In Praise of the Base Model
Go to most car shows and the vast majority of cars you will see are the top end models. You will see many examples of the Z28s, Boss 302s, Superbirds, Superbees, GTs, R/Ts, SSs, Cobras, Shelbys, Judges, and every other performance moniker you can think of. Lots of chrome, power add-ons, superchargers, turbochargers, pinstripes, fat stripes, big fat tires on wire-spoke wheels, four-on-the-floor Hurst shifters; an nearly infinite array of hot-looking doodads that scream Performance! Handling! Cool!
The original Mustang was based on an existing model, the Falcon. Part of Lee Iacocca's genius with the Mustang was to take a fairly inexpensive existing model, rejigger the look a bit to make it a tad sportier, and then give customers a list of options as long as your arm so you could outfit one that was almost unique to every buyer. This allowed Ford to save money on both the design and production of the car, while also giving dealers lots of options to make money on, with the added benefit of giving the customer a car that was almost uniquely theirs.
That strategy also broadened the appeal of the Mustang to a wide range of buyers, from performance-oriented racers to a young couple starting out with their first car who wanted something a little more sporty than a basic econobox. The standard early-1965 model came with a 170-cubic-inch Falcon inline six-cylinder engine with a 3-speed manual floorshift transmission, bucket seats, padded dash, and carpeting. That initial engine gave you 101 brake horsepower (bhp), but that was soon upgraded to 200 cubic inches and 120 bhp. The '66 had standard drum brakes which were actually pretty effective compared with the V-8's disc brakes. You wouldn't win any drag races with the base Mustang, with 0-60 times of around 14 seconds, but they got 20 mpg so they were pretty inexpensive to drive. Not that (m)any buyers of the base models were into drag racing. ...
The wide range of models and options made for mixed reactions to those early Mustangs. Some derided it as a "secretary's car" which, in fact, it was to a large extent: much of the design of the car was an intentional appeal to female buyers. And you can bet that Ford dealers were just as happy taking a secretary's money as the gearhead's down the street. And make money they did: Ford sold almost 1.3 million in the first two model years and, though detailed numbers are hard to come by (in large part because of the options game), a good percentage of those had a straight six in them.
Of course, many of the other hot muscle cars from the '60s were built on existing, budget-oriented models. The Plymouth Road Runner and GTX both had their origins in the Belvedere (itself available with a number of performance options for several years), and Dodge built the Charger on the Coronet. On the other side, AMC--known mostly for their small, budget cars--built the Javelin and AMX largely from scratch, with the former coming with a 232-cubic-inch straight six standard. GM's Camaro and Firebird also were outfitted with 250- and 230-cubic-inch inline sixes, respectively.
I've been trying for a while to get sales figures on the various models to see what percentage of them were in pretty much base-model range; it's been difficult as the publicly available numbers tend not to go into that kind of detail. And, as I mention above, the long list of options on many of these make even defining a "base" model tricky; minimally, you can probably define it as having the standard engine.
My impression is that, at least for the Mustang, somewhere between 40-60 percent at any given time were the base model with the smallest (unmodified) available engine. CamaroWiki's numbers for the first three years of Camaro show the base models approaching 65% for all three years. Planet Houston AMX puts Javelin base model sales at between 30-50 percent for 1968-1970. When up to 2/3 of your sales are at the bottom end of the model range, all those little six cylinder engines going out the door are nothing to sneeze at.
Moreover, just because a car doesn't have a top-of-the-line engine doesn't mean it has to remain a grocery-getter. Throw in headers and a dual-exhaust and some other performance-enhancing parts and you can get a little straight-6 to put out a respectable amount of power with a sound that many will immediately assume is a V-8 ... and with more room under the hood to work!
I don't get the impression that owners of even immaculately maintained or restored base models get a lot of respect among so-called enthusiasts. Some sub-niches are different,however. The dedicated band of Mustang II owners welcome even the 4-cylinder IIs with enthusiasm and open arms (and yes, I can almost hear some of you out there chortling "But all Mustang IIs were base models!", and, well, we don't care). Heck, some of these were the most interesting cars of that era just because of the smaller engine.
I got the inspiration for this post a few months ago at an estate sale where a mint condition, classic 1966 Mustang was for sale. It was in superb condition, one owner, garaged most of its life, well-maintained, with all-original upholstery, paint, and other accouterments. And since this is the Pacific Northwest, it had little if any rust. A lot of people checked it out, but it didn't evince much purchasing interest since it was "only" a base model--this despite the $6,800 price tag. I felt a bit sad at that; here you had a beautifully preserved gem of a car from our automotive past, and it mostly got the cold shoulder.
Over the years I've seen posts from other base model owners at various classic car forums bemoaning the lack of respect they tend to get at car shows (something we Mustang II owners can readily identify with, I can assure you). Which is really too bad, because a lot of the owners of these cars love their rides at least as much as those with big honkin' muscle cars.
So next time you're out at a car show, take some time out to walk past the rows and rows of gleaming Shelbys, Stingrays, and Chevelle SSs, and spend some time talking with some of those straight-6 owners about their cars and let them know you appreciate the care they've given to their vehicles. You will no doubt meet some very nice, very interesting people with great stories to tell about their seemingly dull cars. They'll sure appreciate it, and hopefully you'll have a new appreciation for these oft-overlooked jewels.
Credits: The top photo comes from SpeedAce.info, and the dark green Camaro is from CamaroDigest.com--where the difficulty of finding suitable photos of these cars is mimicked by the poster: "I have owned two first generation Camaros and seen more of them than I can count, but I think this is the first time I have ever seen a first generation Camaro with a 250 cubic inch 6 cylinder engine between the fender wells." No kidding. The Javelin photo is from Wikipedia and shows that even the base model can be outfitted to look pretty wicked.The last photo of the Mustang II is from the vast collection at MustangII.net.
--Anthony Cagle
That Car Guy on March 18, 2010 at 09:45 AM
A few notes, if I may. The standard early Mustangs came with: "a 3-speed manual floorshift transmission, bucket seats, padded dash, and carpeting." Heck, some even had a front bench seat. Talk about a Base Model!
As a fan of the Mustang II, I always get irked when people slam the car. It was "The Right Car At The Right Time." Had these fine folks seen the long lines at gas stations (If they had any gas at all) in 1973, I don't think they would think a mini, gas-pinching Mustang (II) was a bad idea at the time.
The last image took me back to 1974. If that color is Saddle Bronze Metallic, that was the same as my Mustang II. A base Hardtop, but mine had a V-6. It would light up the tires so much that I had to take gasoline and scrub the asphalt oil off of the lower quarter panels. Frequently.
Nice post!
Anthony Cagle on March 18, 2010 at 10:17 AM
>>As a fan of the Mustang II, I always get irked when people slam >>the car. It was "The Right Car At The Right Time."
Well, one can certainly see it as something of a letdown after the muscle car era. But then, had they not radically altered it, it may not have survived. About only the Camaro/Firebird/Corvette really came through the 1970s with nameplate intact, and those only survived as true musclecars for only a couple of years after 1973.
They probably would not have been blasted quite so hard (though sales certainly weren't hurt) had they made the sheet metal less Pinto-like. But, we already have a post for hashing out the M-II's finer (and lesser) points. . . .
Cookie the Dog's Owner on March 18, 2010 at 11:20 AM
"Base model" does not have to be a synonym for "slow." There are lots of "mad scientist" recipes out there for building fire-breathing monster straight six engines, and even a whole website on the subject called "Hot Sixes": http://www.hotsixes.com/hotsixes/?page_id=276
Chevy 250: http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/chevy-250-i6-turbo-supercharge-141950.html
Chrysler slant six: http://www.allpar.com/model/dustermods.html
The wildest of all, a recipe for turbocharging a Studebaker Champion flathead six: http://www.turbostude.com/buildingts.htm (I am not making this up!)
Theodore on March 18, 2010 at 04:38 PM
Another nice thing about a base model is that you can use more of its performance envelope. It's also nice if you have teenagers, because they're going to drive a car closer to its limits - whatever the limits - than is strictly prudent. There's a reason my Thunderbird had a V-6, not a V-8.
Rob the Audi Guy on March 18, 2010 at 05:59 PM
I guess I really don't understand base models. For me, I always buy the BEST version of whatever it is I'm getting myself into, because it saves a LOT of cash, down the line. I had a base model once... my neon. I upgraded the suspension, the sound, the seats, the steering rack, the exhaust, and by the time I was done, I STILL did not have all the options of the R/T, yet I'd spent much MORE than if I had just bought an R/T in the first place.
Also, top of the line models hold their value MUCH better than base models... compare stated mustang, now imagine the pricetag if it was a Shelby. Yeah, worth WAY WAY WAY more.
Another example which I familiar with is the 2nd generation Neon. A plain jane model, even an R/T (which by then was mostly an appearance package), cost about 12-16k, NEW. Now the turbocharged SRT4, cost $21k. So 6k more. Today, you can pick up a used base model, for about 3-5 grand. The SRT4, however, will fetch 10-14k. So really... why even BOTHER with base models? They are not as fun to drive (and life is short), in most cases the gas mileage is similar, and the resale value is higher... I just don't understand why anybody buys a base model. Can't afford what you want? BUY A USED TOP OF THE LINE MODEL.
I have for the past few cars I've owned, and it's been great.
kenny heggem on March 19, 2010 at 09:01 AM
Can you even find a base mode anymore? Short of an Accent or Aveo... how any more cars are available without power windows even?
Some of the coolest base vehicles IMHO were the 1st generation Miata. Slick shifter, light weight, steel wheels, and avail without not only PW, but no power steering.
It is cool knowing I will likely never buy a new car. Saves lots of cash. There is nothing sporty and simple. My 92 GTI is the last GTI without a Cadillac interior.
...m... on March 20, 2010 at 10:59 AM
...not strictly true, kenny...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THgeRlhVs0Y
...lotus rediscovered base models about fifteen years ago after a two-decade tryst with bloated luxury, and it saved the marque...that said, even the basic elise grows more feature-laden every year: they recently discontinued manual window cranks after determining that power windows are lighter...
...i'm actually pretty excited about the tata nano coming to market as an example of a back-to-basics car...
scott on March 21, 2010 at 03:10 AM
Nothing screams base model like a 6 cyl and three on the tree, which Murrilee Martin says was available on the Mustang.
http://jalopnik.com/399730/1966-ford-mustang
Chris Hafner on March 22, 2010 at 09:59 AM
I'm also a fan of the base models - as Anthony said, there's something very cool about the time-capsule aspect of these cars. Many, many more people drove tame Camaros than wild Camaros, and it'd be neat if the proportion of wild to tame persisted through today.
It's interesting that there's something of a movement around preserving these base-model cars (though I might be overstating the case a little). I wonder if we'll see the same with somewhat newer performance cars - base Eclipses, Imprezas, Challengers, etc.
That Car Guy on March 22, 2010 at 10:24 AM
I think the demise of the base model really started when: A) The manufacturers decided to make more money selling cars with "goodies," and B) When competition for the most standard features on a car heated up.
"You get more for the same price" is a timeless ploy in sales strategies.
Cookie the Dog's Owner on March 22, 2010 at 10:46 AM
While I don't disagree that many modern cars suffer from "feature bloat," the threshold of an acceptable "base" model has risen over time as technology has gotten better. I'm not talking about trim or in-flight entertainment systems, but basic mechanical bits. Thirty years ago, fuel injection was an extra-cost option if you could get it at all; now, try to find a new car built for sale in North America that still uses a carburetor. (Replica '57 Chevies don't count.) Even the basest of entry level cars have ECM units that would've outgunned an Aston-Martin Lagonda back in the day. Those instances of "complexity," at least, pay off in improved efficiency. ABS is all but standard, and that's not a bad thing either.
kenny heggem on March 22, 2010 at 11:07 AM
But ...M...
Where can the U.S. customer buy a sporty, light weight, fun... non assisted "everything" car these days?
Last I recall was the Miata in it's 1st generation guise up to 1993.
Part of the reason I chose a MK 2 GTI 16v back in 1992 was it was the only full 5 seating, hath, with a sunroof but no power windows and top notch seats.
There is nothing at all around like that today.
Nothing.
Alan Schwarz on March 22, 2010 at 12:30 PM
I truly wish someone would market a no-frills, bare-bones versions of cars like how the first gen Miata could be had. So many high-end options end up obsolete anyway.Ive owned several BMW 635CSi's and the ones without the power seats,the antiquated boat-anchor cellphone
and silly rear console refrigerator are lighter and more preferable.Same goes with modern ignition keys that cost $300 to replace and all the sat-nav systems that any Iphone can accomplish.I think Toyota is proving that maybe drive by wire isn't all its cracked up to be. What was so bad about a throttle cable? All this added complexity just costs more and makes it harder to service
Anthony Cagle on March 22, 2010 at 01:48 PM
"All this added complexity just costs more and makes it harder to service"
And more profitable. Once it gets complicated enough that few backyard or even non-dealer mechanics can really do the work, there won't be any incentive for simplicity. Probably isn't the place for that discussion though.
I think there's always going to be a place for a "base" model because they've generally sold very well, at least in the US where cars are more like appliances than elsewhere.
Geoff Endresen on March 26, 2010 at 10:19 PM
I do like the base models, especially the cars from the 1960s. They are simple to repair and maintain. However, in my case, the car I'm restoring was a 6 cylinder 1965 Mustang Convertible. As I learned about the car the 6 cylinder car originally had cheaper and lighter parts. So as I put it back together I'm upgrading to stronger and safer components that would have come on a v8 car.
Even though base models are cool, people always ask, "Does your mustang have a 289?" and "What color will you paint it?"
tomm on June 16, 2010 at 01:52 PM
My biggest complaint about car nuts is some 'only like fast ones'. They think all Mustangs should have a V8 and forget about the 6.
I had a base, base 1994 Mustang, the first SN95, with only 2 options. Didn't need the V8 since it still got attention being so new.
Some enthusiasts just do not realize that it takes profits to keep cars on the market, and selling 'only performace cars' doesn't work for big makers.
bryce on October 01, 2010 at 03:01 AM
Americans probably dont realise the early Camaro got reskinned with 4 doors and was GMs best seller ever in Aussie as the HQ-HZ Holden 6cyl 202 cube or 253/308 cube V8 and 2door Monaro. In New Zealand at the time someone woke up to where the platform originated and produced a Camaro body in fibreglass that was real hard to tell from the original. but its classical that the much vaunted stang started as a Falcon Aussies own Ford The Camaro became Aussies own Holden.