Ford Mustang vs Triumph Stag
Discussion
Triumph Stag vs Ford Mustang
A friend of mine bought a 1965 Ford Mustang over from the states recently. Obviously this was fantastic. I love Mustang's, but I'd never even been in one. With enough beer and pizza I might even be able to drive this one...coincidentally, my Triumph Stag has just come out of restoration. I thought it's be really interesting to see how they compared, after all they are both 4 seater, open top, V8, RWD classics. They even both had manual gearboxes, (3spd in the Mustang, 4spd + overdrive in the Stag). How different can they be?
First impressions of the Mustang are a knockout. It just looks so damn cool. First of all it's much bigger than you'd think. American's might call them 'pony' cars and see them as little sports cars but it's huge. It makes the (actually quite small anyway) Triumph look like a toy. A cute little toy. The Stag is all curves and detailing, the Mustang is straight lines and lashings of chrome. Look a bit closer though and you could accuse the Mustang of being a bit crude. The soft top, for example, is really basic while the Stag's is all nicely lined and is kept behind a tonnau cover. The Mustang also isn't shy of leaving exposed screw heads on show. You also won't find big fake chrome air inlets on the Stag...
It's a similar story inside, the Mustang's seats are as basic as you can get, just something to support your back really, while the Stag has adjustable, reclining chairs with a headrest and even some lateral support. The dash in the Stag is nice, delicate dials set in wood. You have face-level vents, electric windows, puddle lights on the doors, nicely cushioned door cards...the Mustang has none of that. But the painted dash and chrome instrument cluster have a charm of their own. There is much more room in the Mustang too, it's a proper four seater. The general feeling in the American car is that it's much more open; In the Triumph you are more cocooned. The Mustang invites you to throw your wallet on the passenger seat, jump in, put your sunglasses on and go. In the Triumph you have to open the doors using the delicate handles, get in, and sit down into the car. With the T-bar it almost feels like you're driving a car with a huge sunroof when you have the roof down, rather than a properly open car like the Mustang.
The Mustang sounds like thunder. By most benchmarks a good Triumph Stag sounds really nice, and quite loud to most people. Those people have never heard a Mustang. It sounds very angry. My friends is the 289 (4.7 litre) V8 4bbl, so middle of the thee states of tune the 289 came in. Out on the road the Mustang's engine feels stronger, with the 1,700cc advantage meaning a big punch is always ready. I've driven more powerful cars, and I've even driven classics with bigger engines but none has the sheer fury of the Mustang. Maybe it's the noise as much as anything but putting your foot down is a real event. By comparison the Triumph once again feels very meek and mild. The engine is smoother, revs better and pulls more linearly. By any objective measure it's the better engine. It doesn't make you grin like an idiot when you nail it though... I do wonder if, in a drag race, the car's wouldn't be that far apart. Maybe the Stag could use the 6,500rpm rev limit it gains by having over head cams to claw back some of the initial shove it gives away...the extra ratio's in the gearbox might help out too....
On a race track, I have no doubt the Stag would pull away. The Mustang is a big old beast of a car, and drives like it. The leaf-sprung, live rear end on a heavier car can't compete with the all-round independent suspension on the Stag. You just can't drive the Mustang in the same way as you can the Stag. The Stag feels small and light and tight next to the Mustang. You can actually drive a Stag quite hard, it has good balance and the steering and suspension are taut enough that you have the confidence to push and know what's going on. It's not an MX-5 or a Boxster but it's good enough that you can, say, adjust the balance with power on the way out of a corner. You drive a Mustang like you would an old Rolls Royce, or even a Land Rover. You take things nice and easy, and have to let the car settle between inputs before you adjust your line. Manoeuvring the Mustang is also a bit of a challenge. It has little steering lock and heavy steering (Stags had power steering as standard) so driving in traffic is a chore.
So, overall I was surprised. I can't believe Triumph looked at the Mustang and thought 'Hey, we can do that'...and came up with the Stag. The Triumph is much nicer to drive and live with but the Mustang is more of an event. So, which is best? Well, if you hadn't realised by now they are completely different. You could use a Stag every day, I can't see anyone doing that with a Mustang. I suppose in a perfect world you'd have both, a Stag with it's comfy chairs, light controls and fuss-free nature for day-to-day use, and a Mustang for when you needed cheering up but if I have to choose one I'm going with the Stag. It's just so much more useable. I'm lucky though. if I want to experience the Mustang's fury I'll just ask my mate to take me out for a ride...
A friend of mine bought a 1965 Ford Mustang over from the states recently. Obviously this was fantastic. I love Mustang's, but I'd never even been in one. With enough beer and pizza I might even be able to drive this one...coincidentally, my Triumph Stag has just come out of restoration. I thought it's be really interesting to see how they compared, after all they are both 4 seater, open top, V8, RWD classics. They even both had manual gearboxes, (3spd in the Mustang, 4spd + overdrive in the Stag). How different can they be?
First impressions of the Mustang are a knockout. It just looks so damn cool. First of all it's much bigger than you'd think. American's might call them 'pony' cars and see them as little sports cars but it's huge. It makes the (actually quite small anyway) Triumph look like a toy. A cute little toy. The Stag is all curves and detailing, the Mustang is straight lines and lashings of chrome. Look a bit closer though and you could accuse the Mustang of being a bit crude. The soft top, for example, is really basic while the Stag's is all nicely lined and is kept behind a tonnau cover. The Mustang also isn't shy of leaving exposed screw heads on show. You also won't find big fake chrome air inlets on the Stag...
It's a similar story inside, the Mustang's seats are as basic as you can get, just something to support your back really, while the Stag has adjustable, reclining chairs with a headrest and even some lateral support. The dash in the Stag is nice, delicate dials set in wood. You have face-level vents, electric windows, puddle lights on the doors, nicely cushioned door cards...the Mustang has none of that. But the painted dash and chrome instrument cluster have a charm of their own. There is much more room in the Mustang too, it's a proper four seater. The general feeling in the American car is that it's much more open; In the Triumph you are more cocooned. The Mustang invites you to throw your wallet on the passenger seat, jump in, put your sunglasses on and go. In the Triumph you have to open the doors using the delicate handles, get in, and sit down into the car. With the T-bar it almost feels like you're driving a car with a huge sunroof when you have the roof down, rather than a properly open car like the Mustang.
The Mustang sounds like thunder. By most benchmarks a good Triumph Stag sounds really nice, and quite loud to most people. Those people have never heard a Mustang. It sounds very angry. My friends is the 289 (4.7 litre) V8 4bbl, so middle of the thee states of tune the 289 came in. Out on the road the Mustang's engine feels stronger, with the 1,700cc advantage meaning a big punch is always ready. I've driven more powerful cars, and I've even driven classics with bigger engines but none has the sheer fury of the Mustang. Maybe it's the noise as much as anything but putting your foot down is a real event. By comparison the Triumph once again feels very meek and mild. The engine is smoother, revs better and pulls more linearly. By any objective measure it's the better engine. It doesn't make you grin like an idiot when you nail it though... I do wonder if, in a drag race, the car's wouldn't be that far apart. Maybe the Stag could use the 6,500rpm rev limit it gains by having over head cams to claw back some of the initial shove it gives away...the extra ratio's in the gearbox might help out too....
On a race track, I have no doubt the Stag would pull away. The Mustang is a big old beast of a car, and drives like it. The leaf-sprung, live rear end on a heavier car can't compete with the all-round independent suspension on the Stag. You just can't drive the Mustang in the same way as you can the Stag. The Stag feels small and light and tight next to the Mustang. You can actually drive a Stag quite hard, it has good balance and the steering and suspension are taut enough that you have the confidence to push and know what's going on. It's not an MX-5 or a Boxster but it's good enough that you can, say, adjust the balance with power on the way out of a corner. You drive a Mustang like you would an old Rolls Royce, or even a Land Rover. You take things nice and easy, and have to let the car settle between inputs before you adjust your line. Manoeuvring the Mustang is also a bit of a challenge. It has little steering lock and heavy steering (Stags had power steering as standard) so driving in traffic is a chore.
So, overall I was surprised. I can't believe Triumph looked at the Mustang and thought 'Hey, we can do that'...and came up with the Stag. The Triumph is much nicer to drive and live with but the Mustang is more of an event. So, which is best? Well, if you hadn't realised by now they are completely different. You could use a Stag every day, I can't see anyone doing that with a Mustang. I suppose in a perfect world you'd have both, a Stag with it's comfy chairs, light controls and fuss-free nature for day-to-day use, and a Mustang for when you needed cheering up but if I have to choose one I'm going with the Stag. It's just so much more useable. I'm lucky though. if I want to experience the Mustang's fury I'll just ask my mate to take me out for a ride...
Edited by varsas on Saturday 8th August 21:06
Hi, glad you liked it!
Yes, as you say the Mustang was a 'personal' car, a huge part of it's appeal. As you say, there's a world of difference between a 6 cyl auto convertible and a full-on 'K' code, V8, 4spd, fastback!
I also didn't talk about prices. I'd say a Mustang is something like 3x the cost of a Stag now. I don't have figures for when they were new, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Stag cost twice what the Mustang did in America.
Yes, as you say the Mustang was a 'personal' car, a huge part of it's appeal. As you say, there's a world of difference between a 6 cyl auto convertible and a full-on 'K' code, V8, 4spd, fastback!
I also didn't talk about prices. I'd say a Mustang is something like 3x the cost of a Stag now. I don't have figures for when they were new, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Stag cost twice what the Mustang did in America.
threespires said:
OP says :-
"With enough beer and pizza I might even be able to drive this one."
What an odd thing to say.
Do you really want to drive whilst drunk?
Of course not. I mean if I 'bribe' HIM with enough beer and pizza he might let ME drive it; subject to the proper insurance of course."With enough beer and pizza I might even be able to drive this one."
What an odd thing to say.
Do you really want to drive whilst drunk?
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff