Latest Mustang Monthly

[shelbyscarab]

Some of you may have seen it, there is a 2 page feature article 3/4 of the way back on a '92 Red "summer" feature mustang vert.

Yes, nice car, plus it is low mileage. Always liked them, along with the white feature cars, the green "7-ups", and the yellow feature cars.

But a few things in the article mildly annoyed me considering how little attention the ASCs receive. They brought up the "low production" numbers - please. ASCs are much more rare. They also brought up Saleens, SSPs, other special versions. no mention of ASC. Especially considering the fact that ASCs were the only version to receive the "factory backed warranty" from Ford, that Sandy touts often.

Sorry, just venting a little. I really don't get how ASCs are so overlooked. They are some of the best looking Fox's ever made. And its not as if they are equivalent to the '74-'78 stangs. I've heard some say their rarity is actually the problem - I've never understood this, since "rarity" seems to make other cars highly sought after and valuable - kind of like 60s Shelbys, Boss 302s, Boss 429s, & Mach 1s.

[#67 Black Mac']

I've heard some say their rarity is actually the problem - I've never understood this, since "rarity" seems to make other cars highly sought after and valuable - kind of like 60s Shelbys, Boss 302s, Boss 429s, & Mach 1s.

That is a mystery for me also. I wish someone would explain how this works on our ASCs.
Ron

[Rainmanoly]

Performance, Performance, Perfromance.
Our cars suck because their is nothing special under the hood.

1.)You list the 60's Shelby's - 67 had a 428 Interceptor, 68 KR had the 428 CJ - The stuff Mopar dreams are made of.....
2.)Shelby 350's - produced more hp, and had different suspension
3.)Boss 302 - Early mustangs sucked compared to the Camero. So, ford took the Windsor block, mixed in some Cleveland heads, and wha-la. A car to compete in the Trans-Am series
4.)Saleen - performance, plus style. rich guy can have someone else build his "custom" mustang

What do all the special interest cars have that ours don't? Performance mods. Our cars are muscle/sport cars, performance rules, not luxury. Our cars are these bastard children.

- Don't hate me for saying it.

[ct_gsxr1000]

"What do all the special interest cars have that ours don't? Performance mods. Our cars are muscle/sport cars, performance rules, not luxury. Our cars are these bastard children"

I agree that some of the older mustangs did have performance mods, however have to disagree, the post was about the red/white, triple white, 7-up and yellow chrome models having low production #'s and being worth more... these cars do not have one performance modification from the factory to make them worth any more, just having low production #'s and simple add on changes such as turbine wheels on the 7-up LX vert other production mustangs didn't have
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see that people are selling cars like mine for $20,000 but reality is our cars are not worth this yet.... they will be worth more in the future, i have no doubt

[ChuckG]

I'd have to add, the '65-66 Camaros were poor performers.... DNS is worse than DNF.

In 1967 when the Camaro actually did come out, it was limited to a 400ci engine, the 396, by GM corporate edict. The Mustang? 428 ci in a Shelby GT 500.

The Windsor came along the same time as the FE Series engines (which included a 352 ci flavor) were being phased out for the Series 385, the smallest of which was a 429 ci. Ford simply did as they had with the FE, and made the necessary modifications to the block to allow more cubes. Heads, as in the FEs, interchange. The Cleveland, well that's an entirely different story, isn't it?

The Boss 302 (with Clevland-style heads) was simply developed because the 289 was so far under the 5.0 liter limit it wasn't competitive, as evidenced in '67-68.

Nobody minds the truth, but in it's day, each 60s Mustang had a variant that would compete with a Camaro--or guys like Yenko wouldn't have made a name selling COPO Camaros.

[#67 Black Mac']

Performance, Performance, Perfromance.
Our cars suck because their is nothing special under the hood.

1.)You list the 60's Shelby's - 67 had a 428 Interceptor, 68 KR had the 428 CJ - The stuff Mopar dreams are made of.....
2.)Shelby 350's - produced more hp, and had different suspension
3.)Boss 302 - Early mustangs sucked compared to the Camero. So, ford took the Windsor block, mixed in some Cleveland heads, and wha-la. A car to compete in the Trans-Am series
4.)Saleen - performance, plus style. rich guy can have someone else build his "custom" mustang

What do all the special interest cars have that ours don't? Performance mods. Our cars are muscle/sport cars, performance rules, not luxury. Our cars are these bastard children.

- Don't hate me for saying it.

I have to admit that when it comes to ASC Roadster vs ASC Coupe what you say works.

The mods on the ASC convert cost about double those on the ASC coupe.
Yet the coupes tend to consistently bring a higher price. Evidently the inequity here is due to the higher performance of the coupe over the roadsters.
What other coupe brings more than the similar convertible model?

But, I am not sure that this works on many older collectable cars, including Ford products.

I have recently seen a couple of 6 cylinder convertible Mustangs from the sixties sell for astronomical prices.
Perhaps it is just a matter of time. When our ASC coupes and convertibles become 50 years old maybe they will be recognized for the extremely cool cars that they are.
It will be interesting to see if the performance aspect brings the price difference between the two ASC models at that time.

[ChuckG]

Scarcity plays a role in the Coupe prices, along with the fact they appealed to young dumb boy racers (like me) when new and we chewed 'em up pretty good.

Both mine were stolen in the 80s, but I can only believe by now they'd be on their twelfth owner with 22" wheels and a hood scoop if they'd survived.

[plumkrazy]

At least they know ASC cars are out there. And the more people go to large shows the more press ASC cars will get.

Capri's get NO respect or press.

[Sandy]

The average age reader of car mags is 18. All they care about is zero to 60, 1/4 mile times, top speed, etc.
Look at their cars, if Mom/Dad/Gramps buys them a car. In less that a year, in most cases the cars are a piece of siht! THAT is THEIR core readership!
Our cars are way too classy, unusual and better suited to be parked next to a 1990s Mercedes Benz 2-seat 'Vert, while their rides are suited to be parked next to a 1969 Plymouth Satalite Hemi, that is so "hopped up" it cannot even idle as it sputters and conks out.
It's the ranging tetiserone sydrome. It will pass around age 27. It is normal!


Maybe

I did not see these mags, but.....how about dropping them a note and asking WHY they ALWAYS OMIT the much rarer and beautiful asc McLaren Mustangs ? ? ?

COULD BE ADVERTISING !! ascMcLarenhas nothing to advertise!
Saleen does
Others do, too. tHE BOTTOM LINE IS ALWAYS 'THE BUCKS RULE !!!!!