1967-68 Fastback with a 6 cyl: A Ford mistake? - Vintage Mustang Forums
Vintage Mustang Forum
HomeForumGalleryClassifiedsAbout UsAdvertiseContact Us
» Auto Insurance
» Featured Product
Go Back   Vintage Mustang Forums > General Discussion > Vintage Mustang Forum
Vintage-Mustang.com is the premier Ford Mustang Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-02-2008, 10:09 PM   #1 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 1,302
Default

I was talking to a friend of mine that owns a 6 cyl 1968 fastback that previous owner put a 302ci engine and wants to convert it back to 6 cyl. Thinking about the 1967-68 fastback look(they look fast even standing still) Do you think Ford made a mistake putting a 6 cyl in a fastback?

I can only think back to 1967-68 of what would the buyer of the new fastback style Mustang of that year might have in mind purchasing a car like that with an inline 6...Looks and fuel economy?

I am a purist and if the car were mine I will also put back the 6 cyl engine but still cant resist the thought of what was FORD thinking??

No offense to 6 cyl owners is intended....I can understand the lighter 1965-66 fastback with a 6 cyl but the more massive 1967-68 models?
classicsguy is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-02-2008, 10:41 PM   #2 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Halton Hills, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,034
Default

Well, the 67's didn't weigh too much more than the 66's, as long as you kept the heavy options like auto trans and A/C out of the picture. After all, same underguts for the frame, floors,etc.

AFA the 6 cylinders go, Ford was marketing the car as a "car to be designed by you", and that philosophy required quite a latitude of options - including economy options for those so minded.
So, some people wanted a zoomy looking economy car. For the stodgy Aunt Maude and Uncle Charlie types, the choice was probably either a 6 cylinder FB or some nondescript 6 cylinder AMC Rambler or whatever. I'd take the sharp looking FB if the choice was mine, and apparently some others back then chose similarly.
__________________
[/SIGPIC]67 Fastback GT -- original colour (Frost Turquoise), orig engine. Pic is of me and the Mustang taken in summer of '67, with original F70-14 Wide Ovals. Same car is now restored to "as new" but 3 speed tranny swapped out for 4 gear, with tach dash, original Equalock rear, Opentracker roller perches and idler arm, roller bearing pedal cluster, Cibie headlights, 4100 carb (old 4300 put in storage probably forever)
jfstang is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-02-2008, 10:54 PM   #3 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: MD
Posts: 134
Default

I don't think it was a mistake. They might not have been very fast or the best engine option but I have a 250 in my 1970 Fastback and its pretty fast but it is R E L I A B L E. It can rev and can really take abuse like no other (not that I did or anything... .) That motor did not want to die, it would sit for months and start right up and then let that rear right wheel burn

It got pretty good gas mileage too not that I cared... haha
__________________
Ford64Muscle (my old username)

'70 Mustang Fastback
-1971 Boss 302 Service Block Blueprinted
-AUS 351 Cleveland Heads
-Custom Ross pistons
-3 speed toploader

'64 1/2 Mustang Coupe (Rusty and in Pieces For Now)
Ford70Fastback is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-02-2008, 10:59 PM   #4 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 604
Default

Putting it in perspective, I don't think it's a mistake. People are buying 2008 Mustangs with six bangers in them. Wasn't a good portion of the Mustang market share women (and probably still is)? Some people didn't and still don't want to pay for performance they don't need or want.
__________________
1973 Mustang Coupe
351C-2V

http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z...naturecopy.jpg
desertMustang is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-02-2008, 11:37 PM   #5 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
frdnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Ontario ,Canada
Posts: 3,102
Default

I think it was brilliant on Fords part to let the buyer option the car pretty much any way they wanted..I wish you could do that with cars today....I agree though when you look under the hood of a fastback you don't expect to see a six banger.
__________________

68 J code sprint, 408W
11.59@ 120.95mph in street trim.
frdnut is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-02-2008, 11:50 PM   #6 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
65fastback6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 4,593
Default

I don't think it was a mistake, it helped
sell more cars.
My parents ordered a new 65 fastback 6 cyl
brand new. They didn't order the V8 because
they didn't feel they needed the extra power
(they test drove a 6 cyl) and didn't need to
spend the extra money for a V8. They ordered
the fastback body style because of the fold down
seat for their son (me) to have a place to sleep
on late nights back from visiting the relatives!.

This car pictured below is a close copy of that car.
__________________

65 Fastback 2+2 Rangoon red, red interior
6 cyl, AT, A/C, P.S., P.B.

MCA# 00945

Previously owned Mustangs:
6F07C,5F07T,5F09A,6F08A,
5F07C,3F03F,1F03H,3F03H,
1F04F,3F01L,8F03Y,9F03W,
84 SVO,86 SVO
65fastback6 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-02-2008, 11:52 PM   #7 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Cobra6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Tennessee Valley
Posts: 2,207
Default

No mistake - I remember in 1977 looking for my first Mustang.
I wanted a '67 - '68 fastback, but all I could find were three models that had the straight 6. They all had the original powertrain.

I ended up passing - mainly because of the 6 (too close to a Maverick at the time), and bought a '71 Mach 1 with a 351C - 4V.
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you haven't been trained properly.

Beri Fraley
Strong, Proud, and Ugly.
http://w3f.com/gifs/flag/animated/a-usa.gif

http://militarysignatures.com/signat...ember14773.png
Cobra6 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-03-2008, 09:05 AM   #8 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Ontario
Posts: 9,400
Default

Not everyone wanted a gas guzzler and it helped keep the entry price of the car low.
__________________
Paul
1965 Mustang 2+2
pprince is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-03-2008, 02:12 PM   #9 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Mustangerbob1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,196
Default

1970? or 1969, Ford put a 6 cyl with the most horrible tall rear end into a series of fastbacks. The Economy Special, as it took 2 1/2 months to accelerate to freeway speeds, and slapped a giant E on the quarters to let every know you had a fastback with a peglegged hamster for a drive train.
__________________
RHen1514@aol.com ed ay +1991

Richardson TX

1964.5 D code vert (The 'Vert)
1966 K Code Vert (The K 'Vert)
Mustangerbob1 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-03-2008, 02:27 PM   #10 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: SF Bay area, California
Posts: 10,505
Default

You convinced me.....I'm tossing this boat anchor 390 and getting a straight 6.
kbmwrs is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-03-2008, 05:52 PM   #11 (permalink)
Supporting Member
Senior Member
 
Midlife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Panama City, FL
Posts: 18,982
Default

In 1968, there were 2,458 inliner fastbacks, out of a total of 42,579 fastbacks. That's a bit over 5%.
__________________
http://midlife66.com/miscfiles/traylersmiley2.gifhttp://midlife66.com/miscfiles/hotshots.jpg
http://midlife66.com/miscfiles/hotshots.jpg[

'Electrical Guru: Let me Check Your Shorts! Ooops...that didn't turn out right.

MCA Historian
Midlife is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-03-2008, 07:24 PM   #12 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Halton Hills, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,034
Default

The most popular was the 2v 289-302, according to a Road and Track used car survey on the Mustang done around 1970. Second most popular was the 4 barrel smallblock. I think the 6's followed next, but I don't know exact numbers.
__________________
[/SIGPIC]67 Fastback GT -- original colour (Frost Turquoise), orig engine. Pic is of me and the Mustang taken in summer of '67, with original F70-14 Wide Ovals. Same car is now restored to "as new" but 3 speed tranny swapped out for 4 gear, with tach dash, original Equalock rear, Opentracker roller perches and idler arm, roller bearing pedal cluster, Cibie headlights, 4100 carb (old 4300 put in storage probably forever)
jfstang is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Vintage Mustang Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2 ©2009, Crawlability, Inc.