Vintage Mustang Forums banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
699 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I was talking about this subject with someone the other day. I ran into someone at an all car car show last year. He made the comment to another Mustang owner that he should get a real classic.

Has anyone else had experiences like this? How common is this attitude by other car collectors? Do many look upon Mustangs as not being classic cars? Are Mustangs looked upon with disdain any more than any other make and model?

I'm not worrying, just wondering,
Kevin
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
7,010 Posts
I think some people would maintain that a mustang is not a "classic" car because it isn't old enough. I don't think it is because of "disdain" I think it's quibbling over semantics.

Phil
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,507 Posts
Surely the guy was kidding? :: I have not run into any snobbery at the many shows/cruise-ins attended. I even had to park in the last spot...gasp...corvette section a couple of weeks ago at a cruise-in. They were really nice...I did ask first and they said sure. :: Heck I love all cars old and older, they just keep getting better and better... ::
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
552 Posts
No I don't think so either. I was at a car show over the weekend and a guy I was talking is looking at selling his 57 chevy and buying a 65 stang vert. The stangs were parked all over the place so and the cars were in no special sections so I think that people look at the stang as a classic versus just another car.

My 2 cents worth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,911 Posts
Thats humorous......


First gen mustangs are THE CLASSIC CAR!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,032 Posts
Some people I know don't have any respect for the '64-'66 stangs because they are just "rebodied falcons". Some other characteristics that provoke negative comments:

- The uh, "peculiar" handling in stock form, and poor power steering system.
- The poor build quality (Mine is original and unfortunately I have to agree.)
- They were built in such high volumes that they aren't nearly as rare as some other cars from that era.
- They only have a relatively low powered 289 in them.

None of these comments apply as much to the later stangs as they do to the first models, but these are the comments I've heard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
391 Posts
Sounds to me like the guy making the comment probably equates classic with high cost. That is snobbery. If so, he is confused and should be ignored.

-BS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
352 Posts
IMO, I don't care if my 67 coupe was a 1937 or a 1997 I would have the same fondness for the car. I like the lines/contours of the mustangs. I own my car for me. As far as the "need to get a real classic"...like someone else said "semantics". I consider all 60's cars as classics.

Keith
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,194 Posts
There are so many classic mustangs driven as daily drivers here in SoCal that only the non-coupes are considered classics to most people down here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,032 Posts
I've run into all kinds, but I think the real car crazies (like us..) don't care what the brand or year, if it's a great car, they like it. The narrow-minded, on the other hand, are going to find something to dislike about anything they don't own themselves.

Just my .02 - I like practically anything with either soul or horsepower or both. ::
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,340 Posts
I was talking about this subject with someone the other day. I ran into someone at an all car car show last year. He made the comment to another Mustang owner that he should get a real classic.

Has anyone else had experiences like this? How common is this attitude by other car collectors? Do many look upon Mustangs as not being classic cars? Are Mustangs looked upon with disdain any more than any other make and model?

I'm not worrying, just wondering,
Kevin
Likely a hardcore bowtie fan .
Chevy guys will never get over the fact that the Mustang forced Chevy to build the Camaro :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
758 Posts
I think some people would maintain that a mustang is not a "classic" car because it isn't old enough.
It probably has less to do with age than the fact they were made on this side of the pond. Any pond.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,963 Posts
It's sad but true that back in the day the Mustang was regularly dissed as a "girl's car." Unfortunatel, until the 428 CJ came along, the Mustang had nothing to compete with Camaro's 375 hp L-78 396, or even the 396/350. Even the taxicab-motored '67-'69 383 Barracudas could handle the 390 Stangs.

But that's using the quarter mile as the only yardstick. By all other measures the classic Stangs are true "Classic" cars. Indisputably beautiful styling. Racing success (SCCA B Production champs -- beating out 327 CORVETTES -- in '65 and '66; Trans Am champs in '67 and '70; the Cobra Jets dominating NHRA Super Stock then and now). Inextricably a part of the American culture. This may be the most compelling factor of all, that EVERYBODY who lays eyes on your Stang will tell you he or she knew someone who "had one just like it."

As far as the "re-bodied Falcon" diss, what do these people think a 1st Gen Camaro is but a re-bodied Chevy II? What was the Barracuda but a re-bodied Valiant? Or a 1st Gen Corvette, which was based on '54 full-size Chevy running gear all the way through the '62 model year; in other words, running gear that the full-size Chevy itself had left behind in 1955.

And that little 289? You can't call a car a classic if it runs a 289? Don't tell that to the guys who have sunk their millions into Shelby Daytona Coupes and Ford GT Mk I's, or the other guys with the hundreds of thousands invested in 289 Cobras. Don't tell Ferrari-lovers either, whose favorite brand got its rear kicked by those little 289's.

7
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,323 Posts
I have found that it is only "(insert your own word here") if you don't have it... Its VERY RARE!!.... if you dont have it.... When you get one and pay through the teeth.. it becomes "just another one and I have a dozen I know I can get my hands on" if you try and sell it. Classic, rare, fast ( if you have it its fast.. if someone else has it, its faster, meaner, badder etc....) are all in your mind. Personally I would rather have it somewhere in between... A car that is not so popular that you see one everywhere you go but enough so you can talk and have a good time. Most of the classics were plain jane run of the mill everyday cars. Want proof? Just look at how many of them survived.... Ever drive some of these so called classics? They drive like trucks and are uncomfortable as all hell.... Im sticking with VW's and Mustangs because I like them, To hell with what the wannabees and wisha bees say or think...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
758 Posts
None of these comments apply as much to the later stangs as they do to the first models, but these are the comments I've heard.
Other than the absurd "only a 289" comment, all of these are pretty much true of all 64.5-73 Mustangs. Face it: other than the @ss-thumpin' straightline performance of the later big blocks, Mustangs were only modestly better than most cars of the era, which sucked in handling, steering, braking, etc. by any modern definition. Nearly everything from all American makers in the 1960s was based on early-mid 1950s tech.

Most of the cars unabashedly called classic had progressed to decent suspension, brakes, steering, driver support, and overall performance in every category but raw horsepower by the early 1960s. Phil Hill or Dan Gurney might have been able to muscle the hell out of a GT-350, but he would have turned faster lap times in a 3.8 Jag.

None of which has anything to do with the argument. There are lots of classic cars, even late ones, whose OEM performance is so poor that they can barely be wheeled around modern roads. And despite the arguments, yes, Mustangs through at least 1970 can be considered classics. I think the 71-73s made a huge leap into modernity in styling and can only be called "classic" in a watered-down way, the way a friend of mine used to admire his '75 Monte Carlo's "classic" fender lines.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,209 Posts
One attitude I've seen has to do with how easy a Mustang is to maintain and restore compared to just about any other classic car. The poor slob restoring his 1925 Hupmobile hates us Mustangers because he knows we can open up an NPD catalog or go to the junkyard and get pretty much anything we need. They think of us as cheaters!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,108 Posts
I checked with Noah Webster and he has several things to say about the word Classic. My favorite was "Historically Memorable." The Mustang sure fits this definition. Afterall, how many cars are debuted at the Worlds Fair?
Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,489 Posts
I've noticed that the younger generations know these cars on site and will always say something like "wow, cool Mustang". If you take some of these kids to a larger car show (and I have taken my kids and their friends) they are generally unable to identify a Chevelle, Cutlass, GTO or even a Firebird unless they see the badge. They think of Mustangs as "cool old cars", which if you think about it, is a simple but good definition of "classic".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,032 Posts
Sorry man, I thought he wanted to know what we've heard from others, so that's what I gave him.
Like it or not, the standard stock 289 is a small engine without a lot of HP. As far as muscle cars go, that's a negative.
Is "modernity" a word?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
678 Posts
I've never really had anyone say that the Mustang isn't a classic. What I have had said to me by people (and by other Mustangers) is that the 71-73 cars aren't real Mustangs because they are bigger than the original.

My normal reply is, "Well, the 67s are bigger than the 66s, and the 69s are bigger than the 68s so I guess those aren't really Mustangs either." If they persist, I come back with, "Yeah, you're right. The 70s Camaros and Corvettes aren't real either because they are bigger than their originals."

This really ticks me off because I don't think you can name very many car models that didn't grow bigger during the 60s and 70s as they evolved.

Steve
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top