On 6/3/2011 9:59 AM, Jim Yanik wrote:
z wrote in
:

On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 09:33:59 -0500, Jim
wrote:

z wrote in
:

On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 10:17:37 -0500, Jim
wrote:

z wrote in
:

On Tue, 31 May 2011 09:07:18 -0500, Jim
wrote:

z wrote in
:

On Mon, 30 May 2011 17:35:31 -0500, Jim
wrote:

"Ralph wrote in
:


"Ed wrote in message
...

wrote in message

(snip)

Few of them came with the I-6.

Bull****. Attempt to move goalposts noted.

NOT BS,nor moving goalposts. The I-6 option was to lower it's price,not for
better fuel economy,which was the reason for "econo-boxes" in the early
1970's. The I-6 was more a rarity than common.


I don't have numbers handy, but IIRC the main reason for dealer stock of
straight-6 gen I mustangs (aka 'secretarial' versions, in the sexist
vernacular of of the day) wasn't to have an entry-level model to trumpet
the price point in ads- it was because they couldn't get enough
small-blocks fast enough to keep the line running. Remember, the 260/289
was Ford's bread and butter v8, used in almost all models. And the
bigger heavier cars, if you put a six in them, you couldn't give them
away. The Mustang was 'cute', and for many people, that was enough- they
didn't really care about how fast it went.

--
aem sends...