Opinions can change drastically over half a century. Years back, for example, the idea of a fireproof house made of asbestos sounded like a good idea; we now know that stuff is worse for you than the sweeteners in Tab.
At the same time, certain things that were considered All Bad back in the day are now seen in a new light. We may have laughed at bold brown-and-orange graphics, but now we stick them on brand-new Broncos. As an eight-year-old, my parents might have scoffed at me watching Soul Train on a Saturday afternoon, but time has proven that my very white young ass knew what was dope.
The 1971 to ’73 Mustang was also a product of these times, and after much backlash, they’re finally being respected as a cool-looking rides. It’s high time that we bring the Big ‘Stang back to life.
Who You Callin’ Fat?
Unfortunately, conventional wisdom seems to be that the 1971-73 “big” Mustang was a rather overweight, oversized monstrosity. As with much of this “wisdom,” it’s seemingly a load of crap.
In a recent post of many that I’ve done on Mustangs (hey, you’ve asked for them, so don’t blame me), I posted a picture of this often-maligned Mustang “SportsRoof” and mentioned offhand that this design might be worthy of a revisit. Most of you readers seemed to agree. In fact, you almost demanded that I do this:
It is indeed a great-looking car and almost as iconic as the “Bullitt” 1968 car. Sean Connery’s James Bond famously drove one in Diamonds Are Forever. Famous continuity error: after the two-wheel stunt, the Mustang comes out of the alley on the opposite set of wheels! [Ed note: technically, there’s no goof because Bond and Tiffany are seen changing their angle in a through-the-windshield shot that bridges the exterior shots of the Mustang entering the alley on its passenger-side wheels and then rolling out of the alley on its driver’s-side wheels. That said, this shot was surely inserted later to cover the continuity error – Pete]
Today, the “Eleanor” custom 1968 Mustang is most associated with the film franchise Gone In Sixty Seconds, but it was in fact a 1973 car that featured prominently in the original 1974 film.
Despite this celluloid credibility and striking appearance, the ’71-73 ‘Stang still gets a bad rap by some as being a disgrace to the Mustang line. How did this happen? Part of it might be that it was a departure from the earlier formula for what a Mustang was expected to be. There’s no prominent forward-protruding grille as on earlier car; just a low, wide front opening that features the odd “sport lamps” which Jason has written about before (they’re just extra parking lights with turn signal bulbs and a separate switch that don’t provide any forward illumination). A character line running down the flanks parallel to the ground accentuates just how raised the rear quarter panels are.
Man, the backlight of the “SportsRoof” is so steeply raked that the backlight is more like a sunroof for what passed as a back seat. It’s seemingly a mile front to back but in the rear view mirror, it looks like a mail slot. Yeah, visibility wasn’t great, and the back was claustrophobic, but these things that were considered impracticalities when the car was new just add to the charm today.
The ’72 model thankfully didn’t change much. I like how the black rocker panels break up what might be considered are rather larger fuselage-style visual mass. You’d never think simply chrome hubcaps and “beauty” rings could look so good, yet here we are:
I’ll readily admit that while I love the “SportsRoof” body, the so-called “Hardtop” version of this generation of Mustang is not my favorite, and likely the version that did the most to denigrate the image of the ’71 car. With the Jaguar XJS-style “sail” quarter panels that were often vinyl covered, the whole thing indeed didn’t seem very “Mustang-like” at all.
I think I’d be very tempted to consider a Gran Torino coupe instead if I were Ford shopping in 1971. There was even a “luxury” version of this car sold as the “Mustang Grande.” Having the Spanish word for “big” in the name of something already chided for size was probably not what the Pony Car icon needed (I’m also not a fan of the 1973 nose job).
Oddly enough, the categorization of the 1971 car as a “fat pig” is usually credited as an inside job as a quote by none other than then-Ford President Lee Iacocca. Lido and his co-conspirators at Ford like product planner Hal Sperlich were strong proponents of smaller cars, so they were likely pleased when a woman named Anna Muciolli stood up at a 1968 shareholder’s meeting and asked why the Mustang had moved away from its light and lean beginnings even then (Mrs. Muciolli’s husband was a Ford engineer, and years later her son would later become a product planner for SVO, so Mustang roots run DEEP).
It’s unknown how much influence Mrs. Muciolli’s comment had on Mr. Ford, but whatever the case may be, the introduction of the small, Pinto-based Mustang II happening in the teeth of the first energy crisis turned out to be a master stroke. Loathed by many Mustang “faithful” to the point that it often barely appears in some retrospectives, the 1974 Mustang II was actually the fourth best-selling model year ever.
Here’s a rather famous shot of Mrs. Muccioli with a new Mustang II and Henry Ford II.
The ironic thing about this image is that, unlike his employees Iacocca and Sperlich, “Hank The Deuce” reportedly didn’t like small cars. He also didn’t like Iacocca and Sperlich, whom he would soon unceremoniously fire and inadvertently send to Chrysler. Geez, Hank, if you’d have just toughed it out with these guys a few more years, they never would have saved Mopar from an almost certain death and you’d have had one less Big Three competitor! Oh well.
The little Mustang was perfect for the times and allowed the name to live today, something few remember. Another thing that few remember is that the “fat” Mustang really wasn’t the gargantuan monster it’s often made out to be. You might have seen this chart that I showed a while back:
See how the size of the 1971-73 car is almost the same as the concurrent Camaro, and the Mustang II is the size of a Monza? Nobody will criticize the second-gen Camaro and Firebird as being “too big,” yet the Mustang fat shaming persists.
You guys are smart, so naturally your next question is going to be “how does a big Mach I SportsRoof compare to the current 2025 Mustang?”
Well, would you look at that? It’s essentially the same size; a few inches taller, but the tallest point on the 2025 car is forward of where your head is anyway.
In retrospect, it seems like Ford felt the need to diss the outgoing 1971-73 car to justify the radically shrunken new 1974 model. Well, now the current Mustang is just as big, so let’s give the unfairly maligned ’71 model a new lease on life. Cue the Theme From Shaft as our soundtrack; let’s get to work.
Suddenly It’s 1971 In 2025
I’ve already looked at what a modern-day Fox Mustang might look like and even done a tongue-in-cheek retro Mustang II. If we acknowledge that the current Mustang has been stuck as an interpretation of the pre-1970 cars for the last twenty years, then if we’re really looking at a logic progression of the retro timeline, then it’s those 1971-73 cars that we should now emulate.
After twenty years, the pre-1970 Mustang well has been run pretty much dry by Ford. When the S197 debuted, it was pretty much a dead-nuts copy of the ’68 car in a manner somewhat similar to the Dodge Challenger revival. Like the New Beetle from a few years before, it created a sensation when it came out in 2005.
Over time, the S197 has been replaced with new Mustangs that were updated with new styling cues to “modernize” it, yet you have to wonder how long this can go on. You end up with a “new” car that somehow still has to keep a foot firmly cemented in a very specific time era; a time era where people that weren’t even around when this car debuted are now able to move into “age 55+” communities.
Enough talk: let’s overlay the 1971 body style over the current 2025 car and see what happens.
I did lower the overall height a hair, but you can see that I’ve kept the basic car essentially the same. Despite the rather dramatically different look, the wheelbase, wheel arches, windshield, lower door openings and even most of the hood are unchanged from the current car. The “sport lamps” on the original car are echoed in the shape of the daytime running lights inboard of the headlamps. The tops of the front fenders are flattened a bit, the rear quarters raised slightly, and the roof is reshaped to look more like the “SportsRoof” style, but it’s all very subtle changes. Here’s an animation to show the transformation; keep your eye on the hood and glass to see how little is altered:
In the back, the “kamm” tail of the 1971 model is recaptured, though what looks like white backup lights in the center of each taillight is an amber-bulbed turn signal:
This animation really shows how sharply raked the roof of the current car really is even when compared to the “SportsRoof” style:
On the inside, the steeply raked dashboard of the 1971 car was quite similar to the C3 Corvette:
It’s a dramatic style, though as commenter Urban Runabout indicated, some of the control and gauge placement was a bit haphazard. I’ll overlay it upon the current Mustang dash and replace much of the mess with screens. As I’ve done before, I want the screens to conform to my design and not the other way around as seems to be the case with much instrument panel design today. Maybe people like these upright screens as almost afterthought appendages stuck to dashboards? I don’t know, but I’m not a fan.
A screen in front of the passenger could be an option. If so, when starting the car, the Mustang logo horse would run from left to right across the triple-screen setup as a fun gimmick. Naturally, you could customize these screens to configure a wide variety of layouts to either match the 1971 car’s layout or any other choice of display.
The floor shifter is non-negotiable; if you want a knob or pushbuttons to change gears you’ll need to find another car.
More Phat Than Fat
You guys were right: the ’71-73 Mustang not only works well as a reimagined car, but it fits so perfectly on the current platform that it would be a shame not to bring it back to life.
Autopian readers seem to know a good thing when they see it, and I’m glad to be a humble servant fulfilling your wishes. You’re the voice of the enthusiast community, and we all need to hear how it is to understand how the original and most enduring Pony Car might survive for another sixty years. The Mustang simply cannot and should not die, and you can see that there’s so much nostalgia yet to be explored.
Come on, we’ve spent enough time in the 1968 in Mustang world. Let’s get to 1971 – can you dig it? Right on.
Thanks, Mr. Bishop!!!
Now, when can we see a neo-classic version of a dual-cowl phaeton Duesenburg based on an Escalade/Navigator?
The Mustang is a bloated, fat, over-powered caricature of its former self, difficult to get in and out of and has poor outward visibility. They should shrink it down, stand up the windshield and bring some light into the greenhouse and make it fun to drive. 500HP and 0-60 in 4 seconds makes it fast expensive, but not fun. And give it a useful trunk. I’ve never seen such a large vehicle with such a useless trunk.
So… Basically a return to the Fox body profile. I can get behind that.
Outside of the (undeniably strong) primarily 80s nostalgia factor, a Fox-style ‘Stang speaks to a different marketing image.
The current throwback style is aimed straight at ageing Boomers and Gen-Xers who had or wanted the original Mustang, whether as a new/lightly used car or later as a resuced/resurrected heap that might have been their first project car or just first rusty hooptie (albeit a stylish one) in the late 70s.
The Fox body is gaining nostalgia traction with a different cohort of Gen-Xers, plus Millennials and Gen-Zers who have a strong attraction to 80s nostalgia even if they weren’t born within the period. The Fox car rarely achieved true muscle-car adulation except in a few trims; in some ways it’s more remembered in its 4-cylinder turbocharged SVO form and the unique rear 4-shock suspension system. Instead of being yet another traditional muscle car, the Fox ‘Stang was much more the form-follows-function, Bauhaus-inspired product of a punk rock and New-Wave generation careening into an uncertain landscape with a 50/50 chance of becoming a Syd Mead futurescape or a dystopian nightmare straight out of William Gibson’s imagination. (Spoiler: We seem to have gotten the dystopia…)
A new Mustang harking back to the Fox platform would fly in the face of the current SUV-as-a-personal-APC or muscle-car-as-a-slice-of-Boomer-nostalgia concepts. Not saying it couldn’t be done with a suitable bit of marketing chutzpah — after all, Ford did it successfully with the Fox Mustang when it came out. But that was a time when Ford was re-inventing itself out of the Malaise Era. They’d have to do a similar change in tone to get out of the current marketing push.
Being in my 60’s, I remember those cars when they were new (I still want an SVO Mustang). Cars need to do more than one thing well and having a little utility is not against the law. An ‘88 Mustang GT hatch didn’t look much like a Mustang to me, but you sat upright, the 302 was awesome – forget the numbers, the car was just plain fast with instantaneous throttle response – tall windows with good light and visibility and you could actually put stuff in the back, like a bicycle with the front wheel removed and the rear seats folded down – what a concept. You can’t put ANYTHING into a new Mustang and it weights 9000 tons, has tires that cost $500 each, gun slit windows and way more power than you can ever use EXCEPT for 3 seconds at a time on the highway in a straight when no one is looking – which is boring.
Obviously you were not born in or around that era. None of us liked the SVO. it was intriguing, but ultimately bunk for the time.
The 5.0 mustange from 85-90 was kind of a hot ticket simply because it was easily tuned, and the intake was designed well enough to accept power adders without a lot of trouble. The GM counterpart was a poorly designed long runner truck motor that felt ok off the line but ran out of steam at 4,000 RPM. and it did not do well with baby step mods. you had to go full out and get rid of those long runners to even have a chance at keeping up with a mustang of the same era. I was never into Mustangs after I let my 71 go, but I did have a few friends that fell into the Mustang group and this girl who for some reason liked me has an 87 GT with a 5 speed Manual and that was kind of the sweet spot for Fox body mustangs in most cases.
Let’s be honest: the Fox body was terrible. Think Ford Fairmont terrible. This terrible, awful chassis was modified into the Mustang because it was cheap. They spent forever modifying it to patch all of its short comings. If you ever drive an 80’s Mustang you know it was poorly assembled garbage and it creaked and rattle and had the chassis stiffness of wet paste. But, the 302 with port injection was just fine in a relatively lightweight chassis and 5-speed had a fantastic shifter. They were a lot of fun and had some usefulness to them. It could actually be your only car and be versatile.
Btw, the artistic conversion of the current Mustang into a Mach-1-esque body style would be more successful without the coke bottle bulge around the front wheels. You need a more linear taper from the windshield to the front bumper with a constant rate of change of the radius lines, like the original. And it needs smaller wheels. Wheels have gotten way, way too large and look ridiculous and offer no advantage except added weight and cost.
Yes it was. I’ve owned three foxes, three Mustang IIs, and two S197s.
Objectively, out of those three generations, the S197 was by far the best, but the second best? Easily the Mustang II in spite of having rear leaf springs. That front suspension is just that damned much better than that horrible front end under the fox body.
Then there’s the fox’s woefully inadequate brakes (haters, hold up a second, I’m getting there). The Mustang II’s 9″ rotors were a horrible idea in the 1970s. The fact that the fox body had almost identical front brakes as a base option when it debuted in 1979? Unacceptable. The GT’s brakes weren’t much better (remember, I’m speaking from firsthand experience here, even owning one fox and one II at the same time).
I’m looking at it from a marketing standpoint, which is an unfortunate reality to making a car successful. The SVO did its job as a halo car for marketing. It helped sell a lot of far more functional GTs.
The Fox ‘Stang had to distinguish its image as something more than just a tarted-up Fairmont, or it would have been perceived as just as much of a flop as the Mustang II it replaced. The II’s marketing perception sucked, despite its respectable actual sales.
And I could never get behind Ford’s 4-cylinder turbos much either. They were fine for the Sierra/Merkur XR4Ti, but for larger cars they never quite had it. The numbers and the tech looked good on paper but never were really satisfying in the real world. Now, if they’d done a turbo (or, better, twin-turbo) V6 it might have been a different story. But the point was really more about making a visible splash with technology for marketing purposes, and turbo 4s were becoming all the thing with Euro and Japanese imports, so they went for the same thing.
The little 4 had some redeeming qualities on paper. but the number of head studs and the reality of the SVO lined up next to a 5.0 of the same year kind of did it in. I am not saying I hated them, I truly liked the grill and hood scoop, more so on the turbo Thunderbirds. though I will agree, I would have like to see the turbo on a v6 if it got the little thing 300hp in the 80’s…lol
The MustangEvery modern version of a car that has been around for more than 10 years is a bloated, fat, over-powered caricature of its former self, difficult to get in and out of and has poor outward visibility.FIFY.
This we can agree on. Which is why I’m still driving the ‘94 Miata I bought new. Everytime I think about selling it I go out and drive it, then tell myself I will never sell it.
Nicely done, Bishop. While I loved Diamonds Are Forever as a kid, I always thought the ’71-73 Mustang’s design did too much to hide and squish the headlights and tail lights, leading to an overly slab-sided design. I had a couple friends with Mustangs of those years and we always joked that they better not wreck them, “because steel mills can’t make body panels that big anymore”.
If you are implying the the 2025 Mustang is not a fat pig, I disagree.
I recall fondly looking at a 2019 GT500 on a rotisserie at Sema in 2019. it showed all the specs and I looked up the weight of a 2019 Hellcat just to compare. Guess how much the difference was…..less than 100 lbs. To often people judge weight without much actual knowledge, yet we all have mini computers to actually check to see if what we say is true.
Excellent all around! And that is the best fit for the current platform, dimensions and style is the closest. I’d still rather have a new Foxbody myself of course…
That vintage of Mustang has been forever spoiled for me by the total asshole brother-in-law who drove one back in the day.
A lot of muscle cars have been spoiled by some total asshole who really flaunted driving one. The marketing image, unfortunately, plays heavily to those types. You kind of have to step past that to enjoy them. And sometimes that’s hard — especially when there are so many tantalizing non-muscle type high-performance cars out there.
The hardtops were ugly, but the sport back was fine. The dismissal of it as fat has more to do with the visual bulk in the rear, which is nicely highlighted by the Camaro, which looks a lot more lithe and light in comparison despite essentially the same LOA. I had hoped GM would have progressed the Camaro’s retro style to the 2nd generation, but the design record needle remained stuck on ’69 (I’d prefer no retro at all, but I guess that’s just tii unrealistic). The current Mustang’s update is a very stale take on the same damn idea, so like the Camaro, I would prefer to see it progress as a take of the ’71-73 cars. Not sure about the rear roof line, but I like the front better than the actual car.
I have always loved the 71-73 Sportsroof (Flatback) Mustang. Your update is your best work yet. I’m sad because I can’t buy your Mustang. If I were Ford I would throw whatever money it took to buy your design. Within a few hours somebody will post your pictures online claiming this is the 2026 Mustang. The main reason the Mustang II sold well was because it was cheap.
Had a friend who had a ’73 coupe, I believe a Grandé model. It was in reasonably good shape for what was a 16-year-old car at that time, but lord god was that thing poorly built. The interior looked like it was designed by a group of blind men who had only been told what the inside of a car looked like, and every panel rattled like it was attached to a cement mixer. The ergonomics sucked. Sitting in the passenger seat behind that gigantic dashboard, I couldn’t see over it or the hood to know where I was going, and I’m 5’11”.
That thing did go like stink, though. He liked to try to scare us by doing 120mph on 295 between DC and Baltimore after midnight. I made sure my seatbelt was securely fastened and tried not to think about the floaty, bouncy suspension coming apart as we hit the potholes.
The object is to go fast enough that the wheels can’t drop all the way down into them — you have to skim ’em… 😉
The 71 Mach 1 mustangs are probably one of my favorite mustangs ever built. The non fastback ones are ugly though.
I think the reason the Mustang looks fat while the Camaro doesn’t is the visual weight of the rear side profile. Th Camaro slopes sharply while the Mustang stays high. A longer quarter window and a sharper slope would solve that. Sort of like an XA Falcon coupe
The sportback Mustang always looks better to me in darker colors. It reduces that visual bulk in the rear somewhat and tends to reveal what sculpting there is in the body panels. In light colors, it all tends to wash out into just a fat expanse of sheetmetal.
I’ll take a Mustang II hatchback any day over the 1971-73 models. We had three of them in the family. The build quality was terrible, but so was everything else at the time.
Worst aspect of the 71-73 Mustang was that in the real world, they all rode nose-high. Unbecoming.
And if they have the airfoil spoiler, it’s inevitably pointed up, which will generate lift in the tail, not downforce. Aaaargh…
Part of the reason the ’71-’73 Mustangs are called “fat” is because the body was lengthened over the chassis adding long front and rear overhangs. Though the wheelbase of the ’71 is only one inch longer than the original ’64 1/2, the overall length grew by eight inches.
How did this gen of Mustang compare to the Torino in terms of size? To me that always felt like the big problem- the two cars were sharing the same space in the market.
The Torino was a fair bit bigger than the Mustang, the design just hides it’s size a little better. In ’71 the Torino was 16.7″ longer, 8″ longer wheelbase, 2.6″ wider.
Interestingly, the ’72 Torinos shrunk in size, so it was only 14.2″ longer, 5″ longer wheelbase, but much wider at 5.2″.
Awesome, thanks. Figured someone would know.
This era of ‘Stang might be considered a fat pig, but I’d still take one over a Mustang II. In this era of 3 ton Bimmers and Porsches, however, it’s pretty goddamn svelte.
I hope you haven’t extinguished your Mustang content just yet.
Only thing that would make this better is a liftback.