my friends had muscle cars. Hell, the parking lot at my HS was a virtual car show.

Even though I can afford to have a nice late '60s or early '70s muscle car, I simply have no desire to have one. Not with the selection of great new or newer cars we have to choose from today.

Don't get me wrong, I think some of the most beautiful cars ever made were American cars of that time period I mentioned above; such as: 1967 Corvette, 1969/1970 Camaro/Chevelle, Mustang, 1969 Charger, and 1970 'Cuda; but the technology of that era put them permanently off my 'must have' list.

There are cars of today, IMO, that are equally beautiful to look at, and the technology of today makes them wonderful to drive, not to mention far more reliable, far safer, and far more economical.

 

[frank s]

No question that the modern automobile is very much advanced from those of the "Muscle car" era. I've had a lot of experience with the heavy iron of the sixties and seventies, even a little taste of fifties. My choice for daily and recreational driving is/are the contemporary offerings. They might weigh as much, but they carry it with so much more style and grace.

There is a significant section of the enthusiast population who do enjoy the oldies, some to the point of obsession: see Shelby GT350 owners. Their cars are for the most part race-prepared, very unlike their original incarnations. They'll ride like tractors but corner like the best possible evolutions of the basic platform. That's alll part of the mystique: do the best you can with what you've got, never mind comfort or convenience.

The absolute limits of performance are much, much higher with the modern stuff, but you must know that there are sacrifices to be made along the way that edge the comfort and convenience of late-model platforms into the rides-like-a-brick neighborhood.

Depending on what you're willing to tolerate, at a given level of "improvements" you'll likely go faster in more comfort in a newer car than an older one, thinking of us limitied-funds, one-fun-car folks. If you have the resources, you can have as many of each as you might want, and join the GT350 owners at Shelby club events. They seem to have a great deal of fun with their oldies, comfort and convenience be damned.

 

[LiquidFlame]

I suppose I should clarify my comment... Don't get me wrong, I LOVE my car. I've had 6 cars in 6 years, but had my mustang for almost 2, and I don't already want to sell this one (progress!). But I grew up with the 60s cars around me via my family, and even had a job building/designing restomod cars. So its just in my blood.
Would I rather have a 68 fastback over my 17 GT Premium with built-in butt warmers AND coolers for a daily driver? Not in a million years. But as VooDooDaddy said, theres something special about those 65-73 cars that were ahead of their time. Before emissions took away all the fun...

 

[Mr. Met]

I just read an interesting story about costs and technical trends for everyday goods and services. For one of his yardsticks, the author used the Ford Mustang:

The price for a basic Mustang hardtop in 1968 was $2,707 ($19,598 in 2018 dollars); today the lowest priced Mustang goes for $25,680. That would suggest that the price of a basic Mustang has increased by 31 percent, but that would be wrong. Consider that adding features to the 1968 model that are now standard on the 2018 car, such as air conditioning, AM/FM radio, tilt steering wheel, power disc brakes, and power steering, would increase its price to $3,466 ($25,553 in 2018 dollars). And this does not take into account other standard modern features such as power windows, rear defrost, car alarm, back-up camera, intermittent wipers, power door locks, airbags, electronic stability control, and much more. In addition, the 1968 car got about 12.7 miles per gallon; today's model gets 31 highway miles per gallon.
​

This is sort of misleading though. You cant compare what is standard now to what was 50 years ago. All new technology is expensive at first and is only found on high end models, until it eventually trickles down to become standard in even the cheapest models. Then of course it goes the other way and they start charging you more to take it back out

 

[GreenS550]

Yep, it's all relative. When folks say they remember paying 25 cents for a loaf of bread, I ask them how much they were making back then.

I was making 25 cents an hour working for my Dad. 1962

 

[Joe B.]

In other words, a dollar's worth about a dime from the time the first Mustangs rolled off the line. I'll remember that next time I leave a gratuity or see an entry level job at ten bucks an hour.

 

[VooDooDaddy]

...they start charging you more to take it back out

Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche ???

Not that I would know from first-hand experience.

Sponsored