[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Morg

And be realistic here, the 64 was more or less a 65... And the mustang had already reached modern Mustang weights by 69-71. (Much sooner than 2005)

The light weight lasted 2ish years? And then jumped nearly 500 lbs. And then by 69-71 they were already in the 3100-3500+ neighborhood. They shed a little weight in the 80's but jumped right back up to modern weights for the redesign.

Mustang weight has moved all over the scale over the years. The original '64 1/2 - '66 were small and lightweight. '67-'73 the bloat and weight piled on...
'74 was much smaller and lighter, but a pretty gross-looking and performing car.
Fox body Mustangs weren't much to look at, but were fairly light for a while. Going to SOHC/DOHC V8s in the mid-90s added some weight, though.
'05+ got much bulkier and heavier of course.

Not sure what the FR-S/BRZ has to do with Pony/Muscle cars. The ft86 is related to the ae86... Not the old Mustang. The 64-66 stangs were really nothing like the FR-S/BRZ. I'd say comparing them based on weight alone is a stretch.

All I said was that the original Mustang was the FR-S/BRZ of its day. It *was*. I never said an original Mustang handles like an FT86!
Anyway, the FT86 got its name from the AE86, but it is *much* more of a modern S13 240SX/Silvia than anything else. AE86 Corolla was cruder, smaller, lighter, and rocked a live axle. Quite a different machine from the FR-S/BRZ. But the S13 is practically identical on most points.

The '64 stang as well as the modern Muscle exist for a culture that likes to stack absurd amounts of power and go fast in a straight line.

The original Mustang appealed to a VERY broad cross-section, not just straight-line speed freaks. You don't sell 100k cars in the first 3 months and over 300k in the first model year by being narrowly-focused. There were much quicker straight-line cars available when the Mustang came out.

The FT86 is not about that whatsoever. You'd be hard pressed to get one to move quick in a straight line... It is about the handling/balance...(If anything the rear seats were the after thought for insurance purposes... more so than DD purposes. )

The "back seat for insurance" story is a bit of a myth. The back seats are there for utilitarian purposes. Far from being an "afterthought", they resulted in quite a compromise in terms of F/R balance. 55/45 is no better than the Mustang. But it was important for the car to be at least a bit more utilitarian than, say, a Miata or S2000, to appeal to a broader market.

I think it is interesting that people seem to take issue with those of us who enjoy the retro styling influences that have always existed in Mustang designs throughout it's history...

What was "retro" about the '64 1/2? '79? '94? None of those were styled to evoke an older car from a bygone era.

Personally, I'm not necessarily against "retro", but in the '05 Mustang's case, I think it looks a little sterile relative to the original, and is quite high and boxy. A mid-90s era Mustang looks like a small sports car next to it!

And as I already stated, late 60's early 70's they already reached modern Muscle car weights. It's not such a new development.

The '74+ cars and the Fox-body up to the mid-90s were a good 400-500 lb. lighter than the current monstrosity.

But yeah, the Mustang has pretty much always been influenced by it's roots.

How was the '64 1/2 influenced by its roots?!

To me, "retro" can do something of a disservice to an original design. I think a good, clean, great-looking, fresh, new design would pay better homage to the original Mustang than trying to evoke that car's styling, which was new and fresh in its day.