Dear Automakers, Bring Back The Original Pony Car

"Blake Noble" (no-bull) 02/10/2014 at 13:46 • Filed to: Rants

5

25

What can one person can add to the conversation about the Ford Mustang that hasn't already been said? One simple internet search can bring up countless pages of credence and cynicism exclusively devoted to America's most popular sports car. No opinion is left unheard, each and every remark is horribly clichéd.

There isn't any sensitive information to be declassified, either. While one can ponder endlessly at night about the specifics of how Toyota developed the last-generation Supra, every moment in the Mustang's half-century long history is well documented from awkward design proposals right down to the outlandish rumors of yesteryear. The volumes of data are oceans deep enough to drown in. It's only when you manage to pull away from the undertow that the rudimentary fact that the car that started it all really wasn't anything special actually begins to dawn on you.

When you strip away the chrome and the iconic styling, the original model of the mid-1960s was nothing more than the better-dressed brother of a dirty boot-licking economy car known as the Ford Falcon. What that really meant then was that the first-generation Mustang was very damn good at selling Americans one hell of a beautiful bald-faced lie. It wasn't any faster, significantly smaller or less practical than it's proletariat relatives. It wasn't any more luxurious, nor did it offer a unique engine or transmission. Simply put, it just looked like it could play the role of an expensive and quick sporty car.

It was that deception that also made the first Mustang a work of genius. Thanks to its lowly origins and sharing of major components, it wasn't any more expensive to buy or own than all but the most basic Falcon. With it's emotional styling, low entry fee, and option list five miles long, America finally had an aspirational car anyone could afford. That's what made the original pony car so special. In 1965 alone, its first full year on sale, Ford built somewhere over half a million examples.

That success story hasn't been replicated by anyone since, even by Ford itself with subsequent Mustangs. While the upcoming 2015 model might actually be the best one yet, it's also become the world's best-known members-only club. The car has grown up with the generation that morphed it into an overnight demigod, it's price-to-play now reflecting their bloated median incomes. The original Mustang welcomed everyone, regardless of age, income or gender. Today's model turns its nose up at anyone earning minimum wage, consumed by its cancerous aspirations of being an Aston Martin for white collar cheapskates.

The concept behind the original pony car is truly dead then and that's a real shame. If America ever needed a small well-designed sports car that was also laughably cheap, now is certainly the time. Average Americans need to be talking about cars again using phrases that do not involve the words government, bankruptcy, or bailout. And while older generations are heinously ignorant when it comes to understanding the sociology of my generation, hey, what would be the harm in giving your typical fry cook at McDonald's chance to own a new car he or she could really be proud of? I know I wouldn't be proud of a Nissan Versa if that's all I had to show for my hard-earned money, anyway.

Sure, manufacturers have flirted with bringing back something akin to the original pony car formula. In 2002, ne'er-do-well DaimlerChrysler was considering doing just that with the Dodge Razor concept car. The Razor was no-frills, excellently styled — it's certainly aged well to be twelve-years old — and was built using the best and cheapest components out of the corporate parts bin. The engine, for example, that propelled the Razor from zero to sixty in under six seconds was the same turbocharged firecracker that you got in the Dodge Neon SRT4. DaimlerChrysler claimed that the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . Why the Razor never made it to market then is just as infuriating as it is bewildering.

General Motors took another stab at it ten years later with the Chevrolet Tru 140S and Code 130R concepts, which were theoretically based around the Chevy Cruze and two-thirds of a Cadillac ATS respectively. No one can deny the Code 130R was certainly more practical than the Razor and probably would've proven almost as fun to drive with it's as-god-intended rear-drive layout. But both concepts weren't much to look at — the Code 130R tried too hard to be a BMW 1-Series in a 1970 Chevelle Halloween costume, and the Tru 140S was a better Mitsubishi Eclipse. Tack on !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! or !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and you can just forget it.

So, before you say it, the answer is "no." While the Toyota GT86 and it's related ilk can be seen as better-baked alternatives to entry level Mustangs, with a sticker price of $25,000 they are too expensive to be easily accessible by someone without a professional-level salary. And since the upcoming Nissan IDx is supposed to target the Toyota, you can bet Nissan won't be undercutting prices much, if at all.

Automakers, why won't you build us something honestly cheap and sporty again? Why can't you build more cars with an aspirational image for an underwhelming price? You've made it known before that you have dozens of inexpensive platforms (some of them even rear-wheel drive) and hardware to use, but yet you insist on selling another stale Chevrolet Sonic or another boring Honda Fit with alloy wheels.

Okay, sure. I know. That's what pays your bills, but that's no excuse to not take a chance on what is really a low-risk opportunity. Why can't you offer us something other than a front-wheel drive penalty box that you nonchalantly try to pass off as "hip and edgy?" Not every American has managed to emerge prosperously from the financial earthquake that shook the country six years ago. No one wants to be reminded of the widening wealth gap, loss of wages, and increasing costs of living that's followed by peering out into the driveway at a Kia Rio.

Like this article? Keep up with the madness by following Ignitionist here on Kinja or on Twitter !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . Be classy, stay sassy, and thank you.

For Sweden > Blake Noble 02/10/2014 at 13:49

3

$23,000 isn't considered cheap?

Blake Noble > For Sweden 02/10/2014 at 13:57

1

Not for someone barely making above minimum wage trying to cover the costs of rent and living. Think about it.

You work, say, 32 hours (if you're that lucky) a week at $7.75 bucks an hour. That's $248 dollars every week, or about $500 every two weeks, or $1,000 a month. After Uncle Sam takes his share, you're left with right around $800 bucks. Rent on a decent apartment is $450 a month and who knows if you have to pay for utilities. You also need groceries, and so on and so on.

A car payment on a $23,000 dollar car is $325 dollars a month for 72 months if you're lucky to qualify for low interest rates. Insurance is probably at least another $150.

See what I'm getting at? Many of us can't afford that and live comfortably, too. Take about $10,000 out of the picture, though and the conversation might change.

Forgetful > Blake Noble 02/10/2014 at 13:57

1

I have a FR-S, and I certainly don't have a professional level salary. Priorities.

For Sweden > Blake Noble 02/10/2014 at 14:00

4

The base Mustang in 1965 cost $2368, or $17,512 in 2013 dollars. No one living paycheck to paycheck was buying a brand new Mustang in 1965.

Z_Stig > Blake Noble 02/10/2014 at 14:02

4

I understand what you're trying to say, and agree with most of your points. But a 2014 V6 Mustang has 300 horsepower and starts at $22,500. That right there is the closest we have to pony car in this day and age.

Audi-os, amigos > For Sweden 02/10/2014 at 14:10

7

NO ONE LIVING PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK SHOULD BE BUYING A BRAND-NEW CAR!

Z_Stig > Audi-os, amigos 02/10/2014 at 14:11

0

Very true!

Steve Zissou > Blake Noble 02/10/2014 at 14:14

2

I don't think anyone working for minimum wage (or close to minimum wage) can afford any new car these days. Used market all day long.

Bullitt417 > Blake Noble 02/10/2014 at 14:23

2

As someone else already mentioned in the comments, the Mustang starts at $22,500. This gives you a manual, rear wheel drive and 300hp. In terms of putting comparing it to a Ford Midsize, the Fusion starts at 21,970. I fail to see how the Mustang has strayed from its affordable roots.

You're saying that the fact the Mustang was built on an existing platform is what made it successful. In fact, that hardly has anything to do with it. Customization, great styling and an reasonable entry price is what did it. For the first time people really could option everything they wanted 'a la carte.' They were able to personalize their car. Additionally, for the first time, they had a sportier alternative to a family car and sales reflected the freedom.

The current range of pony cars offers exactly the same. A sporty chassis, great styling, tons of personalization, and an affordable entry fee. The reality is that you need to take a look at the types of cars you get for under 20,000. They are not sporty; they are not luxurious. They are honest, small hatchbacks. The fact that you can get a car like the Mustang with 300hp, RWD, and a manual for 22,000 should alone show you that the pony car equation still exists. You may add more options to your car but the cost of entry is still exceptionally affordable.

In regards to your mention of the BRZ twins, a major part of my issues with those cars are the fact that they start at 25K.... And while I definitely understand there is more to those cars than horsepower, I personally do not think they are the amazing bargains everyone says they are.

Lastly, not to sound a bit cold, but sometimes a new car is not the best solution for someone, even at a reasonable cost of entry.

AMC/Renauledge > Blake Noble 02/10/2014 at 14:24

2

If you want a modern "pony car" that's based on the original formula, you're going to have to compromise.

Since modern economy cars are small, 4cyl, and FWD, a modern take would have to be based on that platform, too. Especially for the purposes of holding costs down. It'd have to look sportier, with a different body than its platform mate, as well.

Voila! A modern-day pony car, by your definition!

Jedidiah > Blake Noble 02/10/2014 at 14:26

1

Front page. Now.

You have managed to put into words everything wrong with the entry level automobile market. Everything you mentioned is why I do not aspire to ever own a new car; I just couldn't be proud of it. A good looking, affordable car with a long options list is a void in the market that needs to be filled.

Unfortunately, I doubt this void can be filled until they start making economy cars with RWD and a good construction again. I think manufacturers tried to partially fill this role with hot hatches and sport compacts, but unfortunately those are built from the accurately described "fwd penalty boxes."

Despite the Falcon's dated and simple construction, the ratio of the amount of car you got for the money with a compact was much higher than it is today because more expensive intermediates and full-sizes didn't offer much more equipment than the Falcon did. This made the Mustang a very desirable competitor, because it could be optioned out to compete with the very best at the time.

Sadly, I doubt a modern equivalent will be able to match the impact of the original Mustang due to the amount of standard equipment that comes on cars now. Modern cars are proportionately more expensive than older ones because the modern cars are practically optioned out already. In order for a true modern equivalent of the Mustang to exist, higher-end cars need to come with less standard equipment in order to make the compact with the long options list more desirable.

Luckily, higher end cars might start coming with less equipment to become more fuel efficient by saving weight and then the optioned out compact will reign supreme again. Upcoming fuel economy standards for cars might actually spawn a car that can be the successor to the original Mustang and Falcon! (I am being optimistic about this ofc)

JR1 > Blake Noble 02/10/2014 at 14:34

0

I understand where you are coming from and yes cars have inflated over time but so has technology, safety, economy, etc. Furthermore the dream of a Mustang really isn't taken away from people working paycheck to paycheck. They too can still own a Mustang. That is the beauty of a used car market.

6shelBfan6 > Blake Noble 02/10/2014 at 14:52

0

32 hours a week? Sounds like someone has time for a second or third job.

If you are making 12k/ year, why in the heck would you even consider purchasing a car that is 2x your annual income?

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > AMC/Renauledge 02/10/2014 at 14:55

0

having driven a veloster, you couldn't be more off mark unless pony stood for "poser". Handling is bland, interior is cheap and bad, seats are uncomfortable, and it is not much less than much better metal. It just looks funky.

AMC/Renauledge > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 02/10/2014 at 14:56

0

Read the article again.

The original Mustang came with the same engines as the Falcon. It drove no better, handled no better, was no more comfortable, etc. His point was that the original Mustang that sold so well was, indeed, a poseur.

The Veloster is based on the Accent, yet gets an optional turbo engine, and does handle better and go faster than the car it's based on. With sportier styling, to boot.

Blake Noble > AMC/Renauledge 02/10/2014 at 15:35

0

The Veloster crossed my mind, mainly because I was positive someone would bring it up in the comments. True, it is a reskinned economy car trying to be sporty ... but it still looks like an economy hatchback, just with a weird set of doors.

Park a 1965 Mustang next to a 1965 Falcon and it's hard to tell the two were ever related. I can look beyond the Veloster's AMC Pacer spirit and see the Hyundai Accent.

Blake Noble > Audi-os, amigos 02/10/2014 at 15:45

1

My parents are in their late 50s. They've both lived paycheck to paycheck their entire adult lives. So far, they've managed to raise one kid, buy numerous new cars, and pay a $100,000 mortgage.

I don't see your point. I think what you meant to say is, "One should always live within their income and should not purchase a new car if they cannot." Living paycheck to paycheck can be as consequential as it is inconsequential.

Blake Noble > For Sweden 02/10/2014 at 15:50

0

You could make that assumption if you just punched the Mustang's base price in an inflation calculator and adjusted it in 2013 dollars. But what you can't see from that is how wealth was better distributed back in 1964 than it is today. That's a part of the equation too.

For Sweden > Blake Noble 02/10/2014 at 15:50

0

Then lay the math on me!

Audi-os, amigos > Blake Noble 02/10/2014 at 15:51

0

One should always live within their income and should not purchase a new car if they cannot.

You're right, that is a better summation of my meaning. But - and please, do not take this the wrong way - I don't think your parents were living paycheck to paycheck. Not if they were buying "numerous new cars" while raising a kid and owning a house.

AMC/Renauledge > Blake Noble 02/10/2014 at 16:50

0

Well, then you're talking about something subjective...styling.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > AMC/Renauledge 02/10/2014 at 20:51

1

For some reason my response didn't post form my mobile.....but I'll try to get it back down here.

I disagree with the veloster from that point of view. You could *maybe* argue that the Forte Koup is one, but not the veloster. Why? Well the koup is actually a unique variant of the Forte in terms of body style AND it actually was used to go racing and try and capture some sort of brand enthusiasm amongst people who liked cars. It was also very cheap and affordable.

Meanwhile, the veloster is a hatch like the accent hatch but it just has a different face on it. It is also *more* expensive than the accent and while it probably handles better, it hasn't pushed hyundai that much further as a brand when compared to the Genesis Coupe which is the only actual pony car out of the ones mentioned here. They took the Genesis underpinnings and used the smaller engine as its "big" engine and teamed it with a turbo 4 base engine. I believe the V8 genesis would whomp both of them to 60 when it came out. But the coupe handles better and looks better and is MUCH cheaper. I'd say it nails the pony car ideals quite well.

I think another thing to understand here is that the average buying power of minimum wage has decreased over time while the average cost of developing a car has increased over time. Plus let's say you saved up a couple grand working through high school and maybe saved another couple grand working "minimum wage" full time for a year or so after graduation. Putting 7 or 8 grand down on a 25 grand car brings it to a 17k car payment. Well within striking distance of anyone making a steady paycheck if they can keep costs down by living with roomates/family or even renting out and subleasing parts of where they live for extra income. A lot of these guys' Muscle/Pony car stories from the 60s started with saving money from their paper routes when they were in elementary and middle school. That isn't "Oh I got a job as a fry cook and bought a charger daytona" which seems to be implied here. A few years of saving money was behind most of those purchases.

Let's not forget that the mustang is much more than the sum of its parts. Forget the numbers and the sources of these parts - no one had ever considered just shrink wrapping their small sedan's components into a sexy coupe/convertible design before like that. At least, not something that didn't have a ton of excess chrome and luxuries on it. Even if the first mustang wasn't a purpose built speed machine, it gave off the intent and "filled in the suit" as it were by going out and winning.

The veloster? It's a more attractive, more expensive, accent. That's it. If that's what you want then go for it. But no, it isn't a pony car.

Blake Noble > For Sweden 02/10/2014 at 23:13

0

It's more than just math, it's also a study of economics and sociology too. Basically, a whole other article in and of itself.

Thanks for the idea. Seriously. ;)

Conan > For Sweden 02/14/2014 at 14:30

0

If I could get a new Mustang for $17,512 (especially with a V8) I might actually consider not buying a used vehicle again. While I am not living paycheck to paycheck he has a point.

ThatbastardKurtis > Blake Noble 02/14/2014 at 15:48

1

Man, the Dodge Razor, I was feening for it to be built. And had it, chances are, all answers to every question would not be Miata.
If built today, in a toned down design, it would be a good alternative to the BRZ/FRZ, Miata, Nissan IDx...