[RagTop]

I was reading my latest issue of MM and to my dismay they listed the most popular Mustangs by vintage. The MOST popular were the 65-66 cars followed by the 67-68 vehicles and then the Fox bodies were listed in front of the 69-70's, the 71&73's and the 72's. First let me say that they had no rational basis for their choices. They say there are more Fox bodies out there than the last five years of the first generation production. OF COURSE! These cars were built from 79-93(?). There would have to be more of them out there! Idiots! Next, they seem to have found a point of differentiation between the 71 & 73 Mustangs and their 72 brothers. These cars were almost identical with the exception of the linearly diluting performance moving from 71 to 73. How could they cull out the 72? A couple of months ago they ran an article on how to identify a "real" GT. Half the information was incorrect! Way to do their homework. I get the impression that the staff of MM is a collection of "professional" journalists that have no particular feeling for automobiles and would be just as happy at "People" writing about Brittany Spears.

GRRRR!
RagTop

 

[Dean_T]

Regarding the Fox chassis Mustangs - '79 through the present, although the '94-'01s only have parts of the original Fox chassis. Seems to me you've pegged it right: MM staff bias.

Magazine editors can be pretty biased. I remember 'way back when Camaro Craft -er I mean Car Craft ran their opinions of the best and worst Muscle cars. They bagged the '69 Boss 302 because of it's lack of street manners and the fact it's valves or cam was too radical for the street. Yeah right, Like a '69 Z28 was any better!

I dumped MM when their "How to" articles became advertisements for manufactures.

Regards,

Dean T

Shikatta Ga Nai - "It cannot be helped"

 

[Teebone]

I refer to them at MM as *Miniature Minds*

'59 T-Bird..'70 Mustang Convert...'72 Mach One
www.geocities.com/theadgroup/T-Bone.html

 

[Kelly]

My local bookstore/magazine stand doesn't even carry that rag any longer. I gather that they aren't doing so well under the new management....

Dang! Just when I got used to being "strange", I became a "newbie". So what the sam hell is that?

 

[Guest]

I haven't received a copy of MM in Many Months. I was going to drop my subscription but they just saved me the trouble.

"When you hear pounding hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras." - Dr. Harold Slavkin, Dean USCSD

 

[G1967T]

Catagory-----Vote/Winner

Look At--------Brittany Spears
Test Drive-----Brittany Spears
Listen To------Mustang
Read About----Mustang


Damn, a tie, what a surprise.

Russ

PS Mustang Illustrated seems OK to me.

 

[pprince]

You can't knock the fox body Mustangs. They really are great cars. They are cheap, fast and plentiful. I love mine. All the young kids go nuts over my GT and see 2+2 as just an old car.

Paul
1965 Mustang 2+2
1989 Mustang GT Convertible
MCA #27261
MCA certified judge for 65's and late models

 

[Mike_B]

I can see where you'd get a bit miffed about them putting the foxes in front of the 69-70 cars. You have to consider the giant impact those cars have made though. They literally brought the Mustang back from the grave and kicked some serious Chevy butt at the time too. The Mustang 5.0 along with cars like the Buick GNX and the Firebird SLP have really revitalized and re-invented the musclecar. Don't get me wrong, I'd take a 69 Boss 302 over any 5.0 Fox car, but they are extremely popular and have made a giant impact on the hobby. I mean just look at the tons of small block Ford parts available now that you couldn't even dream of getting 10 years ago. Just something to consider.

65 Fastback 289 4spd in storage :-(
91 CRX Si... A.K.A. my go-kart with AC!

 

[Guest]

Oh jeez, get a life!!! The 71-73 Mustangs will ALWAYS be low on the totem pole for basically understandable reasons, so get OVER it!! I drove my '73 Mach to work today, but I'm not crying about "who's #1". And the '72 is indeed in no man's land, the 71's had superior powertrains, the '73's get the nostalgic nod for being the last year. MM's chief editor just spent the last 3 friggin years restoring his own '72, but obviously he's not so blindly enamoured by his own pride & joy to not be realistic. I think their rankings are quite proper and subjective. Actually, out of all the rags, I see the guys at MM do more first-hand wrenching themselves than any of the other books. They've also got Bob Perkins available for tech, which is preferrable to trying to answer questions by reading a book. They're going to make mistakes, but this whole "they're biased, they're not car guys, they're clueless" talk is silly. And "I dumped them because their how-to articles became ads for suppliers". What? It's ALWAYS been that way in EVERY magazine. How do you think they get the parts to do the article? These magazines work on a shoestring budget, and they depend on advertisers to pay their bills and bankroll their projects. The piddly amount we pay for a year's subcription surely doesn't cover it. Who cares if a business or two gets some positive exposure in the process? I'm ranting, I know, I just hate to see trash talking with no real basis in reality. BIASED is what I would call someone with the audacity to think that the fox-chassis Mustangs don't belong slap in the middle of that list.

 

[Guest]

MM have done well with my "piddly" amount that I paid to subscribe, I haven't received an issue for 5 months and they have not replied to numerous letters and emails sent to them. This is a similar situation for a lot of subscribers. I agree that MM's tech articles are more credible than other mags but it seems that EMAP are not doing enough to help the magazine survive. As for the Fox bodied stangs, yeah nice cars but who cares, this is the Vintage Mustang Forum for friendly discussion about 65 to 73 Stangs

Tim Russell
Sale, Victoria, Australia

67 Convertible

 

[RagTop]

First of all, I don't have anything to "get over". I have never, and will never own a 71-73 Mustang because they are too much like Gran Torinos and Eisenhower class aircraft carriers for my taste. The arguments you and MM pose for the Fox bodies is fine if it were equally applied to all the first generation cars. The same reasoning that placed them in front of the 69-73 cars would also place them in front of the 65-68 cars. There's more of em and they're more popular with the kids. As a prior owner (actually FoMoCo executive lease cars) of two of the Fox bodies (1979 Mercury Capri and a 1980 Turbocharged 2.3L Mustang) I had a hard time telling them apart from my wifes Pinto wagon at the time. My beef was with two things. First, the 69-70 Mustangs were the bulk of the real first generation muscle cars. Nobody was afraid of the 65-67 Mustang on the streets. The 289 was too puny to be a real threat and the 390 was a truck engine. In 68 1/2 the limited introduction of the 428 turned the Mustang into a certifiable muscle car which arrived in numbers in 69 & 70. You and the guys at MM aught to be somewhat cognizent of that and respectful of the place those cars have in the Mustang heritage. The Fox body is popular becuase it's plentiful and cheap. Just like Chevys.
MM is just pimping the Fox body 5.0L crowd because there are more of them to buy their magazine. BTW, I trash the magazine because the quality of the journalistic effort is just that, Trash!