Quote:
Originally posted by dcarrb
Geez, man, chill-out.
You wrote "...cheapest, crappiest car Ford ever made." Least expensive at the time? No doubt. But "crappiest" would infer to most that it was of poor quality, and my (indirect) experience is that it was a tough, reliable little car. (But certainly not plush; ours didn't even have carpet.)
Granted, I never raced the streets of San Francisco (nor anywhere else) in my '68 Mustang, but I got many miles of outstanding service out of that car (much of which was rung-up in an insane, daily, zero-to-eighty-to-zero-repeat I-285 commute), and I don't remember anything falling-off. The C-4 automatic did give-up third in the low 100s, and I got a reman, installed, for a whopping $195. That was the only time I recall having to do without the old gal for a whole day.
And, as I wrote before, I doubt this experience is unique.
dcb
|
But it WAS the crappiest car they made at the time. The same could be said for the plymouth savoy, or the chevy whatever little econobox they had at the time. From a reliability perspective, who knows. Cars back then shared drivetrains so they're all pretty much the same. But sure, I'm glad you had basically trouble free time with her, and I doubt parts fell of it, but that's because you weren't JUMPING it. The falcon chassis is pretty weak in comparison to a big chrysler b-body like a charger/roadrunner etc. Check out the chase scene. You see pieces of the mustang literally rip off and slam into the ground when the car lands.
That's all I'm saying. If you had a great time with a falcon, great, but I'm pretty sure you weren't jumping the thing either.
- Jim