Talk:Ford Mustang (first generation)

i have a 1971 mach 1 vin is 1f05m100012 and under the front fenders says it's a 1f05f100012. is this really a number 12 car?

Someone reference

Please reference Mustang Monthly Magazine, September Issue  Mustang  20:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see the engine options for the 1971-73 cars with a special mention of the very high performance Boss 351. Solid lifters,11.7-1 compression etc. I read a period magazine article about a mostly stock 1971 "Boss" mustang (the testers added headers?) that ran high 13 second range through the 1/4 mile.

Also would like to see some performance data from period tests for all the years.Include mpg too is possible.The EPA tested the 1973 Cougar (351 4V) and got 8.7 MPG.(ref."Changing Times;The Kiplinger Magazine". "Which Cars Guzzle the Most Gas".(Aug.1973) This info would be pretty interesting to the youth of today contemplating the purchase of one of these cars from this era.

I don't even like Mustangs but I still would like to see more info on here, if any Mustang guys would like to help out.76.166.245.241 (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Engine/base price/production lists

These are all unreferenced, and such a level of detail is better suited to a fan site anyway. All they're doing here is mucking up the page. I'm inclined to remove them unless there's a fair argument in favor of keeping them. --Sable232 (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sable232: I agree, there are no references for this detailed information. There are numerous Mustang enthusiast web pages that provide such in-depth coverage. There seems no reason to keep these tables in an encyclopedia article. Moreover, they cover only some of the years. not the entire first generation of Mustang models. CZmarlin (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Replaced them with sourced tables with engines infoSHAMAN 20:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

1971-1973

1. Why there's so little about 1971-1973 model, where are fancy tables with engines like for previous years, and where to look for that info?
2. I think that this article could be split into 3 as here are in fact three generations within it.

• 1964-1968
• 1969-1970
• 1971-1973

Shaman (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Shaman: Please contribute referenced information to improve and expand the article! Regarding your suggested split: the article's "first generation" is correct. The Mustang used the same platform from 1964 to 1973; therefore, it is one generation. No amount of facelifting, body designs, or restyling defines a "generation". Nor does the addition of new options engines, etc. change to a "new" generation since the Mustang's basic chassis remained the same during this period. CZmarlin (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If not split, then definitely infoboxes are needed for each generation, as dimensions are totally different for '67 and '71 (I'm keen to do that). When it comes to the 1971-73 again I read here: http://www.mustangandfords.com/thehistoryof/16382_ford_mustang_mach_1/index.html The platform was based more on the Fairlane/Torino/Cyclone than it was on the Mustang of 1967-'70. Wheelbase grew by 1 inch to 109. Overall length grew several inches, and there was significant weight gain. so it looks like they were built on different platform. SHAMAN 12:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This article about the first generation Mustangs should not be spit, but it does need more referenced information and, as you suggest, an infobox to help the readers see how the Mustang grew in size with each restyle of the first generation.

Please note that the first generation Mustang was derived from components used on Ford's Falcon and Fairlane. The reference you quote does not say the 1971 to 1973 models had a new platform. Rather, the rebodied design introduced for the 1971 model year simply used more parts from the larger Fairlare than Falcon components. For example, the compact Falcon never came with power windows, so Ford used the same mechanical and electrical parts as on Torino to offer the new option for now the almost intermediate-sized 1971 Mustangs. No matter how much new metal was outside, increases in the dimensions, or the reliance on parts shared from either the Falcon or Fairlane, the basic Mustang platform was the same from 1964 through 1973. This is confirmed by general interest magazine articles, such as:

• Popular Mechanics, "40 Wild Horses", by Jerry Heasley, August 2004 issue, "Generation I (1964 1/2 - 1973)" pages 64-66.

As well as by more authoritative restoration guides and performance sources, that include the following:

• Ford Mustang Buyer's And Restoration Guide, by Peter C. Sessler and Nilda Sessler (isbn 9780790613260) - "The year 1971 saw the last major restyling of the first-generation Mustang." page 72.
• Boss and Cobra Jet Mustangs: 302, 351, 428 and 429, by Dr John Craft (isbn 9780760300503) "...the rebodied Mustang line that was unveiled for the 1971 model year ... represented the third major restyling of America's original pony car" page 95.

And many, many more sources! CZmarlin (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ford Mustang (first generation)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This article has a lot of detail. Could the author please review WP:LEAD and properly summarize the article. Make sure that each section of the article is synthesized to its most basic points in the LEAD. It is going to take me a few days to get to the entire article, but the article has no chance of passing without a proper LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, please address the issues in the toolbox to the right.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Please reconsider WP:LEAD. View the LEAD as a chance to summarize the important elements of the article in 3000 characters or less. Among the things I think that would be essential to a distillation of the article into a summary would be Iaccoca and roadster. A lead not incorporating these is deficient. I also am not a car guy, but know that the three stripe tail light is associated with the car. There are probably other equally important associated features that deserve mention in the LEAD. Describe the distinguishing features of the Mustang in general and of the first generation in the WP lead. Also, the lead should probably link terms like hardtop, whichever oil crisis you are talking about. I think Mustang folks like engines. Tell the reader a bit about engines. Also define first generation, because the 70s cars don't look much like the originals. What is the meaning of first gen? I am a very lazy WP reader. I represent all readers who only read the LEAD and the infobox. Reconsider your article as if you are preparing it for someone who is not going to read past the LEAD and the infobox. What should they know about the article. You want three meaty paragraphs. No one sentence jobbers.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Link main Ford Mustang article in the LEAD opening paragraph if not sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Conception and styling

• The general tone is unencyclopedic. It overuses quotes in a way that probably violates WP:PRIMARY and should be summarized in your own words in large part. It reads like a Mustang brochure.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

1964–1966

• "The low-end model hardtop used a "V-code" 170 cu in (2.8 L) straight-6 engine and three-speed manual transmission and retailed for US$2,368." is unreferenced and begs the question what about the high-end models?
• US$2,368. needs a current dollar conversion. (See Bobby Orr for example dollar conversions)
• "Production of the "L-code" 260 cu in (4.3 L) engine ceased when the 1964 model year ended." so what. You have never mentioned this engine in the article so why do we care if it was discontinued?
• Lots of terminology needs links like fog lamps, rocker panel stripes, and disc brakes. A four-barrel carbureted engine, etc. Also, bucket seats, an AM radio, shifter, etc.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

As much as I personally like the subject, I think the current version of this article needs to spend some time at WP:PR before it is anywhere near ready for WP:GAC. In addition to the issues that I started to find above, the tables will need to be referenced in a standardized manner. Something like "The following are the statistics for x group of engines." followed by a normal full citation as opposed to a link in the place of a citation at the bottom of a table. The main image needs some sort of logo FUR, I believe. I have not checked other images. It might be better if the main image were formatted more like that of the main article with a picture of a car and a logo. The LEAD remains inadaquate and many paragraphs are all sourced to a single source. For these reasons, I am failing this article before anyone commits to investing more time in this nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. That's how it looked before I started work on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ford_Mustang_(first_generation)&oldid=386545467 I've done alot and have feeling that I'm the only person interested in first gen. Mustangs. Hope someone will read Your notes on what should be addressed and helps! SHAMAN 15:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, you might want to mention the 1964 car was one of the Indianapolis 500 pace cars.

427 motor

The 427 is listed for the 1968 model year even though there has never been any definitive proof of this and it remains one of the most debated facts (or fiction) of muscle car history. Additionally there site used as the ref for this claim appears to be a self published site (blog?) and IMO is far from being credible on such a controversial topic. I wanted to get some feed back from others before making any changes so please share your thoughts. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 05:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This article (from a very well respected, long standing nationally published magazine) gives some context to the 427 legend...207.216.253.134 (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

1969-1970 Engine Errors

In the 1969-1970 engines section there is listed a 1969 351 Cleveland engine. However, this engine was not used in the Mustang until 1970. I would suggest changing this to reflect that this is actually the specifications for a 351ci Windsor 4-barrel engine by simply changing the link from Cleveland to one that redirects to the 351 Ford Windsor page. Next up, the entry directly above this is a 1969-70 351ci Windsor engine, however the horsepower rating for this is listed at 250HP. This is in fact the rating for the 2-barrel Windsor engine and not the 4-barrel which made 290HP. Helihax (talk) 02:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: '69 Engines - Agreed. The Mach I for 1969 only came in a 351W. The 351C wasn't available until 1970 (in fact, NO Cleveland heads were used for the '69 Mach I). Also: 1969 Manufacturing locations: San Jose, California was a production site. I have a Mach I that came off the production line in February 1969 and it's VIN starts 9R - The R => San Jose Plant. 71.106.164.225 (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Ford Mustang (first generation). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101006114714/http://musclecarfacts.net/1965-mustang.html to http://musclecarfacts.net/1965-mustang.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101007085704/http://musclecarfacts.net/1967-mustang.html to http://musclecarfacts.net/1967-mustang.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101006234725/http://musclecarfacts.net/1969-mustang.html to http://musclecarfacts.net/1969-mustang.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110910033349/http://webpages.csus.edu:80/%7Ejrn55/ to http://webpages.csus.edu/~jrn55/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111028233716/http://www.hammar.dyndns.org:80/~mexmust/regmex.htm to http://www.hammar.dyndns.org/~mexmust/regmex.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ford Mustang (first generation). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510182501/http://www.thetech.org/nmot/detail.cfm?ID=8& to http://www.thetech.org/nmot/detail.cfm?ID=8&

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Differential all different in so many models

Where is any information on all the different rear ends used and what vast amount of different size parts were used, from the economy 7.25 rear end up to all the 9" giants 2600:8801:F100:8F:7D8C:AF23:24E:B3AC (talk) 06:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

There were so many variations that depended on engine, gearbox and customer choice that it is impractical to list them all here. Also, WP is only meant to give an overview of the car, not a list of parts - see WP:NOTCATALOG. For fine details it is better to go to one of the many websites dedicated to the Mustang.  Stepho  talk  07:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)