1965-1973 Mustangs

>>17370542
'68 Fastback and '71 Fastback are my favorites.

>>17370548
65-70 anything else is SHIT

'67 and '68. They grew too big afterwards.

File: 1969mustangmontage.jpg (1MB, 4096x2021px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4096x2021px

>>17370548
agreed

File: ryazqgb4pfaorfpshiwx.jpg (134KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1600x900px

68 fastback and 69 or 70 fastback depending on taste.

Coupes look likeshit

File: AZ15_r155_001.jpg (445KB, 2500x1383px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 2500x1383px

>>17370542
The 1970 notchback.
>64/65/66 are too small visually
>67/68 front end is ugly
>69 and 70 are perfect
>71+ is getting malaise era in styling

And then I prefer the 70 over the 69 because of the headlights, and the (notchback) coupe over the fastback because it's shoulder line appear much stronger.

My dream would be a 1970 notchback in Calypso Coral with an aluminium Boss 429 (or maybe a 427 small block), and pic related for livery.

File: 1970 Mustang.jpg (525KB, 800x521px) Image search: [Google]

525KB, 800x521px

>>17370542
Best is the 1970 Fastback. But I'm biased because I owned a 1970 Fastback in Grabber Blue. The thing got smiles and waving hands everywhere I went. 1969 is the close second, as the front with the quad headlights makes it look a lot more aggressive, but have inferior looking tailights.

File: 67_Coupe.jpg (408KB, 1280x855px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 1280x855px

'67 Coupe is best.

File: 70GT500.jpg (56KB, 800x459px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 800x459px

69-70 GT500s

>>17370542
65-66 fastback
everything else is too big and bloaty.

Mustangs are pony cars, not muscle cars.

File: 1971Mustang-1437432894245.jpg (672KB, 1600x1070px) Image search: [Google]

672KB, 1600x1070px

>Tfw most underappreciated
>Tfw cheapest but prices are climbing and I still don't have one
>>17370561
Neck yourself.

71-73 notchbacks

i liked the torino-like styling, the slab sidedness, and the comfy interior

>>17370542

'71-73 are the least gay since they were designed with men in mind for the first time.

File: 13669169_10154304236449491_8826370114645638167_n.jpg (138KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 960x720px

>>17370542
'65 convertible

'69 for the front end, but '68 fastback for that gorgeous rear

69-73 is pigfat garbage with 1971-73 being complete unredeemable shit all the coupes of this range look horrid

67-68 only look good as a fastback

65-66 fastbacks look weird

68 or 67 fastback is easily the best

>>17370542
Easily the 2017 model, no competition.

/Thread

>>17370542
69 fastback fucking why is this even a question

File: diserved it.jpg (142KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 500x375px

>>17370542
The one that's not on the road anymore.

File: gone-in-60-seconds-eleanor.jpg (118KB, 1200x537px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1200x537px

The only correct answer

File: 1479525905225.jpg (69KB, 478x478px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 478x478px

>>17374308
tHiS.!

>>17370542
69 fastback. no fucking debate.

personally i would want a 69 fastback with a 70 front end. i dont give a fuck if it isnt factory.

File: 1993-ford-mustang-lx-front-view.jpg (44KB, 650x425px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 650x425px

>>17370542
Foxbody

>>17377735
>MUH FIVE POINT OH

its still a piece of shit.

>>17377666
Waste of digits, neck ys. That POS remake ruined sooooooo many mustangs. Ugh
Original Gone in Sixty Seconds is sooo much better...
RIP HB Halicki

67-68

69's are ok but a bit too big

71-73 are dog shit pigfat

>>17370542
'69 Fastback first choice, '65 fastback second choice