70's Mach one yay or nay

[WhoreLex]

I always hated the look of the early 351 mach ones but recently, very recently I've started to change my opinion

(maybe owning a fox body caused it heh)

What are peoples opinions of them and how much does a decent one go for these days?

[Dr Pepper]

Which particlular year as the mach1 was made in two differant body styles, the 69/70 shape and the 71-73 shape?

[300bhp/ton]

I think they look good, big and bulky but good non the less.

In fact at a show this year I even saw a mid/late 70's Mustang. I've always though these looked pants in pictures, but this example was mint, no better than that infact. And it actually looked quite good IMO. The styling made more sense up close and personal.

[Dr Pepper]

300bhp/ton said:

I think they look good, big and bulky but good non the less.

In fact at a show this year I even saw a mid/late 70's Mustang. I've always though these looked pants in pictures, but this example was mint, no better than that infact. And it actually looked quite good IMO. The styling made more sense up close and personal.

I think you have your years all mixed up, mid to late 70's means 74-75 through to 78-79, well the mustangII came out in 74 and the fox platform mustang in 79, niether could be called big or bulky.
The big/bulky mustang you refer to is the 71-73 shape, replacing the slightly smaller and more inkeeping with the first mustangs the 69-70 shape.
The Mach1 option replaced the GT for 69 and became a model in its own right in 70, when the new big shape was launched in 71 the Mach1 model was carried on, right through to the end in 73. There was a Mach1 option on the little mustangII but not all years, I think the last two years, 77 and 78 but not sure of this.

[300bhp/ton]

Dr Pepper said:

300bhp/ton said:

I think they look good, big and bulky but good non the less.

In fact at a show this year I even saw a mid/late 70's Mustang. I've always though these looked pants in pictures, but this example was mint, no better than that infact. And it actually looked quite good IMO. The styling made more sense up close and personal.

I think you have your years all mixed up, mid to late 70's means 74-75 through to 78-79, well the mustangII came out in 74 and the fox platform mustang in 79, niether could be called big or bulky.
The big/bulky mustang you refer to is the 71-73 shape, replacing the slightly smaller and more inkeeping with the first mustangs the 69-70 shape.
The Mach1 option replaced the GT for 69 and became a model in its own right in 70, when the new big shape was launched in 71 the Mach1 model was carried on, right through to the end in 73. There was a Mach1 option on the little mustangII but not all years, I think the last two years, 77 and 78 but not sure of this.

My bad. I hadn't realised there was a Mach 1 Mustang II.

However although badly posted, I assume 70's Mach was being used to refer to one of these:



As used in one of the bond films.

The other car I was referring to would be a Mustang II, couldn't remember the year though.

In fact I have a pic...

Here it is:



Number plate is 1978, although that doesn't mean much. But def a Mustang II. And I was impressed with how it looked in the flesh. 100x better than in pics.

[MikeyT]

R reg is 1976!

[boyzee]

A few photos of my old 1969 428 scj and my 351 cu 69 fastback

[OJ]

I quite like the way they look, although I've seen one a couple of times in Reigate and it always strikes me how bloody enormous it is!

[Shellz_Mach1]

Yay from me! The 71-73 shape is one of the best looking Mustangs IMHO. I bought one purely because it was all I could afford at the time but over the years decided it was one of the nicest shapes. It is big, it's bulky, awkward to park and you cannot see anything out the back, but these are all things you learn to live with very quickly. They're best in the lighter colours I think as you see the subtle lines better (especially yellow!!).

[roscobbc]

Shellz_Mach1 said:

Yay from me! The 71-73 shape is one of the best looking Mustangs IMHO. I bought one purely because it was all I could afford at the time but over the years decided it was one of the nicest shapes. It is big, it's bulky, awkward to park and you cannot see anything out the back, but these are all things you learn to live with very quickly. They're best in the lighter colours I think as you see the subtle lines better (especially yellow!!).

Interesting thread. Apologoies but I am a Vette vistor from CCCUK. Always preferred '69/'70 Mach1 428 THE BUSINESS!! and probably the best looking muscle car ever!! but ended-up some years ago buying a totally stock '71 429 SCJ, super, super rare (even lower production no.s than 429 Boss) came with 4.11 detroit locker, solid lifter cam and C6. That thing would light the rugs through 1st, 2nd and even squeek 295/50's going in to top! Other than low production no's not too many made it through the 1970's as many got totalled (as did many big block muscle cars) Owned a '70 rag top Mustang for three weeks (that was crap with 200 cu in 6 pot and 3 speed) Wife had a '76 rhd Mustang 302 for several years - really nice car to drive - a bit like a 'full size' yank, i.e. plenty of wheelspin with 13" tyres and really floppy handling - great rack and pinion steering though.

[malc350]

Hi Ross, couldn't agree more, the 69/70 is it: just look at the prsence of that old original 69 in the photos above. Old steel wheels, period paint and all, it still looks like a real chunk of a car. What a beauty!

Malc

[roscobbc]

malc350 said:

Hi Ross, couldn't agree more, the 69/70 is it: just look at the prsence of that old original 69 in the photos above. Old steel wheels, period paint and all, it still looks like a real chunk of a car. What a beauty!

Malc

'Lo stranger! - back in very early '70's local garage owner to me picked a '69 428 sj - I was soooooooo impressed with the really significant smokey burn-outs - that was it, I was sold - had to have one! Kinda happened with the '71 429 scj.