In 2018, Ford made a historic announcement that it would end production of passenger cars for the US market. All, bar one that is—the legendary Ford Mustang. Indeed, having been born amidst the swinging 1960s, the galloping stallion has been in production ever since. It stands as one of the longest-running and most-storied models ever built by the Blue Oval.
Today, we’re going to look at two snapshots in the Mustang’s history—its storied debut, and where it stands today. We’ll be looking all the way back to the 1965 model year, a time when the American muscle car was firmly establishing itself as a legendary automotive genre.
Most specifically, we’re going to crunch the numbers to compare what you got for your money in ’65 versus what you’ll get at a dealership today. We’ll examine whether the Mustang is still an accessible performance icon, and whether it’s remained true to the original pony car from so many decades ago. Calculators at the ready, it’s time for another installment of Then & Now.
DIMENSIONS: 2025 Mustang v. 1965 Mustang
The Mustang debuted in mid-1964 for the 1965 model year. Then-Ford executive Lee Iacocca had championed the project that would bring an exciting new performance vehicle to the Blue Oval’s lineup. Development had been rapid, taking just 18 months, and the result was striking. On the dealership floor stood a bold two-door coupe and convertible, which paired European-inspired elements with a uniquely American flair. The fastback followed quickly later in the first year of production.
The rapid pace of development led to some savvy parts-bin engineering. The underlying chassis was derived from the Ford Falcon, as was the suspension and much of the drivetrain. It’s no surprise, then, that the Mustang ended up landing at the same length as the Falcon of the time, at 181.6 inches. The wheelbase was a hair shorter at 108 inches, and it was a couple of inches narrower at 68.2 inches wide. The original Mustang seated four in the traditional 2+2 configuration.
Many nameplates have shifted and changed over the years, but the Mustang has remained truer than most to its original ideals. Today, the seventh-generation model stands firmly as Ford’s two-door muscle car. It’s still available as a hard top or convertible. The fastback is long gone; Ford still uses the term for the current model, but the current Mustang is really more of a standard coupe.
The model has grown in bulk over the years, guided both by trends and the need to meet modern crash safety regulations. The current Mustang has stretched to a full 189.4 inches long, and a brawny 75.4 inches wide, but still seats four as it always as [Ed Note: As the owner of a 1966 Mustang, I can tell you that the back seat room has gone down. -DT]. As we’ll see later, though, the growth in size has come with a concomitant increase in weight as well.
PRICE: 2025 Mustang v. 1965 Mustang
On its debut in the middle of 1964, the base model Ford Mustang sold for a manufacturer-suggested retail price of $2,368 for a hardtop, or $2,814 for the convertible. In 2025 dollars, that comes out to just $24,504 and $29,119 respectively. Meanwhile, the median family income was $6,600 in 1964, equivalent to $68,298 today.
The 2025 Ford Mustang starts at $33,315 for the base model hardtop by comparison, and a full $41,615 for the cheapest convertible. Median family income in the US was $80,610 in 2023, according to the most recent available data, which is approximately $84,603 in 2025 dollars.
Accounting for inflation, the hardtop is a full $8,811 more expensive than the 1964 model. Meanwhile, the convertible comes in at a hefty $12,496 price premium compared to the original. That feels like a lot! But it does depend on how you look at it. On pure monetary terms, it’s gone up a long way. The hardtop is 35% more expensive, while the convertible is up 42%.
Relative to the prevailing median income, the difference is more slight. A hardtop Mustang in 1965 cost about 35% of a household’s takings for the year; today, it’s more like 41%. That’s not so big of a difference!
In any case, price matters, and the difference in Mustang sales is huge between then and now. For the 1965 model year, Ford sold 559,451 Mustangs. Compare that to just 44,003 units sold of the current generation Mustang in 2024. There are a great many reasons behind this shift that are beyond the scope of this article. We might look to higher costs of living leaving less money for purchases of discretionary items like sports cars, a societal taste for more fuel efficient vehicles, and the general trend towards SUVs and away from traditional cars like coupes and sedans. [Ed Note: The biggest thing is that the old Mustang was considered a usable family car, and the new one isn’t likely to be considered as a family’s only car. Crossovers have taken that space over. -DT].
POWER & WEIGHT: 2025 Mustang v. 1965 Mustang
The very first Mustangs were officially badged as 1965 models, but are often referred to as 1964 ½ models due to some tweaks Ford made partway through the first year of production in 1964. From the model’s debut, the base models rocked a 2.8-liter (170 cubic inch) inline-six engine shared with the contemporary Ford Falcon. It was good for 105 horsepower and 156 pound-feet of torque. It sounds like a remarkably a low figure, and it was considered underwhelming. At the time, Car and Driver stated the base engine option was “a piece of machinery about as exciting as a dish of baby food.” Eager owners could upgrade to a 4.3-liter V8 (260 cubic inches) with a two-barrel carb, good for 164 horsepower, or a 4.7-liter V8 (289 cubes) good for 210 hp.
Later that year, Ford switched things up for what enthusiasts refer to as the “late 1965” models. The 2.8-liter six was dropped, and replaced with a 3.3-liter (200 cubic inches) inline six making 120 horsepower. Similarly, the 4.3-liter V8 was dropped for a 4.7-liter V8 with a two-barrel carb, offering 200 horsepower. Up from there was a 4.7-liter V8 with a quad-barrel carb good for 225 hp. Best of all was the addition of the “HiPo” V8 offering from the Ford Fairlane, with the mightiest 4.7-liter engine offering 271 hp and 312 pound-feet of torque.
The V8s in particular offered healthy performance. No surprise, given Mustang debuted before the devastation of anti-pollution laws in the Malaise Era. Armed with a 271 horsepower V8 and a curb weight of just 2,877 pounds, a 1965 Mustang was quite the hot ship. With that “HiPo” engine and quick 4.11 rear gears, Car and Driver managed to rattle off a zero-to-60mph time of just 5.2 seconds. On bias ply tires, at that! In a more humble spec, the magazine found a 1965 convertible with the 210 horsepower V8 to achieve the same run in 8.2 seconds, by comparison.
Today’s Mustang continues to fly the flag for American muscle, albeit in a thoroughly modern way. The base model rocks the EcoBoost engine, a 2.3-liter turbocharged inline-four good for 315 horsepower and 350 pound-feet of torque. GT models get the Coyote 5.0-liter V8, which delivers 480 hp and 397 pound-feet of torque. At the top end sits the Dark Horse, which ups the ante to 500 horsepower and 418 pound-feet of torque.
All that extra power does make the new Mustang faster than the old one. However, there is a weight penalty, because the greater size of the newer Mustang also comes with additional heft. EcoBoost models start at a portly 3,588 pounds, while the GT and Dark Horse weigh 3,827 and 3,949 pounds respectively. In any case, you could expect to nail the zero to 60 mph sprint in just 4.1 seconds in a Dark Horse model, 4.2 seconds in a Mustang GT, and 4.5 seconds in an EcoBoost-equipped model. 25 years ago, these were Ferrari figures. Today, you can get that kind of thrust for under $35,000.
Options And Technology: 2025 Mustang v. 1965 Mustang
The original Mustang had a fairly typical options list. Beyond the aforementioned engine upgrades, you could also specify a three-speed automatic transmission, or a four-speed manual—both an upgrade over the basic three-speed stick. Ford would also sell you power brakes and power steering, and a power top if you ordered the convertible. You had to pay more for a push-button AM radio if you wanted one, and the same was true if you wanted a speaker in the rear of the car. If you wanted back-up lights, an air conditioner, or the two-speed windscreen wipers, those were additional-cost options too.
Most amusing, though, was the outside rear-view passenger mirrors. They weren’t standard in 1965—you were supposed to pay extra. As noted by Motor Trend, many cars shipped without a passenger-side mirror, though many were later fitted at the dealer. [Ed Note: You’ll notice that Steve McQueen’s 1968 Bullit car doesn’t have a passenger mirror. -DT].
Other nice-to-haves included the Rally Pac with tachometer and clock and the Special Handling Package with upgraded suspension, faster steering, and 14-inch wheels. Perhaps the most of its time, though, was the vinyl roof covering available for hardtop models.
Standard equipment was okay for the era, but so many things we consider standard today were called out specifically in the brochure in 1965. Ford noted you got “deep foam bucket seats,” a “padded instrument panel,” and even “full wheel covers.” The fact the car had full “wall-to-wall” carpeting was noted, too. Other standard equipment included the cigarette lighter, and the light inside the glovebox. Glowing pony badges weren’t on the options list yet—they’d come along a couple years later before vanishing in short order.
The new Mustang, by contrast, is a thoroughly modern vehicle with all the fruit. It’s got a touch-screen infotainment system with Bluetooth, Apple CarPlay and Android Auto built-in. It’s also got a digital display for the instrument cluster, too, which can display emulated versions of gauges from older models, including the famous Fox body and the 1967 Mustang to boot. You also get steering wheel controls, dual-zone climate control, cruise control, power windows, and power locking—all of which is the norm these days. That’s not even to mention everything else we take for granted these days. Air conditioning, power steering, power brakes, and power mirrors are no longer luxuries—they’re in every car on the market.
Still, there are some fun options if you want to set your Mustang apart. You can get yourself an active valve performance exhaust, heated seats, and even an engine block heater if you live somewhere really cold. You can also choose from a variety of rear-end axle ratios—a rather obscure option for a modern vehicle to have. There’s also the Nite Pony package which pairs black wheels with a painted black roof, black bezel headlamps, and black pony badges front and rear. You can also get painted brake calipers, which wasn’t a thing on the earliest Mustangs—because they only had drums. Interestingly, one thing that was common in the early days is now rare—a spare tire. Ford will sell you a mini spare wheel and tire on the 2025 Mustang as an extra-cost option for $665.
There’s also the Nite Pony package which pairs black wheels with a painted black roof, black bezel headlamps, and black pony badges front and rear. You can also get painted brake calipers, which wasn’t a thing on the earliest Mustangs—because they only had drums. Interestingly, one thing that was common in the early days is now rare—a spare tire. Ford will sell you a mini spare wheel and tire on the 2025 Mustang as an extra-cost option for $665.
Perhaps the most interesting thing to note about the first and current Mustangs is how drastically they’ve changed in their underlying automotive technology. The first Mustang relied on leaf springs and a live rear axle. It used drum brakes, recirculating ball steering, and pushrod engines breathing through old-school carburetors. These days, the Mustang has fully independent rear suspension, disc brakes all around, rack and pinion steering, and electronic fuel engine—to say nothing of the sophistication of the dual-overhead cam Coyote V8 and the turbocharged EcoBoost. In the past 60 years, a great deal of the fundamental components have changed.
A Prosperous Dynasty
Product development teams love history. Whenever they can, they’ll dig up and old name and throw it on a new car. It doesn’t matter if it’s in a completely different segment for a completely different purpose. All that matters is that somebody’s heard it before. Hence we got vehicles like the Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross and the new Ford Capri, which took the names from performance legends and sullied them in the mud.
The Mustang has avoided this and fallen victim to it, all at the same time. In itself, the Mustang remains true to its history. It’s still a brawny American muscle car with two doors and a brash soundtrack that’s played with the right pedal. It’s been thoroughly modernized, but it’s built to do the same thing it always was. It’s about going fast and making a great noise while you’re doing it.
At the same time, Ford was more than happy to cash in on the Mustang name when it came time to shift some product. Thus was born the Mustang Mach-E—an electric SUV that shares nothing more than a grille design with the car it was named after.
As a side model, it hasn’t dearly hurt the Mustang brand, but nonetheless it was a decision that raised many eyebrows in enthusiast circles. Perhaps the biggest insult is that the Mustang Mach-E now outsells the Mustang itself—moving 56,337 units in 2024 compared to the muscle car’s 44,003.
Despite everything that has happened in the last 60 years—oil crises, political upheaval, and yes, even electrification—the Mustang persists [Ed Note: Even though it was almost replaced by the Ford Probe in the 1980s! -DT]. It’s not as cheap as it once was, and nowhere near as popular. Still, it’s worth holding on to—in this year of 2025, you can still get an angry car from Ford with a horse on the grille and a V8 under the hood. That’s worth something.
Image credits: All images via Ford
A 65′ Mustang GT convertible, Red on Red, with a 4 speed and a 289 is just the perfect Mustang. That or a GT Fastback in Green with the Rally wheels. The new ones look great, but that 1st gen Mustang was just perfection.
Big Mustang fan here. I’ve owned seven in my life and am kind of shopping used ones now. Here’s something that bothers the heck out of me. If you buy the base model they make you take that silly two piece instrument screen. Why? Just to make you feel cheap? It’s the same information in a less attractive presentation just to constantly remind you that you’re not a “premium” customer. That’s just mean.
I’m always surprised to hear that Mach-Es outsell ICE Mustangs. I hardly ever see Mach-Es in my (red) neck of the woods.
Up here in the PNW, I almost never see a newer ICE Mustang, but I see a Mach-E or two every day (which, TBH, surprises me). And not the same ones, over and over on a daily route.
In the late ’80s, I had to find and purchase a first gen convertible to use as a prop car for a weekly segment on a newscast called “Only in California.”
With a gun and deadline to my head, I had to overpay for a ’66 convertible with mismatched six-cylinder numbers and an automatic. In repainted red, it looked great, but with only lap belts and drum brakes, even the drive back after initial purchase was not comforting.
The reporter and photographer had to shoehorn 100+ pounds of tv gear in the trunk and then drive on some of the many fun and challenging roads in N California (particularly up into the Sierras). In short order, we had the fleet mechanic replace the front drums with discs.
The last Mustang I drove was a rental convertible on Kauai 15 years ago. I was amused, stopping off at one spot next to another convertible with a license plate one digit away from the one on our car.
I’ve driven worse rentals since then… a Camaro in LA and, recently, an ICE Charger, again on Kauai.
I love these then vs now articles. Today, it’s an easy pick for me for the now, even though it’s more expensive. I could DD a current Mustang Ecoboost 2.3. Or a Mach-E. They’re seemingly safe and competent. The ’66 that was my introduction, not a chance.
And props to David Letterman’s writers, back in the day, that came up with the Ford Gelding.
My first Mustang was a 1970. At speed it felt like it would fly apart. I’ve had a 2015 GT and a 2021 Ecoboost. The Ecoboost was a better daily driver and more fun on country roads.
Heh. They had to put the Mustang name on the Mach-E. The mid-level trim goes 0-60 in 4s. A tenth faster than the Dark Horse. The GT does it in 3.2. It may not have the same top speed but you rarely see that anyway. You see the acceleration every day, and it never gets old.
So yeah it’s fun that the badge made it on that one too. I like that my dad car has that whiff of mid-life-crisis about it.
I bought a 2025 Mustang GT because I wanted to get one more V8 manual transmission car while they are still available. It’s grown on me quite a lot but I would hate it as my daily driver, and not because it’s bad at a lot of things, but because we’ve become accustomed to cars with far more utility than what you got in a car in the 1960’s thru the 1980s. My daily is a Focus with the 1.0L Ecoboost and it’s a great car for what it is, but I’ll most likely be replacing it with an EV in the next few years. So my plan is to keep the Mustang until I can’t push that heavy clutch in anymore.
Part of the discussion of value of 1965 tech vs 2025 tech is reliability, safety, and maintenance cost. The oil change interval in the new car is twice what the ’65 was. Spark plugs 5x, tires 2x, chassis lubes never happen, and your engine overhaul is probably 3x. The number of people killed on the road per mile driven in ’65 was 5.3 per 100 million miles but it’s 1.3 today, much of which is because brakes, 3-point safety belts, and air bags, etc. are now required. Let alone the poisoning of the air that the old car contributed to and the man-hours lost to cars that refused to start in sub-zero weather.
The good old days pretty much sucked.
Don’t forget the drop in gas tank of the first gen that sprayed the passengers with a wave of gas (especially the fastbacks) when hit in the rear hard enough to rupture the tank. Ford loved to immolate it’s customers back then.
Agreed. As David noted, the rear seat may have shrunk a bit and isn’t as useful as a family car, but I bet very few people today are willing to try and put a car seat in the back of a ’65 Mustang. These things are way safer than they used to be.
I remember reading that you could save $17 on the price of a new 1965 Mustang if you chose to have no seat belts. Wild times.
Dad bought a 64 Mercury Comet (also based on the Falcon) and had to pay extra for rear seat belts fitted by the dealer. The front belts were standard, I believe.
Current mustang is terrible at normal car stuff. Like I sold a F150 to get one, which was easier to live in a city. Wide opening doors, access tunnel to sit down and nothing fits over a curb really hurts a modern mustang. And it’s somehow better than a camaro.
Side impact regs passed because it’s a 2 day trip from the door skin to the seat, so plan your snacks before t boning a mustang.
I find it interesting that you’re comparing the base price of a 65 Mustang with the base price of a 2025 Mustang – but you’re not comparing apples to apples. You’re comparing a fresh new apple to an old apple core.
It would be more enlightening to price out a ’66 Mustang Fastback with midrange engine and as many options & accessories as you could get that are now standard on a base ’25 Mustang coupe – and compare them.
Like many of us, the Mustang has really piled on the pounds with the years.
I really dislike pretty much everything about the newest mustang, it’s unquestionably a better car, but I’ll take a 65-66 11 times out of 10.
That was such a handsome vehicle.
https://images-stag.jazelc.com/uploads/theautopian-m2en/access-1965_early_ford_mustang_hardtop_neg_cn2400_094.jpg
I sometimes like to wonder, in the Final Countdown sense, how many hundreds of thousands of dollars a modern car could fetch if you were able to take it back to 1965. That’s a useful thought exercise on the way progress creates entitlement and/or nostalgia, sometimes in equal proportions.
I think that also. Imagine showing H. Ford a top line mustang or raptor and giving him a ride. (also explain to him nazis are bad)
I loved that movie and saw it in the theater as a kid.
I think it would be more valuable for the computer components than anything specifically car-related.
Probably so. At the end of the day, it’s still internal combustion…just like the internet is fancy Morse Code and texting is just a wireless telegraph (snarky, but also not kidding; progress may move in leaps and bounds, but the fundamental concepts don’t often change that much)
As mentioned, it’s a topic for other article, but in the sixties I bet the big three faced much less competition than today, specially from international makers.
At first I’d say the variety of models is bigger too today, but I’m not sure about that, since at least American brands seem to be willing to sell only SUVs and pickup trucks, only varying size, luxury and offroad readiness … also, so many brands have been extinct, but since they’d often offer only badge engineering, not sure this was such an impact.
Honest question… if the current Mustang isn’t a fastback, what exactly is a fastback then?
You know, I always assumed that the entire back opened, like a sleeker hatchback, but then I looked it up to be sure and now I’m disappointed.
I mean, that wasn’t the case for the 1965 model either.
The ‘65 model is what I meant.
Wait, the Mach-E outsells the Mustang?! I’m shocked by this, I would have guess 10:1 in the other direction.
I never would have guessed just from driving around
I mean, I’m sure that’s not an even distribution. Yeah, I see more Mustangs than Mach-E’s, but I’m also in the middle of Pennsylvania…not exactly the forefront of EV adoption. So I assume the concentration of Mach-E’s leaves more areas without them entirely and some areas with lots of them.
I guess I would have expected them in similar proportion to, say, a Tesla Model Y. Even here in AL, with tons of Ford dealers and zero Tesla showrooms, I actually see more Model X Plaid Editions than all the Mach-E combined. And of course there are Mustangs. Which are 30x denser in areas with military personnel around 🙂
Similar to my experience here in rural TN. I see a few Teslas (which honestly surprised me considering where I live), have only seen one Mach E while in Knoxville, and plenty of regular Mustangs.
Similar here in Tennessee. I’ve only seen one Mach E that I can remember, but plenty of Mustangs.
I live in Colorado and I’ve seen tons of Mach E’s, but only 3 new S650 Mustangs so far.
Anecdotally, this is all tending to prove out my theory that incentives are the biggest driver (CO being one of the more generous ones). Even for a mainstream brand like Ford, and even in areas where garages are normal and home charging is easy, they still tend to send EVs to places where they know the cars probably won’t sit on the lot for even a few days, and are most likely to be preordered.
Our metro area has 4 Ford/Lincoln superstores, allegedly one of the highest concentrations in the country, but the Mach-E is still pretty thin. The two owners I know have had major issues with them, so it’s also possible that there’s a lot more reluctance once word gets out about those issues (whether fair or not). And zero state-level incentives means a higher price than, say, CA, CO, MA…
While the value that one gets in a modern car is amazing (depending on what one values, but I’d say most people would agree that what is provided for the price makes for better value now), I think such discussions should factor relative average housing and health insurance costs, perhaps including another figure that subtracts average student loan payments as percentage of income to get a more accurate picture of affordability. Paying only 6% greater part of income for a Mustang today doesn’t sound too bad unless you look at housing and health being 50% of median income vs 20% in 1965 (or whatever the numbers are, I just threw numbers in for illustration’s sake). Also, retirement. Pensions were common then and SS provided more meaningful support, so personal investment portfolios weren’t needed (though people had more disposable income to contribute if they wanted) and life expectancy was shorter, not only requiring fewer years of savings to get by, but as people tend to get more expensive to keep alive as they age, it saves the worst years of
waste as you desperately hope to finally just die alreadyspending. People also had more kids to help them (which were a lot more affordable to raise) as they aged. Not that I endorse planned parasitism as a reason to have kids, but parents died earlier back then and didn’t require sending them to an outrageously expensive old age home purgatory as it so often does today. Damn, I picked the wrong life to not drink whiskey and smoke Chesterfields. Then again, my poor grandfather did both and made it to 103 (though he did quit smoking when he was in his 40s).Solid point on where all of our money is actually going now, that’s can’t be overstated enough. Healthcare, housing, and higher ed are the biggest offenders.
But as far as retirement, I’m personally glad for IRAs and 401(k)s which have generally outperformed the old pensions pretty handily. I still get the allure of knowing that your years of work would pay off one day through pensions and SS distributions, but as a cynical Gen Xer I made all of my decisions based on neither of those existing when I retire. And I’m glad I did.
Because now it looks like I’ll need the retirement accounts to pay for my kids’ college and/or mental health treatment…
Ah, that’s another one—the high prevalence of kids that don’t leave (not that I can blame them with the cost of everything). Even with investments and assuming this cold civil war doesn’t turn hot, I won’t ever be able to retire (though I’m not sure I’d want to as I don’t know what I’d do, anyway). My grandfather was made to retire at 65, which was normal, and he resented it, but never expected to live so long. I plan to have to off myself at some point of decrepitude—even if I have enough money, I’m not giving it over to wendigos just to keep my ugly, failing body alive when I could leave the money to non-human causes.
I remember many years ago working with this old lady who told me her husband’s gross yearly income could have paid for both the house they bought in 1962 and a new car. It was gross income but still who now in their 20s can gross enough for a house and a car.
Discounting inherited wealth, sports/media stars, and lottery winners?
My grandfather didn’t attend school past the 8th grade, when the nuns kicked him out of the orphanage (I know that sounds made up and that’s the abbreviated story) and worked as a chef after coming back from WW2. He had the opportunity to buy a lake house in Alton Bay, NH for a couple grand in the ’60s on top of his own house in which he raised 5 kids on his single income. The reason he didn’t was because my grandmother had no appreciation for a lake house. I try not to think about what that property would be worth today (not that it would have gone to me).
It does not sound made up. My dad dropped out of catholic school after 8th grade and after the marines and air force could buy a house just doing carpet and tile.
I can’t help but think the (un)reliability of the cars should also be taken into account if you’re making these sorts of comparisons.
Weren’t most 1960s cars pretty much done before they reached 100k on the odometer? These days I think most of us would expect most cars to reach 200k.
That’s what I heard, but there are plenty of old cars that rolled over the odometers several times and, if we want to broaden the definition of an old car, I’d put far more faith in engines from 15-35 years ago than something of the last 12 and I definitely wouldn’t want to be dealing with this touchscreen and canbus garbage over a decade from now. If anything, the biggest contributor to longevity in modern cars is corrosion protection and residual value, not engine or transmission reliability. Then if we go there, we could pull in that modern cars are being totaled for damage in minor crashes, the much more expensive insurance of today, and cost of general maintenance repairs. I think it would then be fair to factor in the ready availability and affordability of cheap decent beaters of acceptable functionality in the past that don’t exist today, but that puts us in a digressive spider web of differentiation, so that’s why I try to just cover those kinds of differences with the statement that most people would probably agree that there is better value for the dollar in modern cars.
I doubt there’d be any appetite for a lower-powered, cheaper Mustang, because at the base level, that’s easily the biggest change where for 40 years, the base engine was intensely underwhelming compared to the Ecoboost being barely slower than the V8 (at least at usable speeds).
An I3 Mustang would be a terrible idea, but that weird warbly exhaust would be hilarious in that application.
I did not realize the mustang sales were less than the E stang. I have almost already considered a lease on an electric charger simpley becasue they are so low right now. I could definitely see a mustang with mustang height and doors being much more popular in all electric form to be sold along side the standard ICE units. hell, if they pulled an E-Ray thing and allowed electric to turn the front wheels and commute on battery while still having GT500 levels of perfomance when on the gas, I would definitely go that route. I had been looking and hoping a 21-22 GT500 would start falling in price, but I think I missed the window, they are creeping back up or still holding at 90K ish.
The “giant rectangular screen with no hood” instrument cluster looks bad in Kias and Hyundais, but it’s so much worse in a Mustang. I don’t even necessarily mind digital gauges, and the configurable retro themes are kind of fun, but at least do something more interesting than a big rectangle sticking up behind the steering wheel.
I spend far too much time staring at two big rectangular screens as it is. I don’t want my “fun” car to remind me of that.
No kidding. Way to make a car feel like a day at the office 🙂
maybe they can offer a ‘steel case’ edition with that funky undefinable cube wall fabric color on the seats and door panels?
interestingly our G70(Kia/Hyundai) Screen mix with analog gages is surprisingly good. I also like the actual buttons on the touch screen base. though I understand those are going away. kind of too bad. I will say the redundant buttons on the ram stack are quite nice, I wish Ford di the same as the transit and f150 screens take a fair bit of time to boot up and then it is race to figure out where the controls for AC or heat are.
It’s hideous, lazy, and impractical and I wouldn’t buy one for that reason alone.
I would prefer analog gauges in my own car, but I’m OK with the digital and the extra engine vitals info they provide is nice to have. Main thing it that the display is shrouded under a hood like a real car driven in an environment where glare exists and people have a sense of aesthetics, not some AI-rendered trash that took all its input from some dorky tech designer’s future E-waste portfolio.
Please do a story on passenger side mirrors. I want to know when they went from options to standard. I think it was sometime in the 1990s. Headrests are better documented.
70’s or 80’s realistically, but there were a few bottom-end holdouts in the early 90’s (as I recall, the Sundance America had a side-mirror optional, but they’d dropped that by ’93, and my parents’ base model had it standard, as an example).
Last car I remember without one was my gramp’s 1989 Mazda 323. I know there were a few econoboxes well into the 90s where it was optional.
My ’98 Passat had a 2/3-size passenger mirror, but that was more of an oddity to demonstrate their obsessiveness with aerodynamics. It went back to normal the next year.
My wife’s 89 colt no side mirror, our 99 accent base it was standard. It was sometime in the 90s yes.
I remember a friend’s 6th gen civic that didn’t have a passenger side mirror. So I’d guess the last production car sold in this country without the second mirror was in the late ’90s.
Passenger side mirrors became standard over a period of time – probably about 20 years or so.
You could not get a passenger side mirror from the factory for most American cars through the 70’s. Only high-end performance or luxury models came with them as standard – most folks did not tick the box or hit up the dealer parts department for their Catalinas or Polaras.
Mercedes-Benz and BMW in the USA did not offer them as standard equipment on most models through the 70’s – Even the 7 Series and mainline S Class models had them as options up through about 1979. The only MB models where they were standard for 1979 was the 6.9, the SL and SLC. Even the 450SEL you had to tick the option box or have the dealer install it for you – nevermind your 3 Series.
They became standard for the S Class with the new W126 for 1981 – and across the line when the new 190E was introduced for 1983. BMW followed suit – making them standard on the 7 and 6 first, then trickling it down the line into the mid-80s.
Volvo in 1983 still had them as optional for the (240) DL and GL (Dealer/port installed) and standard for the 760GLE. It wasn’t until later in the 80’s that passenger side mirrors became standard across the Volvo lineup.
Meanwhile – Most American cars you still had to tick the box through the early and mid-80’s – except for the Lincolns, Cadillacs, Imperials, Z28’s, TransAms, etc – as it was in the 70’s.
By the early 90s, most cars did come with passenger side mirrors – the better ones with collapsable side mirrors (so they wouldn’t get ripped off the car when you hit/were hit by a large object) – with the major exception of base model econoboxes such as the Mazda 323, Dodge Colt, Toyota Tercel, Nissan Sentra, Ford Escort, etc. which still came with just the basic black manual driver’s side mirror.
I don’t believe it was until the mid-90’s when passenger side mirrors (or a wide-angle interior mirror) were mandated for US passenger cars.
Just can’t get over the harsh line across the top of the headlights, just looks off/wrong.
Careful calling the current car a “hardtop” with the ’65, which actually lacks a B-pillar, right there for comparison…lots of pedants on this here internet.
One fun thing about the first-gen Mustangs, to David’s point that they could plausibly be used as a family car, was that they had an optional front bench seat! My grandmother traded in her station wagon for a ’67 Mustang coupe (with three kids ranging in age from 9 to 15 at the time), and pretty much only ever drove two-door cars after that, so there’s truth to that.
And yes, it’s true, a driver-side outside mirror was not Federally mandated until 1966. As far as I know, there’s still no requirement for a passenger-side mirror. The original owner of my ’65 Corvair paid $11 extra for the (single) outside mirror.
Personally, I don’t see how this generation Mustang is worth it, aside from the “remote rev” feature.
More electronics, more things to go wrong. The 1965 is mechanically tough and anything that breaks will be EASIER and CHEAPER to fix. And, side note but it doesn’t have the Ford QC issues that the new ones randomly come with…back then in the late 60s and early 70s, quality WAS INDEED JOB 1 unlike the decades that followed…
I had a 69 ford that was a giant pile of garbage from the factory. my grandparents bought it new and the radio and door windows broke almost immediately. I got it at 16 when it was 16 and it needed a started every other year, belts, hoses, points condenser and plugs every year. The frame rusted away by the time it was 20 years old.
Oh well…what car was it?
Probably it was a lemon….
OK, but also consider that most any car from the 60s that is still around today was either a unit without QC issues, has been meticulously handled, or both.
There were, for certain sure, cars that rolled off the line in the 60s with issues!
We expect a lot more today than we did then, and largely, we get it.
Hmm…if that was the case then why do people keep saying earlier model cars are better?
Many of us have never said that and for the others nostalgia is a hell of a drug with amnesia like side effects.
So maybe I should stop reading the internet….
Survivor bias.
But keep in mind that those older vehicles might only have survived just to spite its next owner.
Yeah… you weren’t around to drive a new car at that time, and you cannot buy good, reliable parts for those cars now. The premise that things were better and more reliable and easier/cheaper to fix back then is just so much “Boomer who never worked on cars” BS that won’t die.
Ok…I see.
You had to rebuild engines every 80k, correct?
Good thing they are cheap and easy to fix, as you will be fixing it *constantly*, relatively speaking. Cars from back then were universally awful. Fun, but awful.
Hmm….
The “Good Old Days” mostly sucked.
Reality is better than Forums.
I get your point however.
I’m old enough to have experienced the reality of the good old days. And I own, have owned, a whole bunch of cars from the good old days. Like I said, fun, but not good.
The S650 is the slowest selling Mustang of all time and it’s easy to see why-Ford got too big for their britches and assumed they could phone it in since two of its main competitors were about to bite the dust. They delivered a product that wasn’t really an improvement over the S550 and had the audacity to charge way more for it.
I know inflation is a thing, but in the minds of the people who’d consider buying a Mustang (hey I’m one of those people, I nearly bought an HPP S550 and I kind of wish I had) you should be able to get a barebones Ecostang in the mid to high 20s and a barebones GT in the mid to high 30s. That’s just where these cars make sense.
They do not make sense starting at $33,515 and $48,155. Hell…a few years ago you could get a stripped down GT off the lot at the current Ecoboost starting price and a Mach 1/Bullitt/etc. for the current base price of the GT. You can’t just tell your customers “inflation happened, we’re soooooo sorry” with a price jump that’s that conspicuous.
You can get a loaded Toyobaru with a manual for the same price as a base, automatic only Ecoboost…and for the price of a base GT you’re looking at M240i money. The Dark Horse is comically overpriced and comes in around the cost of a lightly used ZL1, a base spec C8 or 718, M2, etc. money.
If Ford had made more significant improvements they could maybe get away with it, but they didn’t. It’s literally just a reskin of the old car that’s 20% more expensive. They got cynical and thought they could phone it it and go “lol line go up”. They were wrong.
They aren’t selling well in Qatar either, and I see plenty of Mustangs- just older generation models. In the university I go to, I just saw ONE S650 model quite frequently…
Competition was definitely a good thing in this segment. When the S550 debuted…holy crap, ten years ago…a loaded GT was around $43K.
I bought a GT at the end of ’22 with an MSRP of $51K. Were I to get roughly the same car in the S650, it would cost me over $10K more.
I love Mustangs – my wife and I have had three now – but that’s ridiculous.
Loaded GTs are in the mid 60s now and you can spec an Ecoboost into the mid 50s. It’s patently absurd.
Yeah and the new ones aren’t very good looking except from the side.
They look like S550s that have been hitting the fast food too hard. I legitimately can’t tell if I’m looking at an S650 or S550 from a distance.
I think they feel cheaper inside than the last gen too. Ford must have thought the screens would distract from the rest being so crappy. The only buttons left in the center stack feel like the cheapest single piece of plastic they could find.
The enshitification must go on, unfortunately. I had a rental upgraded to a highly spec’d S550 Ecoboost convertible a couple of years ago and honestly it was a nice place to be. The seats were comfy, most of the touch points felt good, and there weren’t any creaks or rattles even thought it was a rental car.
I came away impressed and even tried to talk my mom into one when she was considering convertibles a few years ago. I haven’t sat in an S650 but every review complains about all the cheap plastic and the fact that it’s not very well put together. Plus moving climate control to the infotainment screen is always a downgrade that literally everyone complains about but it pleases the bean counters and every manufacturer wanted to be Tesla until very recently.
Unfortunately this is almost the case across the board though. Interiors are just getting shittier. I watched the Throttle House video last week of the X3 M60 vs the SQ5 vs the GLC43 and the interiors were all shockingly bad. They commented that the X3 in particular was worse than most run of the mill midsized crossovers.
The performance Golfs went from the fantastic MK7 interior that felt like it was from a class up to a sea of gray plastic and fussy haptic bullshit. A base 911 interior is almost all plastic at this stage. And it’s going to keep getting worse unless we talk with our money. It feels like the only manufacturers that are consistently trying to give you nicer interiors these days are Japanese or Korean.
My mother in law’s current CRV has an interior that’s nicer than most luxury cars I’ve been in…and it’s not even that special. It just looks good, has nice touch points, and doesn’t rattle around like an economy car from 20 years ago. THE BAR IS NOT HIGH, people. Sheesh.
Headrests, seatbelts, and passenger side mirror make all the difference.