Them was da words of "Car and Driver" and applied to the 64-1/2 Mustang
(a pretty tame hoss at best). In the intervening years, Ford had the
presence of mind (and competition) to put a little more kick in the
pony's hooves. The 68 was substantially a better car and by far more
"sporty" than the original one.
Personally, I liked the '67 Camaro I once had better than any of the
Mustangs (except perhaps the Shelby ones) but that is a matter of
personal opinion. With its 230 ci. 6 cylinder it was undefeated in
autocross competition in a class that included all GT types of over 2000
cc. You're right, it's the driver (wink wink, nudge nudge)
Scott Hall wrote:
> oh, no. joe, joe, joe...
> not a sports car? now I love my '64 spit. and it's true that my '68
> mustang gt convertable didn't have the spit's wonderful front end, nor
> even its disc brakes (when I bought it). but to say it's not a sports
> car... them's fightin' words. I'd take the mustang on any twisty track
> just as readily as the spit, ugly suspension and all. maybe more so,
> surely you've seen the old c&d picture of the early spit jacking up in a
> sharp turn on its rear end?
> I never thought I'd be taking up the torch for old american street iron,
> but with most cars of that era, there's so much 'wrong' design-wise that
> it ends up much more with the driver, rather than the car. anybody
> vintage track racing that can back me up with lap times?
> On Sun, 14 Mar 1999, Joe Curry wrote:
> > Andrew Mace wrote:
> > >
> > > But it was still a pretty clever thing, that original Mustang of April
> > > 1964. I'll take one!
> > >
> > Yeah but only because they are "cute" or valuable, not because they are
> > a true Sports Car. "Car and Driver" magazine did not rate it very
> > highly in their first report on the car! 8^)
> > Joe
> > --
> > "If you can't excel with talent, triumph with effort."
> > -- Dave Weinbaum in National Enquirer
"If you can't excel with talent, triumph with effort."
-- Dave Weinbaum in National Enquirer