"THE THRILL OF A LIFETIME" ULTRA COOL 1966 FORD MOTOR CO. PROMO FILM FORD MUSTANG XD86435

[@frankwafer6919]

Thanks for the wonderful memories!😯💯💥👍!

[@heribertohernandezsoltero9277]

I really miss the 60s 70s and 80s

[@frankhammer7408]

My father ordered a fully loaded 66 wagon with a 289 and 3sp overdrive transmission.

[@m9ovich785]

As Did my father. Our was Tan w/Black interior, as I just got a new Baby Sister. A family of 6 needed a Bigger Car That car was across the States several times then in 1970 to 74 was in the Netherlands (US Air Force) Dad love to open it up on the German Autobahn.. and waking up to a Bear looking the Side windows as My Father & I were Car Camping on Vancouver Island. Then in 1977 the Guy that ran into it bought it from Dad as the Ford was in better condition . HAHAHAH 250,xxx Miles on it. Great childhood memories... Mike M Central Wis

[@Oliverdobbins]

Ahhhh the ‘60s... When opening songs didn’t have to rhyme, or scan. And all you had to do was make sure the bongo player never ran out of drugs.

[@MrDoneboy]

LMAO!

[@dariowiter3078]

😆😆😆😆😆 😝😝😝😝😝 😁😁😁😁😁

[@BlueBeeMCMLXI]

Generalized comment's no doubt your specialty. Belittling a decade speaks of major hubris.

[@mexicanspec]

1966 was a good year for Ford, not only with racing, but every car was attractive. There wasn't a clunker in the bunch.

[@justforever96]

Define "clunker". If you at going by looks alone maybe. But most cars were good looking in the 60s. Easily the pinnacle of car design. But mechanically and in terms of build quality...not so much.

[@mexicanspec]

@@justforever96 What I mean is there wasn't a car sold that had inherent flaws like cars do today.

[@b.o.4492]

Those days of advertising are sadly long gone.

[@chadakoin1]

A 66 Mustang with a vinyl roof would be pretty rare.

[@marstondavis]

I wonder if Ford knew how successful the Mustang would be. It's almost a 60-year run, and it doesn't seem to be fading in sales or innovation. I think this is a great ad for the Mustang. It so full of excitement and a promise of a great motoring future for the buyers.

[@justforever96]

They didn't even know how successful it would be in the first year they built it. They expected to sell tens of thousands maybe, a niche car for young men who wanted something sporty. But it was a massive success and they couldn't make anywhere near enough of them, had to expand production as fast as they could. They were selling for like double MSRP on the dealer lots. But no, I don't think they had any especial reason to expect it to be a non stop seller for decades. But how do you define that? The only lineage between a "Mustang" now and a "Mustang" in 1966 is that they are given the same name. Granted they are at least always RWD two door sports cars, six or eight cylinder (now with a turbo four). But what if they had just decided to call it a different name halfway through, does that make the modern 2wd 2 door V8 Ford sports coupe less related to the Mustang? It's the same car, just isn't called the same name. Chevy sold a 4 door family sedan called the Impala in the Sixties. They still sell a 4 door family sedan. They have always sold a 4 door family sedan. If they had simply decided every year to always use the Impala name in marketing, you could claim that car was just as successful. More successful, actually, since they sold a lot more of them. The only reason you can't say that is because they dropped the name for periods of time, not sure if they use it today. So what relationship does the modern car actually have to the old one? It's the same car if you call it the same name, but it's not if you don't?

[@andyharman3022]

I'm a Camaro guy, and can only shake my head at how GM has killed the Camaro twice since 1967, yet the Mustang continues to thrive. Ford had some bad years from '75-78 with the Mustang II, but quickly snapped out of it.

[@281cobracar7]

My dad bought a brand new 65 Mustang convertible V8 automatic in May of 64. The Mustang was so new, people would wave at us when drove by them. My mom had a 64 Galaxie 500 XL convertible. Life was good. 🙂

[@damxgopak457]

Unbelievable how much our world sucks compared to back then nice job everyone.

[@Milfordbeach]

Thanks Periscope!

[@PeriscopeFilm]

Welcome! If you love what we do -- visit us on Patreon.com/PeriscopeFilm

[@Milfordbeach]

@@PeriscopeFilm I really do enjoy the films you share with the world- which could potentially be lost forever. So, I will visit your website. 👍🎞️👍📽️👍

[@tsf5-productions]

Yes...American classic composers, Aaron Copland's "Billy the Kid Suite". Copland [1900 - 1990] was probably asked by the Ford Motor Company's advertising department for use of his music in this Ford "Mustang" promo ad. Now...back in April of 1964, the "Mustang" was being released in my birthplace city of Indianapolis. It was "big hype" for the product since was to be the Indianapolis Motor Speedway "500 Mile Race" Pace Car for that year's race. That car's ad in the town's newspapers as well as TV & radio ads had generated some curiosity to my parents, especially Mom. I was just several months off of turning 14 years old and Mom's "try it, curiosity" got her to want to test drive one at a Ford dealership in Indy called: Jerry Alderman Ford on Keystone Avenue. Well, we got to the location fairly close to 6 p.m. and, the first thing the folks wanted to see is, could I fit in the back seat. Well, at that time I was something like 5'10" tall...with long legs. Nope! Too tight a fit for me, even if that "test drive" for the parents was a bit fun with the 289 V8. Thus...I tkink early in May of 1964...the parents bought their second of three American Motors Rambler models. Much better interior but, not much power. Oh well. At least, Indianapolis "500" winner of '64, the famous A.J. Foyt, Jr. got one. (I wonder if "Super Tex Foyt still has it? It's been 60 years as of this writing)

[@tomservo56954]

At 6:25 it becomes the original dealer film for the 1964 (1/2) Mustang

[@Soacwiththaface]

After just coming from 2 WoO winged sprintcar dirt track races this is pretty cool and yes it was a thrill of a lifetime #15 500🏁🏁🍻🤩

[@eugenedreyer4805]

0:56 good grief! 😄

[@foxyfoxington2651]

I feel like they were building us up to a flying car... Only to give us a car that can't fly.

[@bradcole8191]

I wonder if Aaron Copland knew his music was being used to sell cars?

[@andyharman3022]

I riffed on that, too! The music sounded like Aaron Copland.

[@williamwinsor7376]

Remember the family add man who was wholesome and an example in fifties on tv? This was the junk they came up with. My favorite in my youth was mustangs. Later on in life I bought an amx. I liked the mustang much better even with the small block because the amx gas mileage was like a toilet flushing.

[@justforever96]

Nothing wrong with the small block. It's a better car overall. The only thing the big motors give you is better quarter mile times, but they guzzle fuel and they are very heavy and ruin the handling. You have this huge iron chunk in the front of your car. There is a reason Europeans preferred smaller engines, it does make a difference. I love a big block as much as anyone, but for my own car I would take a spicy small block any day. Well actually, I prefer fours and sixes, I just like small cars and I don't like lots of power, have more fun working a small engine hard than only tapping a little bit out of a powerful one. But a 289 or 302 Mustang is a fine car. You can't even really call those "small" engines except compared to the enormous ones they also offered. Only in the US would they call a 4.6L V8 a "small" engine. Most of the world was driving 1.2L fours, and probably having plenty of fun with them. Honestly, my ideal career right now would be a 1.5L 3 cylinder turbo with a manual. I drove a loaner Ford Escape with a three cylinder, and they sound great, and I didn't feel at any time that it was lacking in power. And the automatic was actually pretty good, it would hold gears in Sport mode, etc. I actually decided I was going to try to find a Fiesta with that engine and buy one.. only to find out that Ford has just decided too entirely drop cars and only make SUVs from now on. Great.

[@greenmonsterprod]

Re: 09:40, when going over all the accessories, what about seat belts?

[@jimhaines8370]

For what LOL they make people think cars aren’t safe HA! That is what the companies used to say Watch the Tucker and man and his dream movie it’s even in there and it was true

[@justforever96]

It's a marketing film. They didn't think safety equipment was considered desirable, because it wasn't. Volvo didn't get massive sales from a public clamoring for standard seat belts when they were the first to offer them as standard. This is about things that make people want to buy the car, and most people only bought seat belts as an afterthought if they got them at all. If there were a huge number of people who wanted and demanded seat belts in cars they would have offered them as standard and marketing the hell out of them a lot sooner. They had to mandate seatbelts, that doesn't mean the customers were all demanding them. And then they had to pass laws to make the people actually use them years after they made the car makers pay to install them as standard, whether the customer wanted them or not. Why would they advertise that seat belts were available? They were available in most cars, that was a given by this point, and there were hundreds of options they don't list here. Why would they waste time including that one?

[@justforever96]

I always wanted to see a 66 Mustang with an S2000 engine swapped in. Just because it's sacrilege. Although a 2JZ-GTE would be cool too. The car is light and small enough that it would be a nice combination. Not that i would actually want to see a nice Mustang chopped up life that. If one could find an old shell somewhere and rebuild it that way, that would be cool.

[@jackmack7533]

I had 66 auto /289 in '79. The motor was great - the car drove like crap. Got T-boned against a phone poll - the poll was fine. Ford did get the rights to some cool Copeland music from "Billy The Kid".

[@InvisibleWarrior279]

Great comment. I briefly owned a 66 mustang (AMAZING 289 engine as well) too and could have made almost the exact same comment!! Except I had to crash mine into the telephone pole to stop it when the brakes went out (had just pulled out of the driveway when it happened thankfully)!

[@lisaramaci6973]

How strange that they didn't mention the 1966 fastback, seems like it would have been a natural addition!

[@Batters56]

Interesting that what we would now call the GT40 was just called the GT by the narrator.

[@Jack-xo2zp]

It's funny that the ad agency which made this film tried to sell the Mustang as an economy car which fit everyone's needs. Besides this film, I don't ever remember seeing the Mustang being sold as a family car. When the sales first took off, it was pretty obvious that the buyers were young men and, especially, single women. Single women were a growing buying power in the mid 60s, and I don't think there was any other car that especially appealed to them except perhaps the VW.

[@justforever96]

It was intended for young men mostly, but it was way more successful than they expected. This film was made after they realized that it had a huge audience. Why would you not modify your marketing to reflect the reality? It's not an "economy car", its an affordable performance car, and it was the first one. The whole point is to sell a performance car with a powerful engine like the full sized premium cars but for less money, so obviously they will focus on the affordability. And I don't see why anyone would not try to make their car seem practical and useful. The alternatives to this were full sized expensive cars with big engines and big prices, or little two seat European sports cars with tiny trunks (including the Corvette). This is more or less in the category that like small "active lifestyle" crossover SUVs are in today (except it was alone on the market instead of flooded with competitors). In 1966 the Mustang was an performance economy car, which you buy for all the reasons you buy an economy car, except you can spend a little extra to make it a bit sporty. If you just wanted performance, you would buy a sports car or a Fairlane with a big block. And you could carry kids in a Mustang, it could be a family car. Why would you not emphasize the things your product can do that the competition can't?

[@justforever96]

They also make different marketing material for different demographics. Different states have different priorities. They can sell the exact same thing in several completely different ways depending on who they expect to be consuming the material. And if your car is already wildly successful with young men, there is less need to advertise to them. They are already buying it. But if you can start targeting other groups you can sell even more. No need to preach to the choir, or at least to limit your preaching only to the choir.

[@andyharman3022]

The Mustang was based on the Falcon economy car platform and was available with a 6-cylinder/2-speed auto powertrain. Secretary special. For the practical girl wanting some style in her life, but economical, too.

[@rs6637]

how about the fastback

[@mexicanspec]

Even though this says it was for 1966, it was obviously for the 1964 1/2 models and the fastback hadn't been introduced yet. Look at the shifter in the car. I have never seen one of those in person and I have been playing with old cars for decades.

[@myredford39]

@@mexicanspec These cars were pre-production models. In addition to the shifters, the grilles are different from those on the cars built for sale.

[@HE-pu3nt]

I thought that the "dumbing down" of America was a recent phenomenon. I was so, So, wrong.

[@iskandertime747]

Oh, it's as old as America itself.

[@andyharman3022]

Pause at 15:44. Cry. Ground beef, $1.00 for 3 pounds.

[@johnq.customer8027]

This video has nothing to do with mid 60's Fords. 👎👎👎