Gallery: The 100 Best Mustangs Of All Time
By Stirling Matheson | Nov 17, 2011 | 10:12 am | Permalink
When Lee Iacocca conceived the Ford Mustang, he envisioned it as a more European, smaller sports car. Ford created a whole new breed of sporting car: the "pony" car. It was fun and stylish. And it was cheap--under $2,500--since most of its parts were sourced from other Fords. Ford was hoping to sell 100,000 a year. But as a sign of things to come, in less than three months the company had left that goal in the dust.
Ironically, the car that was originally envisioned as having a "Ferrari-like front end," being "heavy-looking like a Maserati," and "looking related to European design" ended up being one of the most iconic American automobiles of all time. Our country is largely a conglomeration of foreign ideas mixed together with our own unique brand of ingenuity. And that is what the Mustang, and its many, many special editions, has become.
Related: The 100 Best Cadillacs of All Time
Lorna November 17th, 2011 at 12:13 PM
This is not a 1970, this is a 1969.....
Laura White November 18th, 2011 at 03:01 AM
MG you know that ? My friends told me So cool dating place=== http://www. BlackwhitePlanet. C’ 0- M.com/ ==it is the first and best club for excellent?beautiful people and their admirers.. Interracial is not a problem here, but a great merit to cherish! i love that club !
Kyle Rohde November 17th, 2011 at 12:15 PM
The 200 was an inline-six, not a V6. But loving this list!
David Peterson November 17th, 2011 at 12:23 PM
How did the 1968 Foulger Mustang 428 CJ Fastback not get on this list? Quite possibly should be in the #1 spot. http://www.remarkablecars.com/main/ford/1968-mustang-006.html
Andy November 17th, 2011 at 12:27 PM
Why isn't there any mention of the 07+ Shelby Super Snake??
Dave November 17th, 2011 at 12:33 PM
That's nice, but the 200CID engine in the '66 Mustang was not a V6. It was a straight six. Somebody didn't do even basic homework here.
Dave November 17th, 2011 at 12:38 PM
That's not the correct photo of the Eleanor Mustang. Eleanor was a '68. That's a '66. And the photo is clearly of a 350GT. It even says it on the front license plate. Did anyone even TRY with this article???
Also Dave November 17th, 2011 at 03:52 PM
Eleanor was a 67, not a 68.
Aleks Bak November 17th, 2011 at 12:57 PM
it used to be an awesome car in the 70s - what happen to it? what a piece of crap it is now...
morgan November 17th, 2011 at 01:49 PM
Sounds like a disgruntled Camaro owner. If you'd have driven a new Mustang, you wouldn't have wasted your money on something else!
Aleks Bak November 18th, 2011 at 02:18 PM
Camaro? are you kidding me? More like WRX or Skyline...
Tony November 17th, 2011 at 01:23 PM
There are WAY to many Saleen Mustangs on this list. I have owned Mustangs for over 25 years and have never considered any Saleen as relevant or iconic. Additionally many of the pictures do not match the year of the car on the list. There is no mention of a 68 & 1/2 GT 428 anywhere on the list. That is one of the most sought after Mustangs from the Muscle car era.
Jedburgh November 17th, 2011 at 01:49 PM
"100 Best Mustangs" and you can't even get the year right? The Twister Special is NOT a '67, its a 1970 Mach 1 special edition. It looks like this list was just thrown together by someone who doesn't really know Mustangs at all.
Captain Morgan November 18th, 2011 at 12:30 AM
I agree! Someone just threw a bunch of Mustangs on a list and didnt even pay attention to what they were! I love the cars but C-Mon get the facts right!
glenn November 17th, 2011 at 02:21 PM
The mustang II That they say was crap,The writers words not mine, had one of the best suspension designs ever. They say that the 79 fox was a better car but has he ever driven either of the cars in question? The first fox had all the same power plants that the II did. Just look at the 1978 King Cobra and the 1979 Cobra can you honestly say the 79 is a nicer car. In 1978 the Mustang II sales actually increased when people saw how ugly the fairmont based 79 was.
Don November 17th, 2011 at 11:21 PM
Glenn, the engineers of Ford admitted that the Mustang II had horrible suspension. It was based on a Pinto that had to be modified to "handle like a Mustang" at a time Ford didn't want to put massive amounts of funds into the car because the fuel crisis pretty much destroyed sales on any cars associated with horsepower. The Mustang II and Fox Mustangs did share engines, but the Fox engines made far more horsepower and were wildly different. The only thing they had in common was the block really ... it's like comparing a '96 4.6 GT engine to an '05 4.6 3-valve GT engine.
Brian Dyas November 18th, 2011 at 12:13 AM
The Mustang2 suspension shared roughly 10% with the pinto, about the same ratio as the 64.5 Mustang shared with the Falcon. The m2 had rack and pinion steering, which was far more advanced than any Mustang before it. ford had build quality that made the m2 the most rust free Mustang up until that point (Can you say rotted out cowling panels on first generation?) It was roughly the same overall dimensions as the original Mustang, but was built heaver due to safety features and restrictions. The ONLY reason history has frowned on the M2 is because it was underpowered due to the clean air act, EPA regulations,insurance companies, and the oil crisis The M@ brought the nameplate back to its roots. Being small driveable, fun, and affordable