Yahoo Autos From the archives: The 1965 Ford Mustang started a legacy
Commemorating the 50th anniversary of the iconic Ford Mustang, we have reached into the archives to present our first drive from the July 1964 issue of Consumer Reports magazine (PDF), augmented with test results from the August 1964 issue of Consumer Reports magazine (PDF).
Modern perspective
Looking back, the enthusiasm that Consumer Reports and indeed the marketplace had for the original Mustang is infectious. It is no wonder from this strong start that the pony car became such a fixture on American highways and byways. It is interesting to see how wrapped up the editors were in the smart buying advice, cautioning shoppers against the competition version, later better known as the ultra-collectible Shelby GT350.
Through the ensuing decades, the Mustang has gone through numerous incarnations, but it always remained true to its brand, offering an affordable, performance-focused, rear-drive coupe and convertible capable of being equipped from mild to wild. The tradition continues with the all-new Mustang, and we look forward to taking that muscle-bound stallion for a ride.
If you're interested in Ford's latest vintage, check out our 2015 Mustang preview.
CU's First Look at the Ford Mustang
There isn’t likely to be another Edsel, or ill-conceived Edsel promotion, in the Ford Motor Company’s future. Their latest new car, the Mustang, which CU is now testing, was much more carefully planned as a car and has been launched with a promotion campaign that is, if all-out, no more given to superlatives than most new-car launchings. From Ford’s point of view, this effort could hardly have been better timed. The Mustang emerges as a non-utilitarian vehicle with a fresh, though not inspired, look in a booming market for cars, especially a “personal” car like the Mustang. It bears a fillip of prestige, a little of the aura of the Thunderbird and Riviera, and (via many options) an extremely wide adaptability to people’s varying automotive desires. The combination apparently has broad appeal. As this report is being written, Mustangs are rolling off the line at the rate of nearly 7,000 a week.
Although the Mustang is made up, in large part, of components from other Ford cars, it is unique in Ford’s stable in chassis construction, body styling, and general concept. It is not a sports car, but a sporty-looking 2-door hardtop or convertible, very close to the Corvair in size and designed for a similar but wider market—ranging, depending on options chosen, from a tame little filly all the way to a hot charger—the latter a “competition” machine that CU advises its readers to ignore completely.
The Mustang body, either hardtop or convertible (the latter $250 extra), is 182 inches long and 68 inches wide—dimensions similar to the Corvair’s, leaving plenty of room in the average garage. The new Ford entry weighs, in CU’s basic-model test car, just under 2,600 pounds. It is the type of car often called a “2 plus 2” coupe. That is, it has a rear seat for two people, but they’ll be much happier back there if they’re small or have retractile legs.
Those options
Under Mustang’s long (and unsafely sharp-edged) hood and forward of its stubby tail, there may be any of four engines, three clutches, seven transmissions, two driveshafts, three wheel and tire sizes, three suspensions, four steering systems, and four brake options (none of which, CU is disappointed to report, has dual hydraulic systems for safety). The particular car CU is testing was selected with equipment similar to that of the Corvair Monza Coupe that is also under test. CU’s Mustang coupe is the bottom-of-the-line model—using a 170 cubic-inch unmodified Falcon 6-cylinder engine, but equipped with an optional 4-speed manual transmission that costs $115 more than the standard 3-speed manual but is, CU feels, the optimum choice with this engine. The shift lever, as in all Mustangs whether manual or automatic, is on the floor. CU’s car has standard-equipment bucket seats.
All Mustangs are designated by Ford as 1965 models, and they presumably continue through the 1965 model year with only running changes. As ‘65s, they initiate a breakthrough in automatic transmissions for the Ford Motor Company. Starting with 1965, there will be no more 2-speed automatics in Ford cars; only 3-speed torque converter units will be used. It is also probably that, beginning in the fall, Ford’s 200-cubic-inch Six, which now powers the Fairlane and Comet, will be available, with any transmission, in the Mustang.
Buying a Mustang figures to be something of an adventure in itself. The shopper’s ability to mix and match the wide options—and his ability to resist the salesman’s attempts to trade him up—not only may swing the price from a basic $2,345 to over $3,000 (and even higher for the competition model), but can change the whole character of the car. At one extreme is a personal car with an easily accessible power plant, which CU so far has found to be light-handling and docile and expects will give good gas mileage; at the other is that “competition” machine—a very power V8 of 271 horsepower, weighing about 3,000 pounds, using premium fuel, and likely to be rather heavy-handling and noisy, though capable of going from 0 to 60 mph in under 10 seconds.
When it becomes available, the 200-cubic-inch Six, weighing little more than the engine in CU’s test car, will be CU’s preferred engine for the Mustang, particularly if an automatic transmission is chosen. With this combination, the Mustang should retain its handling qualities better than it would if it carried a heavier engine. Of the better V8 engine options for the Mustang, however, one is particularly interesting from the standpoint of price. A Mustang with the 260-cubic-inch V8 and standard-equipment 3-speed automatic transmission, synchronized in all forward gears, costs about the same as CU’s test car; though its engine adds about 160 pounds to the weight on the front wheels, it should provide powerful performance, flexibility, and quiet running, within $116 of the Mustang’s basic cost. It drives through a 3.00 to 1 rear end, which should allow moderately good gas mileage.
