[Tigers] Tiger versus Mustang

[snakebit289]

It will probably be apparent that I'm not crazy about notion that the Tiger is
a 'tarted up' Alpine any more that I like the dismissive idea, often repeated
endlessly now during the 50th Mustang anniversary, that the first Mustang  is
just a fancy Falcon.

First, calling something tarted up implies it's a little
dressed up, and not very tastefully. Is anyone prepared to say the Tiger body
is less tasteful than the Alpine's? Save the chrome moulding on Tiger I's and
IA's, they're pretty identical. Even interiors are close, the Alpine GT even
closer still. What separates them is the powertrain, and that changes the
driving experience, going from Alpine to a Tiger.

Sure, some of the Mustang
version 1 (1965-1966, I'm not adopting the '64.5 mantra of the Mustang gold
card inspectors) share some Falcon components, and that's probably what helped
the powers that be at Ford to give the Mustang project a green light. What
really separates the two models is the point that the Mustang was meant as a
niche car for Ford. You can argue the point that Barracuda and Corvair Monza
technically was there first. But, neither Monza, or Barracuda, or Falcon was
so popular that they sold 1.2 million examples during the same time, and they
also didn't need to set up three separate assembly plants and institute 10
hour work shifts to meet demand. Today, with more drivers and more buyers,
when we rave about selling in such large numbers(cars like Camry and Accord,
light trucks like F-150 and Silverado) manufacturers are happy to push out
400,000 each a year. To me, the surprising sales numbers for Mustang is what
is remarkable, given
 that it was not a family sedan with attendant larger potential market.

Rande
Bellman