Karl on Cars - Cars that Jumped the Shark: Ford Mustang

Cars that Jumped the Shark: Ford Mustang

As one of the oldest existing vehicle nameplates in the automotive universe it seems only fitting to ask the inevitable question: When (if ever) did the Ford Mustang jump the shark?

I'm going to take the suspense out of this discussion and tell you up front when I think the Mustang topped out: 1969. That's actually one year after my favorite Mustang of all time -- 1968 Shelby GT500KR -- but there were enough exciting models in 1969 to validate the model's sustained health. The Boss Mustangs (302 and 429) both hit showrooms that year, as did the Mach 1. The 428 Super Cobra Jet was going strong, and Shelby still had a couple models in the line-up (though I don't like them as much as the '68 versions).

I also feel like the styling, particularly the four-headlight grille and fastback shape, were quite attractive. Yes, the car had gotten considerably pudgier since its 1964 debut, but the increased performance from the available small- and big-block drivetrains more than offset the increased curb weight. You could make an argument that 1970 was the 'Stang's best year, as that's when it won the Trans Am championship with Parnelli Jones at the wheel. But the switch back to two headlights in 1970 was a big hit to the styling in my opinion. Then came 1971...

The '71-'73 Mustangs still had power (if the right drivetrain options were chosen), but the styling and weight officially transformed the "pony" car into an overweight pack mule. Then came the '74-'78 Mustang II (no comment), followed by the "Fox" body cars of 1979-2004. There were some bright spots in that 25-year period, including the Cobra R models of '93, '95 and '00, plus the sure-footed Bullitt version of 2001.

But it wasn't until the 2005 redesign that the car almost jumped back over the shark, and the latest Shelby GT version (but not the front-heavy GT500 models) is almost as cool in the 2008 automotive world as the Boss and 428 cars were in 1969. Almost.

At least that's how I see it. Happy to hear your thoughts.

Posted by Karl Apr 21, 2008 6:00 am

Permalink

Categories: Ford | Cars that Jumped the Shark | Muscle Car | Retro Revivals

Comments

oberg - Apr 21, 2008 10:17 am (#5 Total: 24)

Karl,

I believe you are using the term "Jump the Shark" incorrectly. You should say 1970 is the year it jumped the shark. Wikipedia says to jump the shark is, "change was seen as the beginning of the end or marking the moment the subject is "past its peak."".

editor_karl - Apr 21, 2008 10:34 am (#6 Total: 24)

L.A. CA United States of America

I guess it's a tough call based on the official definition of "Jumping the Shark" (kind of funny that an official definition even exists...). The 1970 was essentially the same car as the 1969 except for the grill/headlight change, so calling it "past its peak" sounds too strong. The '71 model definitely fits that description. So maybe I should say that it jumped in '71.

iskch - Apr 21, 2008 10:45 am (#7 Total: 24)

I like the 66 fastback mustangs all the way to 1969 or 68. The Mustang is a legend in the pony cars or muscle cars anyway you want to call it. Either you like it or not still here. I'm not a Ford fan but credit goes to Ford for keeping the car going.

moparbad - Apr 21, 2008 10:45 am (#8 Total: 24)

USA

Mustang II was the beginning of the end that did not end.

ddastardly - Apr 21, 2008 11:00 am (#9 Total: 24)

Looks like I'm on my own with this one as I always liked the look of the 71 Mustang, especially the red one in Diamonds are forever.

jriz - Apr 21, 2008 1:08 pm (#10 Total: 24)

Ah, the '74-'78 Mustang II. I just threw up in my mouth a little.

editor_karl - Apr 21, 2008 3:36 pm (#11 Total: 24)

L.A. CA United States of America

Watch what you say about the Mustang II. There's a contingent of "Those cars are awesome and you just don't get it!" folks out there. If they catch wind of your comments...it will be funny.

estreka - Apr 21, 2008 5:41 pm (#12 Total: 24)

subarctic north - Great Falls, MT

I would agree with you except for some minor differences.

1. I think the Mustang came back into its own in '99 when the GTs were given 260hp and the special editions came out (Mach, Roush, & Cobra particularly).
2. I know I'll be unpopular for saying this, but I think the 5th gen Mustangs look ever better than the originals. That, plus the expansive options available today make it a tempting buy, especially at the entry prices. With that being said, I'd say the Mustang is better than ever (particularly the Roush).

Jeremy Clarkson would shove a bar of soap in my mouth if he heard me say that.

texases - Apr 22, 2008 10:09 am (#13 Total: 24)

Yes, '71 is the jump, too heavy and over-styled. I do think it jumped back with the current version, to the extent that I've stopped looking for a nice '65 (my first car) and would get a new one (Bullitt, maybe?) instead - if I ever get around to it...

arkangyl - Apr 22, 2008 10:44 am (#14 Total: 24)

I don't know, but a better question is...Why isn't the new 3.5 Liter in the base Mustang?

firstwagon - Apr 22, 2008 11:43 am (#15 Total: 24)

arkangyl

That's easy...cost.

The 4.0 is the old Explorer pushrod engine. Simple and cheap to make. If I remember correctly, it's based on the old 2.9 V6 which was based on the 2.8 from the old euro Capri of the 70's. It's paid for.

The typical V6 Mustang buyer is going for the looks and image at a low price. The 4.0 covers that just fine. People wanting more will always go for the V8.

texases - Apr 22, 2008 12:30 pm (#16 Total: 24)

You'd almost wonder if the DOHC V6 might even cost more than the SOHC V8 to make.

yankeez - Apr 22, 2008 12:52 pm (#17 Total: 24)

I've never been much of a Mustang fan, but all things considered, I think you guys are being a bit too hard on it. For a car that's been around for 43+ years now, it's certainly had its ups and downs, no doubt about it.

BUT...

Through it all, even though it flirted with the glue factory a couple of times (remember back in the late 80s when the PROBE was actually supposed to replace it? Where is the Probe now? There are probably some here who've never heard of a Probe) Ford still saw fit to keep it around, despite it sometimes not being the vehicle it should have (or could have) been.

Bottom line - Ford, unlike Chrysler and GM with their pony cars, cared enough about its customers to keep it going. As far as I'm concerned, the Mustang is entitled to "jump the shark" now and then, I believe it's earned that right. THAT, is a true example of "keeping the faith".

SubyTrojan - Apr 22, 2008 2:12 pm (#18 Total: 24)

Santa Monica, CA, USA

Am I crazy for liking the '94-'98 design more than the '99-'05 one? I prefer the "curvaceous" look over the "edgy" look.

Even though I'm more of a bow-tie guy, I fondly remember the days when Tommy Kendall mopped the floor with pretty much everyone in the SCCA Trans Am series in his All-Sport-sponsored Roush Racing Ford Mustang. If I remember correctly, he even surpassed the late Mark Donahue's consecutive Trans Am race victory streak.

http://www.zoompics.com/97ta-1.jpg

firstwagon - Apr 22, 2008 3:05 pm (#19 Total: 24)

Stylewise I like the 94-98 better then the 99 - 05 too. However I like the more powerful V8 that came out in 99 more.

classicjetta - Apr 23, 2008 11:36 am (#20 Total: 24)

Ford Probe...few cars have a more unfortunate name.

thecarguru - Apr 24, 2008 12:18 am (#21 Total: 24)

It seems that FoMoCo is not gonna have too many more opportunities to use Carrol Shelby’s name while he’s alive so they are maximizing its use for all it’s worth. Sadly, Ford could not have made it a better performer for the money.

george2040 - Apr 26, 2008 1:54 am (#22 Total: 24)

I don't get that excited by Mustang styling, but give FoMoCo credit for manufacturing large numbers of cheap, light weight, RWD fox body Mustangs ready made for budget drag racing. Could the show Pinks exist without junky but light weight 70s and 80s RWD cars, inexpensive small block V8s, and nitrous?

I owned a 1990 Ford Probe LX for 16 years. Stupid name for a Mazda 626 hatchback with a Taurus engine, but that car is still running after 18 years and 4 owners. Better car than the Mustang II.

SubyTrojan - Apr 30, 2008 9:26 pm (#23 Total: 24)

Santa Monica, CA, USA

Just chiming in to make a correction. I meant MY1999-MY2004 above. MY2005 was the first year of the current generation.

kuruma - May 6, 2008 5:30 pm (#24 Total: 24)

I had a '72 Mustang droptop back in the '70s, and while I'll admit it was no longer the pony car of the '60s, I thought it had very nice lines and was fun to drive. On the downside, like all Fords of that era, it gathered rust like a tramp steamer.